Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 8 (Bardikin)

[n-factorial]

thinking that having more voteweight (1/5 over 1/6) is more incentive to vote than not, but.also, why specify nonattendance? neutral vote seems potential, think that's what happened last time as update fired before 24 hour mark unless i'm mistaken

your first line is taken under advisement, though i flatly disagree; interesting is intersting and should likely pass, i don't see the concern there.

[Carthrat]

I wish that was true, but I remain skeptical.

[Excal]

So what, you're making the argument that someone making a proposal does not want something to go through?

I'm not entirely sure what issue this addresses, since it does not, in fact, do anything to resolve the issue on ties (there were pretty hefty fines on abstentions in the last game, and that did not prevent them.  I fail to see why this should).  And all it seems to be set to do is to reduce our voting pool even further.  The one interesting thing here is Rat's look at whether or not this thing will make it easier or harder to get things passed.

As things stand, we need a 2/3, or 67% vote to get something through.  Granted, it can be assumed that one vote will always be in favour at this point, since there is zero incentive to ever vote for your own proposal.  So, this brings us to a simple issue of now needing 3/5 votes in order to pass it.  Oddly enough, that same margin is still needed in order to pass something if you remove the proposers vote.

The only difference seems to be what happens if you abstain, assuming it was a close vote.  In one case, an abstention means that the proposers vote matters, and the rule change goes through.  In the other, it means that you have a tie and the measure does not pass.

This means that one leads to things happening if you don't pay attention or simply don't care or don't want to take a stand.  While in the other things stall if an abstention happens for any reason.  It also means that the rule fails at its stated purpose of avoiding ties.

[Tonfa]

I just can't bring myself to care about this proposal.

For the record, I neutral voted on the last one because I couldn't vote yes on the unamended proposal in good conscience, yet wasn't actively against it either.

EDIT: Actualllyyyy...this proposal wouldn't even do anything.

105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void in effect.

[Carthrat]

Tonfa brings up another side of it.

Although I am valiantly trying to actually discuss the rule, my overwhelming reaction to it, really, is who cares?

[Tonfa]

Ninja'd by Rat.

Yeah, see edit above.

[n-factorial]

hahahaha okay good catch, i missed that totally.    anything else for us, Bardiche?

[Bardiche]

Hard folk to please, to be sure. With some disappointment, I present the third revision of the rule.

302. Every eligible voter is permitted to abstain. However, no eligible voter is permitted to abstain twice in a row. Doing so will incur a penalty of having a Negative vote appended to the first proposal to be proposed by the eligible voter who abstained twice in a row. This negative vote will be considered equal to an eligible voter's vote, and for the purposes of point calculations will be considered the same as the proposing player's vote.

The aim is to discourage abstains ad infinito. There's no proviso for abstaining thrice in a row, but I hope that I shall not need to include such.

At first I wanted to put down a point penalty, but I presume Rat would be against point deductions on principle. Therefore, I figure that needing ONE MORE vote than normally to get a proposal passed (and lacking unanimous approval!) would be a high enough incentive to avoid too many abstentions. I assume someone may abstain once because they really don't know how they feel about a rule, but I'd like to encourage participation in the voting process as much as is possible.

[Excal]

Alright, Bard.  And what do you propose for those people who, like Tonfa, find themselves in a position where they don't want to vote someone down, but also don't feel the proposal is worth passing?

[Bardiche]

Then they'll have to get over it and cast a vote either way. If you don't want it to pass, you can vote against it. If you do want it to pass, you can vote in favour. The ruling is specific in that you can abstain, vote, abstain, vote, abstain, vote ad nauseum, you just can't go abstain abstain because it'd net you a negative vote on your proposal.

Voting works if people vote. If you don't vote then the system'd be flawed. I don't want to end up in situations where we're going to have a round of abstentions on votes because people can't commit themselves to a vote.

Abstain is weak. Abstain is not making use of your right as an eligible voter. Abstain makes you no better than any number of people that are reading along and could discuss alongside us. Abstain means you abandon your right as eligible voter and it should not happen! People should vote as much as they can! Votes make your position clear.

[Excal]

I'm...  honestly not that moved by this.  More apathetic really.  I suppose the issue we're having is that our ideas of how to deal with these issues are opposed.  You try to ban behaviour you don't want to see, while I'd rather entice people not to do it.  Also, this isn't Mafia.  People don't need to take hard stands on issues because I don't need that to know which side they're on.  I already know whose side they're on.  They're on their own side.

As such, I am nominally against this proposal, though mostly apathetic.

[Bardiche]

You could abstain from voting on it. :V

[Carthrat]

Abstain is weak. Abstain is not making use of your right as an eligible voter. Abstain makes you no better than any number of people that are reading along and could discuss alongside us. Abstain means you abandon your right as eligible voter and it should not happen! People should vote as much as they can! Votes make your position clear.

So why're we letting people do it, again? >_>

I'm not even sure this actually works, abstaining means you don't vote so would that still contradict the earlier rule?

[Tonfa]

Another nothing proposal.

Why does spinning wheels in place with Abstentions even matter when under the current system Negative votes actively reverse the progress of the game?

[Magetastic]

If the idea is to put a stop to abstantations, why not just turn them into negative votes? I'm not exactly behind the idea, personally, but it seems like a better way to go about it, at least.

[Bardiche]

I'm out of ideas at this moment, then, so I'd like to call an end to the discussion phase and a start to the voting phase. I'll try to come up with something better next time.

[Taishyr]

Well, since there's no reason people can't talk during the voting phase and Bard has now stated there will be no revisions, in effect...

VOTING PHASE: BEGIN

The proposal on the table is:

302. Every eligible voter is permitted to abstain. However, no eligible voter is permitted to abstain twice in a row. Doing so will incur a penalty of having a Negative vote appended to the first proposal to be proposed by the eligible voter who abstained twice in a row. This negative vote will be considered equal to an eligible voter's vote, and for the purposes of point calculations will be considered the same as the proposing player's vote.

[Taishyr]

Second Turn
Votes:

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

Dat rule is REJECTED! (5 Nays, 0 Yeas, 1 Abstain)

Third Turn
Points:

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

It be Magetastic's turn! Submit dat nasty funk rule on us! You're 303, baby! Once a rule is submitted, ya'll got 72 shinin' hours to discuss and have him revise before v-v-v-v-VOTES!

[Magetastic]

I propose an amendment to Rule 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.

Instead, I propose it read as follows.

Rule 303. 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. However, should there be a tie, there shall then be a 24 hour period wherein all players may discuss the amendment further, and change their votes as they see fit until such a time as the tie is resolved, or time is up.

There shall be no further changes to the proposal made during the last 24 hour period.

Thoughts, comments, insults, ideas?

[Tonfa]

Nay. I will pretty much automatically be against proposals that make the flow of the game even slower.

[Magetastic]

Should we make the game quicker, then?

[Tonfa]

That would be preferable. 48 hours of discussion should do.

[Carthrat]

I'd prefer that to making it slower, although I confess that the whole area bores me. I think I'd rather see rules that add new mechanics or fundamentally change the way the game is played more than these kinds of rules.

[Tonfa]

Well, making the game faster serves the purpose of getting to the meat of the game faster as well.

[Excal]

I'd probably be willing to vote for making discussion phase shorter, for all that I am with Rat in looking for something interesting over something mechanical at this point.