Author Topic: Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom) (Read 83052 times)

Bardiche · « **Reply #700 on:** January 22, 2009, 05:43:45 PM »

He also didn't gain 10 for voting on the winning proposal.

That said I'm against the current proposal. If only because I wouldn't know who to vote on. No vote increase procedures, really.

Talaysen · « **Reply #701 on:** January 22, 2009, 07:02:26 PM »

Quote from: Carthrat on January 22, 2009, 07:11:06 AM

Do people want me to post the number of votes everyone has in stock? It's not really a secret, since you can figure it out by going back, so yeah.

I was wondering why you didn't already do this, honestly. Especially if you're going to list diplomacy.

And don't bother listing diplomacy if they're neutral. It just looks kind of clunky.

Current proposal stuff!

A) Change the name of the votes. 323 votes? Come on, that's lame.

B) I don't like the proposal anyways.

Laggy · « **Reply #702 on:** January 22, 2009, 08:13:09 PM »

Hey Tom, if you want the mob to do something without it turning into a popularity contest how about this.

---

323. Following each voting phase, a non-player (hereby referred to as the Mobb Proposer) that voted that phase is randomly selected via Hatbot. During the subsequent discussion phase, the Mobb Proposer is allowed the option of making a proposal (separate and independent of the one that the current player is proposing). This proposal is then voted on like any other during the next voting phase.

The voting for the Mobb Proposer's proposal differs from norm in the following ways. Every eligible voter gets an additional vote to be used exclusively for this proposal - player's votes as counted with three times the normal weight. Rule 315 does not apply (players cannot choose to split up your votes or stockpile votes). Other rules associated with voting still apply so long as they are applicable (score-related voting rules cannot be applied to non-players, for instance).

---

Justification: This would allow potentially up to two proposals per phase, upping the pace of the game and allowing for more potential fun craziness. It is still optional, so a mob member that gets selected randomly and doesn't care to invest the effort to coming up with something can opt not to; ergo, it doesn't inflict any additional responsibilities on the mob, but they can CHOOSE to have some fun if they want to. Voting still works the same way, so it's not like the players are getting screwed out of their agendas here.

I'm sure there may be things to poke in it, of course, but that's a draft for now.

EDITED: CK pointed out that "mob" wasn't actually defined in the rules. Fixed.
EDIT THE SECOND: Rat pointed out that you only lose points from not voting, not from abstaining from "a" proposal. Abstain line axed out.

n-factorial · « **Reply #703 on:** January 22, 2009, 10:28:57 PM »

self would support Laggy's suggestion, but not the current proposal, self thinks; also cannot think of a rephrasing or reinspiring of the current proposal that would make it acceptable to self. self will muse on this, however.

Excal · « **Reply #704 on:** January 22, 2009, 10:48:48 PM »

I also approve of Cyril's Mod.

Also,

##Peace: Carthrat
##Peace: Snow
##War: VSM

Not sure how I feel about the rest of you as yet.

Jo'ou Ranbu · « **Reply #705 on:** January 22, 2009, 10:54:08 PM »

For starters:

##Peace: Carthrat
##Peace: Excal
##War: Veryslightlymad

More or less reflects how things were organizing themselves for a while.

Also, this new proposal is very similar to something I had in mind regarding allowing proposals from the Unruly Mob, but a bit more elegant. I'll look at it more closely later to see if there are addendums/polishing measures to be done, but I would support the base idea.

Carthrat · « **Reply #706 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:02:26 PM »

I like Cyril's mod, but I don't see why rule 315 needs to be handwaved away. In fact, we might as well not change how votes are gained or assigned at all and have people split their existing votes between proposals.

Laggy · « **Reply #707 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:07:24 PM »

In that case you gain a ton of abstains since non-players can only vote on 1 proposal per round with their single vote.

As a non-player, I dislike this. >_>

Carthrat · « **Reply #708 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:09:51 PM »

True. I wouldn't mind having an exception for non-players so they can vote for both, but non players are not the same as regular players and they get 3 votes/turn anyway, so they should be limited by that. More choices, goodness, etc.

Laggy · « **Reply #709 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:11:09 PM »

If there was an exception you'd be empowering non-players more since they're getting that say in both, but players are now being forced to split 3 votes over 2 proposals.

It adds an interesting economical dynamic; that IS cool.

I mean, -I- don't have a problem with this personally, but I know some people (re: Soppy) are already wary of the mob's potential power, so.

(This also presumes the no-penalty for abstaining on the second proposal stays. Otherwise you'd have to spend 2 votes minimum or eat point loss.)

Carthrat · « **Reply #710 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:14:54 PM »

You only lose points if you don't vote that turn, so people won't be forced to vote twice. Players all already have a tanky bank of votes, so what might've been an issue earlier isn't one now. It could be later but that's what reform is for amirite.

EvilTom · « **Reply #711 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:15:30 PM »

Ok, I'm going with Laggy's idea, it's a lot better than mine. Copy-pasta it over what I wrote.
Just checking in quickly to note that, so people may express likes/dislikes.

Laggy · « **Reply #712 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:15:42 PM »

Oh, huh. That's true. Wouldn't object to it then.

