Re: [spoon-discuss] draft: Less is More: Voting

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/21/02 at 4:50 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>[[ This is a DRAFT proposal that probably overlooks a lot of things.
>comments are welcomed. ]]
>
>Less Is More: Voting
>
>Replace the text of Rule 15 with the following:
>
>{{ __Voting__
>
>A. Voter Eligibility
>
>Only Players may vote. No other game entity may vote.

This is a consolidation of rule 294, recently modified by Wonko.  Knew I missed something...This is gonna interfere with House Grem.  I'd planned to propose changing it back to its original form -- "these rules" instead of "this rule" -- to make House Grem work.  Or, alternately, raise Rule 578's chutzpah to the point that society members can vote no matter what they may be.

And since I didn't really want to raise r578's chutzpah all that terribly high, this is a possible showstopper for me.

>A player may not vote if e joined the game less than one nday prior to the
>beginning of voting. A player may not vote if e is On Leave. A Player may
>not vote if e is Dead.
>
>B. Voting Period
>
>Voting begins at the start of the 8th nday of each nweek, and ends at the
>end of the 10th nday of each nweek. Votes cast prior to the beginning of
>voting, or after the end of voting, shall not be counted.
>
>[[ add preemptive voting here, if it passes ]]
>
>
>C. The Ballot
>
>At least 48 hours prior to the close of voting each nweek, The
>Administrator shall distribute, via a public forum, the Ballot for that
>nweek. The Ballot shall list all proposals legally recognized between the
>start of the previous nweek's voting period and the start of the current
>nweek's voting period.

If my ballot proposal passes, the above will lack its provision that the clock stops if the ballot isn't ready.

>D. Casting Votes
>
>To cast a vote, a Player must submit eir vote either privately to the
>Administrator, or to a public forum. Votes cast privately shall not be
>disclosed publicly until the end of the voting period, at which point they
>must be disclosed.
>
>E. Legal Votes
>
>The only legal votes for a proposal are 'Yes', 'No', 'Shelve', and
>'Abstain'. Votes may be Rectified to one of the above forms by the
>Administrator at eir discretion, if e believes the intent is clear and
>unambiguous.
>
>[[ Thus players can still vote while wielding the Sushi, speaking in a
>drunken slur, prevented from using big words like "Abstain" by entropy
>limits, etc.  This is what I've been doing all along anyway. :) ]]

Could use some provision for the player's objection, if eir sushified vote form was misinterpreted. (Hell, I can't understand sushiiese most of the time...:)

>E.1. Affirmative Votes
>'Yes' votes are votes in favor of a proposal.
>
>E.2. Negative Votes
>'No' votes are votes against a proposal.
>
>E.3. Abstentions
>'Abstain' votes count as votes for purposes of quorum [[ even though we
>don't have such a thing ]] but count neither as affirmative, nor negative,
>votes.

The current text of r30: "Players may abstain from voting on a given ballot item by not submitting a vote on that ballot item or by explicitly indicating their abstention. Explicit abstentions shall be treated like votes during Voting, but when Voting has ended, they shall be treated as if the player had not submitted a vote."

This text is necessary so that abstention votes aren't counted when determining if a veto fails, especially since you're repealing r32.  Definite showstopper.

>E.4. Shelving
>'Shelve' votes count as negative votes. If the proposal fails, and at
>least half of the votes cast for that proposal are either affirmative
>votes or 'Shelve' votes, the proposal is deemed neither to have passed nor
>failed. At the beginning of the next nweek, a new proposal is created,
>with a revision number of 0, otherwise identical to the shelved proposal.
>Such a proposal counts as only half a proposal against a player's
>Bandwidth limit. This paragraph supercedes subsection F of this rule.
>
>[[ Note that I left out the part about a veto overriding this rule -- if
>it's gonna get shelved and probably revised anyway, no point in my vetoing
>it. ]]
>
>F. Vote Counting
>
>At the end of each voting period, The Clock turns Off.

When does the Clock turn On again?

>If and only if a proposal receives more affirmative votes than negative
>votes, the proposal is considered to have passed. Otherwise, the proposal
>is considered to have failed.
>
>Proposals are processed in increasing integral order of serial number,
>though all changes to the gamestate are otherwise considered to occur
>simultaneously.
>
>[[ I'm trying to avoid things like: if p857 passes, having to count its
>effects for PART of a ballot, but otherwise allow proposals to do things
>like "if X passes, do this too". Suggestions on the wording are especially
>welcome. ]]
>
>G. Passed Proposals
>
>When a player's proposal passes, the following effects occur in order.
>
>* The player who submitted the proposal gains 3d6 points.
>* The player who submitted the proposal gains 1 point of Charm.
>* The player who submitted the proposal gains 1 point of Entropy.
>* The effects specified in the proposal occur in the order listed in the
>  proposal.
>
>[[ I may still leave these in their separate places. Haven't decided yet.
>]]
>
>H. Failed Proposals
>
>When a player's proposal fails, the following effects occur in order.
>* The player who submitted the proposal loses 1d6 points.
>* The player who submitted the proposal loses 1 point of Charm.
>* The player who submitted the proposal loses 1 point of Entropy.

The phrasing of this doesn't really allow for club props.  Though I suppose it can be solved with chutzpah...

>I. Administrative Veto
>
>If the Administrator is not also a player, e may Veto any proposal. If
>more than 75% of the votes cast for a proposal are affirmative votes, the
>Veto has no effect. Otherwise, the proposal is deemed to have failed.
>
>The Administrator may also Veto a proposal which, in eir sole judgment, is
>technically infeasible to implement or which would cause grievous and
>irreparable damage to the game as a whole. Such a veto is not subject to
>the 75% override condition above, but is subject to the Call For Inquiry
>process.
>
>[[ The above is potentially controversial. Whee! ]]

The Call for Inquiry process can take, and has taken, weeks.  This may not be suitable for something the players as a whole consider a badly needed change.  Like, oh, say, for instance, changing the rules to ensure the players can override any veto.

>[[ I left out the reduced scoring for vetoed proposals -- I think 3d6 is
>more fair than Xd3 anyway. ]]
>
>}}
>
>
>
>Repeal Rules 15, 20, 23, 30, 32, 124, 294, 403, 580, 629, 706.

You don't want to repeal r15.  You're replacing it above. :)

>[[ 403 is the "opposed props" rule that's never been used. ]]
>[[ 629 is the "boring" rule -- it's never come up. ]]
>[[ 706 is the ala carte rule. it's never come up either, and if it did,
>it'd be a pain in the ass. even more than society props, which drive me
>mad. ]]

Actually, it has come up.  Dan used it in eir original megarule.  I'd like to keep this for now, especially since there's still room for huge less-is-more props.

>Remove the last paragraph from Rule 3 [[ killing the clock at the end of
>an nweek ]]
>
>Remove section B.2. of rule 156. Insert in its place:
>{{
>B.2. Charm
>Charm is a Dimension. [[ seems kinda lackluster, doesn't it? ]]
>}}

There is no r156.  Do you mean r154?

Aside from that, the reason I moved the prop passage/failure effects for Charm into r154 was so that information on what happens to Charm is all in one place.  Same with Entropy and the others.

>Revise section B.6. to remove the Entropy adjustments for proposal
>passage. [[ TODO ]]
>
>Remove the second paragraph from rule 547.

I generally admire the spirit of your intent. :)

						Glotmorf

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss