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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/22/02 at 1:44 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Glotmorf wrote:
>
>> >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.
>
>How so? House Grem only seems to specify that it creates proposals (at
>least the version I'm looking at right now), and doesn't say anything
>about voting. Gremlins shouldn't be voting anyway.

House Grem doesn't have to say anything about voting.  The society rule says all members of a society vote in favor of its proposals.  So it's interfering with House Grem by interfering with the rule that says House Grem's members vote.  I could have said it interferes with the society rule, but at the moment it only does so in the context of House Grem.

>Two reasons:
>
>1. Anything that votes, other than a player, I'm probably accountable for.
>2. There needs to be *some* benefit to being an actual human player. If
>NPCs can make proposals and vote, that takes out a lot of the uniqueness.

What NPCs lack is free will and originality.  To set up an NPC to vote, at least at the moment, is to set up an algorithm for certain events to occur under certain circumstances.  Les'n someone wants to propose the Infinite Monkeys rule, we're not going to see anything new out of NPCs, no matter how much randomness we program in.

So the benefit of being a human player is that we get to do what we want, whereas they get to do what they're told.

>> >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.
>
>Given the recent proliferation of things that depend on votes other than
>proposals (the IOB, Dan's poetic "contrary votes" proposal, and there's
>probably more) I'm tempted to specify that votes must be cast privately.
>That will avoid ugliness where it starts to look like a given proposal
>will pass, and so people start changing their votes to one end or the
>other (depending on whether they want to try for a few points, or the
>IOB), and changing votes back and forth a lot.

Does anyone else periodically lurk at ebay?  Isn't it fascinating to see that last-minute scramble to get winning bids in?  Think of the panic that must be happening behind those keyboards...Now, that's entertainment. :)

>[[ rule definition of abstention ]]
>
>> 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.
>
>That wasn't quite my intention...

You mean, it wasn't quite your intention that abstention votes get counted as part of the veto override requirement, or it wasn't quite your intention that they not get counted? :)

>> The phrasing of this doesn't really allow for club props.  Though I
>> suppose it can be solved with chutzpah...
>
>I'm not a fan of Club Props anyway. :-)
>
>I think we're working at different purposes here. I'm trying to find a
>good balance between "fair" and "possible for me to manage in my spare
>time since it seems unlikely that you people will start paying me to do
>this". You're more interested in that whole "fair" thing. ;)

Scuse me for being a fairness utopian. :)

						Glotmorf


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