Peter Cooper Jr. on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:04:10 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] Proposal: Make votes into attributes

Daniel Lepage wrote:
> On 7/16/07, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This removes the distinction between ABSTAIN and not voting, clarifies
>> what submitting a vote means, stops us from needing to call it a "Final
>> Vote" everywhere, and just generally uses our attribute system more.
> I disagree with removing the distinction between ABSTAIN and not
> voting. ABSTAIN means "I don't care one way or the other about this
> proposal", and not voting means "I'm not here". We used to give people
> small point incentives to vote (do we still do that?); we shouldn't
> encourage people to vote FOR/AGAINST props they don't care about just
> to get points.

All the points-for-voting incentives that I remember, including what we
have now, only rewards non-ABSTAIN votes. The idea I had when I originally
proposed scoring in the Second Era (and I don't even recall any debate on
it) was that I'd rather people take the time to have an opinion on
something than to just vote ABSTAIN on everything just to get points
without needing to pay attention to the game.

>> For each proposal, there is a corresponding Vote attribute, with a scope
>> of all Registered Voters, a range of the values {FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN},
>> and a default value of ABSTAIN.
> Doesn't this immediately give us all several thousand attributes
> immediately? And isn't somebody required to display all attributes of
> all players on a public display?

That is an interesting point. Handling historical data could probably be
done better. But I think that we do want recorded somewhere what the votes
are, at least at the end. If we had nice software for players to submit
their votes and tallied it all for us, then having an up-to-date display
of all votes would be wonderful. But it is something I'll revise for now.

> Also, I don't understand the advantage of Attributes. How is "There is
> an Attribute Vote Power with a Scope of Registered Voters, a Range of
> the nonnegative integers, and a Default Value of 0." better than
> "Every Registered Voter has a nonnegative integer called Vote Power,
> which is initially 0"? The first seems equivalent but harder to read.

One thing about Attributes is that it clearly establishes when instances
of attributes get created and destroyed, and the setting of default
values. That's about it, though. Since they passed when they were proposed
though, I figured that we (collectively, as a game) wanted to use them. If
you want to prop to get rid of Attributes, I think I'd be okay with that.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list