This is still all in Tom's ballpark anyway, so yeah.

EDIT: ninja'd

Laggy · « **Reply #713 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:27:10 PM »

Edited original version up above to get rid of the unnecessary abstain clause, and here is the version Rat's proposing.

323. Following each voting phase, a non-player (hereby referred to as the Mobb Proposer) that voted that phase is randomly selected via Hatbot. During the subsequent discussion phase, the Mobb Proposer is allowed the option of making a proposal (separate and independent of the one that the current player is proposing). This proposal is then voted on like any other during the next voting phase.

The voting for the Mobb Proposer's proposal works in the following manner. Players continue to have their normal three votes per voting phase (as defined by Rule 315) and may now choose to split their votes between the normal proposal and the Mobb Proposer's proposal, including using stockpiled votes if they so wish. Non-players get an additional vote, to be used exclusively for the Mobb Proposer's proposal, and cannot use their normal vote for said proposal (in effect, they cannot double-vote on the same proposal). Other rules associated with voting (and not voting) still apply so long as they are applicable (score-related voting rules cannot be applied to non-players, for instance).

Excal · « **Reply #714 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:29:15 PM »

Honestly, I like the way Cyril has it. Our voting power is already diminished, as this means four votes over two proposals, as opposed to three votes over one. So, your strategic game is already there, Rat. Just that in this case, it's more mild than it would be for you.

Laggy · « **Reply #715 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:30:33 PM »

Actually it wouldn't even be four votes. Only non-players are getting that extra vote (just for the second proposal, though). I've kept both versions for whatever Tom wants to decide to use in the end.

Excal · « **Reply #716 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:33:43 PM »

Well, yes. I'm using the version I prefer which gives everyone the extra vote. It's still added numbers, as opposed to this flaky 1.5 votes per proposal which doesn't add up.

Laggy · « **Reply #717 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:34:44 PM »

Well, the additional vote the players get in the original proposal can't be stockpiled, would work only for the Mob Proposal, and doesn't really count as a 4th vote.. it's 1 vote that weighs as 3 (to keep the original balance). Just not to confuse it with the current vote system.

Excal · « **Reply #718 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:35:48 PM »

Ah, and here I thought it was one single vote with an expiry date that could only be used on the secondary proposal.

n-factorial · « **Reply #719 on:** January 23, 2009, 12:53:15 AM »

self approves of Laggy's proposal in the newest format, will vote for it so long as it stays recognizable and in this vein.

what happens to players under this rule is not of much interest to self, so long as the voting mechanism for them is clear. self is only really concerned with mobb-based proposals under a sane system, and thus approves of this.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #720 on:** January 23, 2009, 01:14:01 AM »

I'm fine with keeping the three votes on this, as long as you keep the abstaining on the second proposal results in no point loss. It makes things interesting.

Laggy · « **Reply #721 on:** January 23, 2009, 01:26:01 AM »

Like Rat pointed out, you don't lose points for abstaining on a proposal; you lose points for not voting. If you vote on only one proposal but not the other (thus abstaining on the other), you don't lose points. Hence why I left that out; it was superfluous.

Talaysen · « **Reply #722 on:** January 23, 2009, 07:04:47 AM »

Is all that stuff about rule 315 needed? I mean, what if someone goes and repeals rule 315? Or changes it? Then this proposal makes little sense.

It's really a problem with referring to specific rules in general. Easier to just not do it.

Laggy · « **Reply #723 on:** January 24, 2009, 12:14:21 AM »

If you'd like to reword the proposal to work with the current 315 effects and yet somehow not mention it in any manner, while retaining how the voting works, be my guest.

n-factorial · « **Reply #724 on:** January 24, 2009, 12:50:53 AM »

323. Following each voting phase, a non-player (hereby referred to as the Mobb Proposer) that voted that phase is randomly selected via Hatbot. During the subsequent discussion phase, the Mobb Proposer is allowed the option of making a proposal (separate and independent of the one that the current player is proposing). This proposal is then voted on like any other during the next voting phase.

The voting for the Mobb Proposer's proposal works in the following manner.

a) A Players' vote or votes are as stated in the Rules, and may be applied to either, both, or neither of the standard proposal or the Mobb Proposer's proposal, so long as the Player has enough votes to act as stated.

b) Non-players get an additional vote, to be used exclusively for the Mobb Proposer's proposal, and cannot use their normal vote for said proposal (in effect, they cannot double-vote on the same proposal). Other rules associated with voting (and not voting) still apply so long as they are applicable (score-related voting rules cannot be applied to non-players, for instance).

If you also want to cover being able to vote on both if multivotes/stockpiled votes are repealed, this can also be added at the end of the proposal:

c) If ever a player's number of usable votes drops to one, they acquire a second vote during the voting phase. This vote behaves like the non-player's second vote capability; that is, double-voting is not permissible with this second vote.

this third part allows for mobb proposals having little to no chance of hiccuping up the rules, and also permits the repeal of sections of this rule far more easily by segregating it into parts, something self also find appealing in his rules.

News:

Author Topic: Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom) (Read 83052 times)

Bardiche