shadowfirebird on Wed, 6 Dec 2006 07:56:39 -0700 (MST)

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

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

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

No, you count the numbers, and you don't put a number against ABSTAIN.
So you only have n votes, but you can abstain as many times as you
like.  Conversely you can spend all n votes on one proposal...
Do you think I need to make that clearer?

> Who is this "Admin"?

Bugger.  Sorry.

> > (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...

Well, of course.  Just raises the bar a tad, really.  And hopefully
makes the Vote Bank look a bit more like the bad guy...

> 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.

> 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.

Oh!  You know, that was an objection I had not considered?  How many
votes do you think we should start off with, then?  If I can get one
vote for this crazy thing just by changing that, I certainly will...!

> > Create a new rule titled "Payoff":

>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.

Hadn't thought of that.  Actually I thought that by making the rule
self-destruct I was keeping the ruleset *tidy*.  ::sigh::

Let me know how many votes you think we should get at the start and
I'll submit an update....

spoon-discuss mailing list