Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 8 (Bardikin)

[Taishyr]

Well, we would be, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut I was kinda zonked when I typed that out, I think? Ah well.

212. There are two Phases, or Parts, to each round of the game of Nomic: the Proposal phase, to last no more than 72 hours, and the Voting phase, to last no more than 24 hours.

So yeah 72 not 48. Still. Apologies.

[Bardiche]

Count on when that ends? Some sense of urgency might be nice. We've now gone at least two days without any revisions from Excal which I believe most of us find vital before it receives our vote.

[Taishyr]

« Reply #2 on: 2010-09-03, 19:30:54 » When rule was submitted.
Right now it's 2010-09-03, 10:54:summat
So about 9 hours.

[Magetastic]

Excal says he hasn't been able to because of a lack of internet.

[Taishyr]

I... well, uh, damn, shit luck. My sympathies to him, but there's no rule in place that allows me to grant any sort of extension, and I'm just the dude running the game, not the one making the rules. >_>;

VOTING PHASE: BEGIN

The proposal on the table is:

301.  Change Rule #205 so that it reads as follows.  "If your proposal fails, gain three points for every vote for the proposal made by a non-proposing player.  If your proposal passes, then every player besides the proposer gains points equal to the total votes for the proposal, and the proposing player can, on one vote before their next proposal, have their vote carry the weight of two votes.  If the vote is unanimous, then they can do this twice."

[Taishyr]

First Turn
Votes:

Excal: Yea
Bardiche: Nay
Magetastic: Nay
Rat: Yea
Tonfa: Abstain
n!: Nay

Dat rule is REJECTED! (3 Nays, 2 Yeas, 1 Abstain)


Second Turn
Points:

Excal: -6
Bardiche: 0
Magetastic: 0
Rat: 0
Tonfa: 0
n!: 0

It be Bardiche's turn! Submit dat nasty funk rule on us! You're 302, baby! Once a rule is submitted, ya'll got 72 shinin' hours to discuss and have him revise before v-v-v-v-VOTES!

[Bardiche]

Moving on with the general state of affairs I hereby submit 302. for peer review.

302. In the event of a tie at the end of voting for a proposal, there will be a new discussion phase to last no more than 24 hours. During this discussion phase players are expected to try and work out a majority vote after all. It will be followed by a new voting phase to last no more than 24 hours either. Should no majority be reached by the end of the new voting phase, then Hatbot shall be instructed to tiebreak.

Just to avoid it from the start, this should give us some opportunities for when we ever reach a tie.

[Carthrat]

Ties are handled by virtue of ties not being a majority, thus rules will fail in those situations. The next player can use his turn to amend the rule if he feels it has a chance, so I see no need for a special tiebreaking round.

[Bardiche]

Plainly, it permits the proposer one final chance to make amends and please everyone. A final plea sort of thing.

[Carthrat]

Nah, I don't like that. They had plenty of chances in the preceding 72 hours to adjust, and other people want their turns.

[Magetastic]

How about if we have some sort of "in case of emergency, extend discussion" clause instead? Otherwise, you have things like what happened to Excal.

[Carthrat]

I'm inclined to go 'tough shit, the game must go on' in such situations. 72 hours is a lot of time! It should be enough, and if it isn't, well, I like a bit of tension.

[n-factorial]

i profess a disinclination to allow the passage of this rule, for much the reason as Ozymandius has stated. while the desire for a final chance is understood i erred myself in bringing up the majority/tie vote conclusion (as it is not majority at a tie vote it fails, this is a correct conclusion i think) and as such would proffer to Bardiche that a new concept be made, perhaps, as no need for a tiebreaker system exists

[Excal]

I'm going to jump in with agreement with Rat and N here.  I don't see any real use for this rule, and the last thing this game needs is to be made longer (it's already plenty long as is).  Also, not really feeling the extra length for emergencies for much the same reason.

[Bardiche]

With three against I feel that is enough reason to completely rework the rule and submit a replacement instead. The new proposal shall be:

302. The one to bring forth a proposal, hereafter referred to as proposer, is barred from voting on their own proposals.

The idea is that I really want to avoid ties as much as possible. This brings the eligible voters per proposal to five and, barring abstentions, it'll make sure that there's always a majority on something, and prevents rulings going through because the proposer himself voted or anything.

Most proposers will likely vote Yay on their proposal but, with proposals as Excal's in mind, this'll ensure a proposer cannot affect his proposition in any way other than lobbying for approval and pleasing the other councilmembers.

[Excal]

Given that a proposer's vote being the decisive factor requires someone else abstaining for whatever reason, why is it bad that he might be a tiebreaker in such a case?

Also, if ties are such a bad thing, then how do you intend to avoid abstentions such that you will always have those five votes?  Note that we've had one vote, and one abstention so far.

[Magetastic]

Just going to chime in and say I like the current proposal.

[Bardiche]

I assume most people will vote. Moreover, in the event that two people vote nay, two people vote yay, the proposer can secure the proposal if the last person, for whatever reason, refuses to cast a vote.

I'd propose abstaining from voting x times in a row would come with consequences but I only have the power to submit one bill for approval. It certainly is something I would hope to see eliminated from the game so that people are encouraged to provide a proper vote and participate in the democratic process.

[n-factorial]

neutrally ambivalent to this, as it makes little practical difference other than eliminating tied votes (providing no abstentions...). iow reqs three solid votes outside proposer to pass, which i actually... yeah, that is something i approve of

as had, say, i voted yes last round, proposal would have passed despite only having two non-proposer votes (and fifty per cent approval rating)

mmm, talked myself into tenative yes vote, as it forces more solid support to pass a bill - not as intriguing as excal's proposal had potential to be but that can return on his next turn or sommat 

[Carthrat]

I don't like this since it's redundant.

We currently have 6 players. 4 need to vote yes to pass something, in general. We assume the proposer always votes yes, so 3 other players must vote yes, too.

This is exactly the same as to what would happen if the proposer couldn't vote; 3 other players must still vote yes for it to win.

I don't get the hate on ties, since ties aren't actually ties; the proposer loses and his rule is not passed!

[n-factorial]

except it's not entirely redundant, as i pointed out - right now two+proposer can make majority if someone abstains. this closes that gap.

[Carthrat]

Then that guy should have voted.

Sorry, but I guess I see that as a feature, not a bug.

[Carthrat]

Also, I really hate things that skew the system in favour of not passing proposals. Why is this desirable? Why do we want to make it even harder to get anything interesting passed?

[n-factorial]

i like how you're skewering this against "getting interesting things passed", but let's let that be for a moment

this is to ensure that an actual majority of people thinks something should go through. that's it. i'm perhaps less inclined to allow wishywaffly to be a factor in letting something pass than you, i suppose?

let's face it, if something's 1) interesting and 2) refined (excalprop didn't manage 2), it'll likely get both your vote and mine unless one of us thinks it badly breaks something. interesting will likely not be so hard to pass as you are dramatizing, i don't see the need to flail as if this will make it omgimpossible to do so.

perhaps if it fails it wasn't as interesting as you thought it was.

[Carthrat]

I assume it will be harder to get interesting things passed if it is harder to pass things in general. This makes me sad and I would rather it's more than less likely, all other things being equal, that things get through.

This is not a matter of dramatizing or flailing, either. If someone is waffly then it sucks for them. Since votes need a majority to pass as it is, I think it's good to give them a little extra push in terms of the vote that the proposer gets to have.

If wishywashy people don't vote, that's their problem. I want to be as harsh as possible on nonattendance.