bd on Wed, 6 Dec 2006 07:22:24 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: The rot sets in

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Proposal "The rot sets in":
> [[Remember me saying I had an idea so crazy that NO-ONE would vote for it?]]
> Create a new rule titled "votes":
> {{
> This rule defines the attribute "votes".  It is a non-negative
> integer.  The default value is 1.
> Votes may also be referred to as "number of votes".
> }}
> Replace in rule 2-2 the paragraph which at the start of n-week 2 read:
> {{As a Game Action, a Player may submit a Vote on an Open Proposal of
> one of the words FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. The most recent Vote on a
> Proposal by a Player is called that player's Final Vote on that
> Proposal.}}
> with:
> {{
> As a game action, a player may submit a "voting message" to the forum
> which contains votes for the open proposals.  Against each proposal
> must be the word ABSTAIN; or one of the words FOR or AGAINST and a
> number indicating the number of votes that e wishes to cast. Any
> proposal not mentioned will be taken as an ABSTAIN.
> The total of all the votes submitted (that is, the total of the
> numbers in the voting message) may not exceed the player's "votes"
> attribute.  If it does, the player will be informed, and the voting
> message will be ignored.
> [[If there are five proposals and you have four votes, you are going
> to have to abstain on at least one proposal.]]
> The most recent voting message submitted will be considered the
> player's final vote.
> }}

ABSTAIN would count as a vote, surely? Meaning a player's votes would 
apparently go negative...

Also, does this really mean to say we can only vote on one proposal per 
nweek? The game is too young to restrict things like that. We had more 
votes than players last week, after all.

> Create a new rule titled "Vote Bank":
> {{
> There is a voting object called the "vote bank".  It is eligable to
> vote wherever voting is called for by the rules.  It has a votes
> attribute, just as if it were a player.
> The vote bank will start with a number of votes equal to two times the
> number of players.  It will vote as follows:
> (1) If the vote is for a proposal that would result in a repeal or
> amendment to this rule, or refers to this rule by number or name, then
> all of the vote bank's votes will be AGAINST the proposal.

Sneaky, but I can see a few ways around it...

> (2) Otherwise, if the vote is for a proposal that either creates a
> mechanism for transferring votes between objects, or creates a new
> voting object; and if the proposal does not actually transfer any
> votes, then all of the vote bank's votes will be FOR the proposal.
> (3) Otherwise, all its votes will be ABSTAIN.
> For the purposes of this rule a proposal includes any proposals nested
> withing it, or created by it without a further vote.  The Admin will
> have the final say on whether a proposal satisfies (1) or (2); e may
> delegate this decision through the RFJ process.

Who is this "Admin"?

> Should a proposal satisfy (2) above, and be passed, the vote bank will
> give one vote to the player that proposed it. Players are paid in
> proposal number order.
> Should the vote bank reach 0 votes, this rule will repeal itself.
> }}
> Create a new rule titled "Payoff":
> {{
> Each player that voted in favour of the proposal that contains this
> rule shall receive one vote from the vote bank.
> This rule will repeal itself once the transfer of votes detailed in
> the above paragraph has taken place.
> }}

You don't need a rule for this. The proposal can perform arbitrary 
gamestate changes on its own. I'd prefer proposals which avoid 
specifying initial states which immediately become obsolete, mostly to 
keep clutter out of the ruleset.

In any case, I'll be voting AGAINST this, because one vote per nweek is 
too few for now. Try again when things settle down a bit.
spoon-discuss mailing list