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

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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...

[ snip: House Grem objections ]

As should be well known by now, I'm not a fan of allowing NPCs to vote in
general. But I *think* this is adequately addressed in the next revision
(though I may also have to raise the Chutzpah of the Societies rule, which
I'm astoundingly loath to do).

[ section E ]
> 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...:)

I was hoping that referring to it as a Rectification would be clear enough
to establish the above. Again, I think it's been addressed.

> >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.

How so? (Bear in mind my bias. I'm rather pro-Administrative-Veto because
it gives me at least a small chance to keep things from going really
kooky.)

[ sections G and H ]

> 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 those either, especially as thus far they've only been
used to try to break the game, and to allow Glotmorf to circumvent the
Bandwidth rule. Nevertheless, I think it's been addressed.

[ controversial addition to Veto: ignore the 75% requirement in extreme
cases ]

> 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.

This is one of those things where you may just have to take it as a matter
of faith... I'm not a player, I'm not bloody likely to become a player,
and I think I've done a fair job of trying to keep things reasonable for
everyone involved. I've only done maybe a half-dozen vetoes so far (I
don't count, obviously), and none of 'em would fall into the above
category.

In other words: Trust me. :-)

New draft is forthcoming.

...dave

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