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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 6, 2006, at 9:11 AM, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Proposal "The rot sets in":
>
> [[Remember me saying I had an idea so crazy that NO-ONE would vote  
> for it?]]

In fact, it's not all that crazy; we've done things sort of like this  
before. At one point each player had an "Inundatron" (so named  
because of a rule rewarding the use of gibberish words) that was a  
non-negative integer, and each player could cast a vote with a  
numerical value anywhere from -Inundatron to Inundatron; to determine  
whether a proposal passed, you'd sum all the votes and see if it was  
positive. Various subgame events could change your Inundatron (or  
even your votes) - for example, any player in the Dynamic Room  
automatically gained Inundatron 3 but had to vote will full force FOR  
every proposal on the ballot (which made it a valid strategy to try  
to force a prop through by knocking people out and dragging them down  
the stairs to the Dynamic Room).
	We've also had auto-voting entities before, though I can't recall of  
the top of my head what they were called.

My complaints about this proposal are:

> 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".
> }}

Calling the attribute "votes" is confusing, as is the general wording  
of this prop (also evidence for why I don't like the attribute  
system). I would phrase this as "Each player has a voting power,  
which is a non-negative integer that is initially 1."

Later on, though, you instead start to treat this like objects - one  
"vote" is really one unit of the "votes" attribute. If you want do it  
that way, then you should actually create objects, instead of  
blurring the distinction between attributes and possessions.

> Replace in rule 2-2 the paragraph which at the start of n-week 2 read:

If it doesn't read that now, how do we know which paragraph it is?  
For example, if a proposal splits the paragraph into two, which gets  
replaced? Or does this prop simply fail to do anything?

> {{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.

I disagree with hardcoding the text into the rules. We should be able  
to make a script that automatically counts votes without having to  
rewrite the rules.

I would say:
As a Game Action, a Player may submit a Vote on an Open Proposal of  
one of the words FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN, and a nonnegative integer  
called the vote's Strength. The most recent Vote on a Proposal by a  
Player is called that player's Final Vote on that Proposal.

Then you'd replace the bit about tallying votes with something like
A proposal passes if the sum of the strengths of all FOR votes on it  
exceeds the sum of the strengths of all AGAINST votes on it.

> 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.]]

Then this would read "A player may not submit a vote if it would  
cause the sum of the strengths of all eir votes on current Open  
Proposals to exceed eir voting power".

> The most recent voting message submitted will be considered the
> player's final vote.

This has the irritating feature that you have to submit all votes at  
once. As it is right now, you can vote on a few props, then the next  
day vote on the rest; if you did that under your system, the second  
batch of votes would implicitly include ABSTAINs on all the ones you  
did in the first batch.

> }}
>
>
> 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.

For historical reasons, I'd love it if this were named "Bob the  
Voting Fish".

> 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.
>
> (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.

This doesn't add up... if it has, say, 20 votes, this says it will  
cast 20 votes for EVERY proposal that creates a mechanism for  
transferring votes. Which could mean hundreds of votes coming out of  
this machine, and also guarantees the passage of such props.

Also, many props to create more vote transferral mechanisms will get

> 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.
>
> 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 this pass, I will immediately submit X props, where X is three  
times the number of players, each defining some fairly trivial means  
of transferring votes from other players to myself, and each also  
including as a subclause that I Win, and that all other proposals  
that nweek are treated as thought every vote cast on them were AGAINST.

The voting machine will vote FOR all of these with much more power  
than the combined other players can stop, so all will pass, and in  
doing so will negate any other props trying to the same thing.

The voting machine will then give all its votes to me and repeal  
itself, and I will be able to outvote all players on everything, and  
appoint myself Dictator of B Nomic for Eternity (or At Least Until I  
Become Bored).

> 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.

Technically, "in favour" isn't really defined. You'd have to say FOR.  
Also, what stops me from making a dozen proposals also containing  
this rule, so that anyone voting for any of them will reap all the  
kickbacks from all of them, thus killing the vote bank immediately  
and causing a crisis because we can't decide how to allocate the  
small number of vote bank votes amongst the players who all are now  
entitled to dozens of extra votes?

> This rule will repeal itself once the transfer of votes detailed in
> the above paragraph has taken place.
> }}

1. I disapprove of legislative kickbacks and will vote against this  
prop simply because it tries to reward those who vote against it.
2. One vote per player is ridiculously small, and two is not much better
3. The system doesn't work at all without a limit on the number of  
proposals a player can make in an nweek. Otherwise, I'll create props  
giving me the power to change the gamestate at will; I'll create  
about 200 of them, and then seconds before voting ends I'll assign my  
vote to whichever one hasn't been voted against yet.

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