Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Hunter Sopko]

It's not that I don't want the mob to win. I don't want the mob to have control of the game. Even if they can't win, I don't think that the voting in the future would be that much different than what we saw for the previous vote. You're already at 10 people, 2 away from being able to overturn a 5-1 player split. Taking away your ability to win is meaningless if you're still just controlling the game anyway.

Seriously, give us power to screw with the game without giving us the potential to win it, I'm fine with that, I'll still participate and the game will actually have more than three posts a day with nothing going on, and then you don't have to worry about us winning even though we didn't sign up.  Make stupid proposals with no point but to suck the fun out of the game, though, and you might have to worry about losing interest from more than just the non-player contingent.  Hell, put in a rule that you guys can override us if you get 5 votes no matter how many votes we have opposing you.  Then you actually have some strategy in your game and maintain control if you can get the players to agree on something.  That would solve the problem nicely, I'd think, without being utterly inane.

Of course you have no problem screwing with the game, but the players do (speaking for myself) when it's the potential as listed above. My problem is still that silly is apparantly fine for the non-players to inflict on the players, but the game is suddenly so damn serious when it's turned around on them. Yakko's plan is something I was thinking about changing it to, the 5 votes being unable to be overturned.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

So, you don't want things to actually be more competitive and interesting because it has the outside element working to make the game less of a slug - for better and worse - when the basic proposal of getting non-players to participate was created exactly for that purpose. The things you are bitching about are exactly why the ruling was proposed in the first place: to change the snail pacing and non-existent discussion that plagued the game until non-players gained the right to do stuff.

If this bothers you so much, there is no ruling forcing you to play the game, quite honestly - which might do you and the rest of us more good than trying to suffocate the very basics of the game as it became. It's pretty clear that you have an issue with non-players having a non-negligible say in the game at all, and I honestly disagree with your gripe.

[Carthrat]

Maybe you could try posting more controversial rulings than stuff that the mob itself will, universally, hate or love.

Of course if you have a ruling that gives more power to the mob, they'll take it! And of course if it doesn't, they'll hate it. This is really simple (and something that should've been discussed during Excal's original proposal, really, but hey.)

[EvilTom]

Pretty obvious to me. This is democracy folks. Rule of the mob!
The arstocracy has been overthrown.

[Kilgamayan]

I'm still wondering how this rule is at all enforceable. You can't make rules about non-players since there's no rule that binds non-players to the rules.

[Hunter Sopko]

So, you don't want things to actually be more competitive and interesting because it has the outside element working to make the game less of a slug - for better and worse - when the basic proposal of getting non-players to participate was created exactly for that purpose. The things you are bitching about are exactly why the ruling was proposed in the first place: to change the snail pacing and non-existent discussion that plagued the game until non-players gained the right to do stuff.

If this bothers you so much, there is no ruling forcing you to play the game, quite honestly - which might do you and the rest of us more good than trying to suffocate the very basics of the game as it became. It's pretty clear that you have an issue with non-players having a non-negligible say in the game at all, and I honestly disagree with your gripe.

It's not that they have a non-negligible say in the game, it's that they've essentially gained an overwhelming advantage and I'm looking to level the playing field. That's how the game is played, Snow.

I'm not going to quit if/when this fails, and I'm pretty surprised you're mistaking the strategy and stance for an unwillingness to abide by the results. If you don't like the results you make the move to change them. Thats the point of the game. I'm not going to pack up and leave because things haven't gone my way. I'm frankly insulted that you're proposing that I do so.

I'm still wondering how this rule is at all enforceable. You can't make rules about non-players since there's no rule that binds non-players to the rules.

The "rules" are the amendments that are in effect, so if you want to hold to this technicality, then the amendments that allow the non-players to vote and score points also don't apply, even though they specifically deal with non-players. This amendment does the same. Either you hold the non-players to amendments that deal with them or it all falls apart for you guys.

[Shale]

What Rat said. If you don't like voting setting mob against nonmob, don't propose rules whose only purpose is to empower/depower the mob.

[Talaysen]

It's not that they have a non-negligible say in the game, it's that they've essentially gained an overwhelming advantage and I'm looking to level the playing field. That's how the game is played, Snow.

