Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Excal]

Honestly, I'm not even sure you can amend or repeal two different rules at the same time.  The wording suggests you can only take one action at a time, and it should target only one rule, which means that you can't just pull out really tricky amendments that target two or three or more rules in one go.

That said, yeah.  If I could have changed the rule at the same time as I amended it, I would have since I have an idea of how.  But I'll leave the real debate to the happy person who gets Amendment 304.

[Veryslightlymad]

Eventually this turns the game into one of those contests where folks see who can touch a car the longest, in order to win the taxes on the car.

On the other hand, is "I paid attention to the game longest" really a bad measure for winning?

Probably not. I'll vote yes for this measure as written.

[Excal]

Eh, I'd disagree with that sentiment, since this movement doesn't touch the win conditions, which are still immutably gain X points.  So, you can still win even without other people 'letting go of the car.'  Hell, you can not vote a couple of times and all it'll do is give you a handicap which can be overcome.  It'll make winning harder, but I'm not inclined to feel sorry for someone who didn't pay attention to a game they signed up for.  Especially since this is, at the end of the day, just a game.  Win or lose, I am neither richened or lessened for my performance here, and neither is anyone else.

Which brings us back to the main reason why this is a good idea.  It makes it much easier to invest time and interest in the game by decreasing the chances that we'll be randomly held back for days by one person losing interest.

[Hunter Sopko]

Current win conditions. The 100 points thing is a mutable rule which can be changed with a vote. (Mutable Rule 209)

The points gained is also a mutable rule. (Provision 3 of Mutable Rule 202).

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

In fairness, this is just the first step to bring this higher level of fluidity to the game. But, the way the rules were laid out in this one, no other way but to take them baby steps until the little critter can walk.

[Excal]

Sopko, this is what I was referring to.

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

111. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

We can change how many points are required for victory, and how to get them.  But points are a fixed means of gaining victory.

[Carthrat]

Time's up! We now enter the Voting stage. PM your votes to me as per usual.

-

Proposal 303:
That Rule 105: "Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes." be made into a mutable law.

[Carthrat]

Voting's finished! Everyone give VSM a round of applause for being the last one in.

<-->

Proposal 303:
That Rule 105: "Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes." be made into a mutable law.

1. AndrewRogue - Yea
2. EvilTom - Yea
3. Excal - Yea
4. Jo'ou Ranbu - Yea
5. Sopko - Yea
6. Smodge - Yea
7. VerySlightlyMad - Yea

The proposal was PASSED!

<->

Nomic -- Turn Four

Players - Points

1. AndrewRogue: -7
2. EvilTom: 11
3. Excal: 12
4. Jo'ou Ranbu: 0
5. Sopko: 0
6. Smodge: 0
7. VerySlightlyMad: 0

It is Jou'ou Ranbu's turn! Please propose a change to the rules! Your rule-change number is 304.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Proposal 304 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, an eligible voter is not obliged to participate in every rule-change voting session - participation is made under the voter's discretion. This rule gives the right to not vote. However, it does -not- exempt a player from being penalized by not voting if any penalties are to be applied in the case."

=========

This is mostly the procedural follow-up to Excal's ruling, and, while it isn't the only urgent procedural change to the game flow, it's one of the basic rulings to get a more fluid session going. Making the voting process not obligatory to all will lower the odds of stalloramas like the one on EvilTom's proposal happening, and will open way to a bunch more rulings to come. The immediate one that comes to mind is making a ruling that doesn't require a full majority for changing mutable rules - which will walk in tandem with this one to increase flexibility and improve pacing - but I believe that immediate follow-up is a better alternative for the time being. Any suggestions? Anything I missed? If so, don't hesitate to speak up, I'll try my hardest to accomodate opinions, questions and disagreements.

[EvilTom]

Yeah there's a problem. How long does the mod wait before calling the vote - how does he decide who has voted and who hasn't. Where do we draw the line.
48 hour cutoff?

Personally I'd like a complete revamp of voting. Let's go with the mafia style - ##Vote.
Merging the game phase with the voting phase would speed things up a lot.
We don't have anonymous voting ANYWAY, so that's hardly the issue.

I'm too tired right now, someone else can continue this logic for me >.>

[Hunter Sopko]

I'm not a fan of public voting for this. Last thing I want to do is be hounded over this game. However, I think the better alternative is to set a time limit between 24-48 hours that once it reaches the cutoff, people automatically abstain their vote and do not count towards the Yes/No count.

[Excal]

I agree with Sopko.  Public voting gives too much power to those who can hold back on making their vote, allowing them to see how the vote is progressing and therefore see how making their vote would best advantage them.  When there's a provision where voting against a passing proposal nets you ten points, it's best not to let people see if a proposal is going to pass with or without their vote, yes.

Also, Snow, the one major flaw with your motion is that it lacks a time limit.  Someone can still drag things out by simply not announcing an intention to abstain.  I'd personally like a 24 hour limit to be placed, with a provision to allow for absentee voting, or simply put, placing a vote before the voting period and during the discussion phase.  With any unresolved votes at the end of that period counting as an automatic abstention, complete with the penalty associated with it.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Soppy/Excal: I can arrange for the time limit in the clause, certainly. I didn't add that clause at first for fear of making the initial text too bloated and wanting to see how would people deal with the time limit first (also not being terribly bright after pulling an all-nighter and doing an exam in the early morning <_<;), but there's no issue with that. I'll try to have a rewritten motion taking these into account even today and see how it's received.

[EvilTom]

Also, Snow, the one major flaw with your motion is that it lacks a time limit.  Someone can still drag things out by simply not announcing an intention to abstain.  I'd personally like a 24 hour limit to be placed, with a provision to allow for absentee voting, or simply put, placing a vote before the voting period and during the discussion phase.  With any unresolved votes at the end of that period counting as an automatic abstention, complete with the penalty associated with it.

Yeah that's what I was getting at, I was too tired to think though.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Proposal 304 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, an eligible voter is not obliged to participate in every rule-change voting session - participation is made under the voter's discretion. However, it does -not- exempt a player from being penalized by not voting if any penalties are to be applied. As a provision, this ruling also establishes a 48-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off for the counting of results."

Does this sound better? Any other additions?

[EvilTom]

Too wordy;

"under" should be "at"

"However, it does -not- exempt a player from being penalized by not voting if any penalties are to be applied."
'However a player who does not vote will still be penalized if any penalties are to be applied.'

Double negatives are bad.


Also, still needs provision for early voting. And it should be explicit that any votes not made in the 48 hour period will automatically be abstain votes.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Proposal 304 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion. However, any player who doesn't vote will suffer the penalties attached to this act. As a provision, this ruling also establishes a 48-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off for the counting of results, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. If a voter won't be able to participate during the voting phase, and only under these specific circumstances, he/she can send an early vote to the judge during the discussion phase."

Is this better? Still wordy as fuck, but.

[Excal]

Some questions

Why 48 hours instead of 24?

Why the restriction on voting before the voting phase that did not exist before?

And, how will you tell if someone is honest in feeling if they can or cannot vote during the allotted time?

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

- Why 48 hours instead of 24?

24 hours feels... a bit steep? I dunno, I don't mind changing it, but if 48 feels too much (Tom prefers 48, you prefer 24), averaging could be a happy compromise.

- Why the restriction on voting before the voting phase that did not exist before?

The restriction... huh. I just -assumed- you couldn't vote outside of the voting phase anyway. But if there's no ruling in favor or against, why even bother with that clause.

- And, how will you tell if someone is honest in feeling if they can or cannot vote during the allotted time?

This one, honestly, pretty much boils down to tacit agreement and trust between gentlemen, Excal. If this just seems like noise (after all, maybe there isn't much of a point of distinction on -when- a vote is sent during a certain turn. We won't know it happened or why), I'll simply remove that.

[Excal]

Eh, the timing of the vote is more simply that I don't see any merit in placing limitations on the timing.  After all, I see it being easier to vote as a good thing.

As for the amount of time.  Honestly, with 24 hours, we're held to a minimum of three days for each proposition.  Three days for each cycle that gives us a turn.  There's still Rat's time to process everything, and the time it takes for the next person to notice it's their turn and make their proposal.  That's at least 21 days, or three weeks, for a round.  So...  yeah.  I like the idea of being a bit quicker.  And it's not like Mafia where dropping out to savour life for a bit will hurt the game and the collective enjoyment thereof.  And, if you can vote before the vote phase, then you don't need to worry as much about the tighter window, as you can generally get an idea of how the proposition is going to look before the final 24 hours, and can safely vote before then.  I mean, it's not like anyone besides the voter and Rat will know they did it, right?

So, there's my thoughts behind why I'm asking for what I'm asking for.

[EvilTom]

I'd prefer 24 hours actually.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Proposal 304 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion, but the voter will still be penalized for not voting. This ruling also establishes a 24-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. As a provision, a voter may send his verdict to the judge at any time in both phases of a turn until voting closes."

Is this acceptable?

[Carthrat]

We are now in the Discussion phase!

In fact, we have been for almost 36 hours! There are only 12 remaining.

<->

Proposal 304 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion, but the voter will still be penalized for not voting. This ruling also establishes a 24-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. As a provision, a voter may send his verdict to the judge at any time in both phases of a turn until voting closes."

[Excal]

What can I say, Snow.  I've voted for it.

[Carthrat]

It is now the Voting phase! Please send them in this year~

<->

Proposal 304 - Change Rule 105 to state the following: "While every player is an eligible voter, participation is made at the voter's discretion, but the voter will still be penalized for not voting. This ruling also establishes a 24-hour time limit for the voting phase - past that threshold, voting is closed off, and any non-voters will automatically labeled as abstaining. As a provision, a voter may send his verdict to the judge at any time in both phases of a turn until voting closes."