You know, if the proposal wasn't about outright TAKING AWAY voting powers, you'd probably get better reception.  Try doing something that diminishes the mob's power without potentially completely screwing people over.  You might actually have more backing there.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

It's not that they have a non-negligible say in the game, it's that they've essentially gained an overwhelming advantage and I'm looking to level the playing field. That's how the game is played, Snow.

Making a proposal that forces the mob to do inane things just to disencourage them from playing doesn't seem like a maneuver to level the field in my eyes. Nor does trying for ideas like the overturning thing, which pretty much flat-out make the mob's voting power non-existent. You can feel insulted if you want, but that's just how you're making it sound. The whole mob thing does need its kinks worked out, but I don't think that making the non-players virtually irrelevant and/or annoying them into not participating is how this will be solved.

[Hunter Sopko]

I'll do this now so we're clear that the previous thing isn't on my plate anymore.

Proposal 312- Taking Amendment 311 into mind, this amendment puts into effect that a vote of 5-1 or 6-0 by the players cannot be overturned by the voting of the non-player group.

4-2 and 3-3 will still pop up more often than not in the voting and it's entirely possible for the non-players to jump in on them. This is the element of chaos that people were hoping for when it comes to the non-player faction... we just didn't realize how many non-players there were. There's not a very wide line that we can walk here when it comes to their votes. I personally think that this works best when it comes to making their votes neither irrelevent nor overwhelming.

[Dark Holy Elf]

You should probably change the wording to include cases such as 5-0. "At least 80% of the players voting" or "A gap of four or more votes considering just the players" would both do that, for instance.

[Hunter Sopko]

You should probably change the wording to include cases such as 5-0. "At least 80% of the players voting" or "A gap of four or more votes considering just the players" would both do that, for instance.

I'm... tempted to leave that one be, as another check on the players to ensure voting. The only thing I can see happening is people purposefully not voting to let the mob have the floor on such a case. If it's something where it would come down to 5-0 and the non-players would vote to overturn, I can't see someone purposefully not voting.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Heh. Well, fair enough!

EDIT: Might still want some clauses for a change in the number of players, via someone quitting or joining or anything else unforseen. Or to willfully not, for similar reasons.

[Hunter Sopko]

Heh. Well, fair enough!

EDIT: Might still want some clauses for a change in the number of players, via someone quitting or joining or anything else unforseen. Or to willfully not, for similar reasons.

Yeah, that I can see.

Proposal 312- Taking Amendment 311 into mind, this amendment puts into effect that a vote of 5-1 or 6-0 by the players cannot be overturned by the voting of the non-player group.

Clause 1- Should the amount of players change from six, the voting result needed for this to take effect shall be converted into an 80% or larger majority of the current players.

Work?

[Excal]

Eh, it still leaves us open to a player not voting in the 24 hour window.  But then, I'm not too worried.  I've got plans in the works that makes this really very tame.

[Carthrat]

<3 Excal

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Why not just make the ruling be "The non-player votes cannot overwhelm an 80% or higher player majority, rounded up"? That'd be more elegant and cover any relevant ground in case of a player number change. No need for a provision when it can just be the main rule.

EDIT: Granted, this also begs the case for a possible future revision of the non-player/player voting power scale to something more streamlined, but that's a bridge to be crossed when we -get to the point where it's relevant-.

[Talaysen]

"rounded up" isn't even needed.  5/6~=83%>80%.

[Luther Lansfeld]

He said he wanted to give people an incentive to vote.

[Excal]

Because -10 points isn't enough of an incentive.

[VySaika]

(Am I the only non-player who would have voted for the original proposal just because it would be funny?)

[Bardiche]

I probably would've, too. Not sure yet. Just for the lulz I might've.

[Ryogo]

I would've for laughs, and then scammed out of it by just putting something in my signature. Technically, the praise would be in every post, and there wouldn't have been a damn thing they could do about it. Well, except amend the rule.

[Hunter Sopko]

Shucks. Oh well.

Getting this in order since the vote is soon.

Proposal 312- The non-player votes cannot overwhelm an 80% or higher player majority.

[Carthrat]

Voting phase begins, send in votes.

Proposal 312- The non-player votes cannot overwhelm an 80% or higher player majority.