Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Vested Interests

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hose's first objection is killer. I can't find any way around it. I withdraw
Proposal 175.

Billy Pilgrim

On Nov 9, 2007 10:49 AM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> You make some good points about the paper trail. I hadn't thought of that.
> I definitely need to find some workaround if this proposal is to work. As
> for vacating the ministry at the end of the week, that is true, but I'm sure
> I can rework that phrase to say the former minister or something.
>
> As for being unfair, it certainly can be. Perhaps the points are a bit
> much. But this kind of rule would just force the apologist and devil's
> advocate to work that much harder at pushing certain viewpoints.
>
> Taking these into account I'll think about the idea and will surely
> resubmit something. I will also be including a provision I forgot to enter
> in the original, that says each of these two players is scored on proposals
> except for his own. Not a huge problem for the Apologist, but the Devil's
> Advocate could otherwise attempt to submit a large number of outlandish
> proposals which would fail with a strength lower than -3 (break even point
> considering failed proposals lose 3 points), thought that tactic could of
> course backfire if the other players coordinate their voting accordingly
> (just to ensure it fails by one vote, for example).
>
> As for the Karma System you propose, I don't really think it's the way to
> go because it induces conformity (maybe nominally only - last minute vote
> switching - but probably also some players just following the current). I
> prefer the idea of Dissent being Patriotic, though my conception of dissent
> would simply be going against whatever option - for or against - won, rather
> than simply being against everything as in the current proposal. That said
> that one can also lead to some last minute switching so I'd be hesitant to
> implement it even then.
>
> Billy Pilgrim
>
> On 11/9/07, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting concept, but I don't think it would work.
> >
> > While notification via Private Forum would be required to make this
> > work, it
> > doesn't provide any kind of paper trail to validate game state if it is
> > contested. A Player named either the Apologist or Devil's Advocate who
> > loses
> > a lot of points in a given nweek could contest that they never received
> > their notification by Private Forum.
> >
> > The Minister of Change is supposed to reveal the identities at the end
> > of
> > the nweek, but all Ministries also vacate at the end of the nweek. Not
> > sure
> > what would happen there.
> >
> > The Apologist and Devil's Advocate have no control over what proposals
> > are
> > submitted. If the nweek contains a lot of popular proposals, the Devil's
> > Advocate would be at a huge disadvantage. If the nweek contains a lot of
> >
> > unpopular proposals, the Apologist would be at a huge disadvantage. The
> > scoring is also a little to severe--one point instead of Strength would
> > be
> > better but would still be unfair.
> >
> > I was thinking about a Karma system where you get a point if you vote
> > "the
> > correct" way--getting a point if you voted FOR a proposal that passed
> > and a
> > point if you voted AGAINST a proposal that failed. The problem with that
> > is
> > everyone could change their vote at the last minute to go the "correct
> > way".
> >
> > - Hose
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2007 1:13 AM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > As a Game Action, I submit the following Proposal:
> > > {
> > >
> > > In Rule 2-2 (Proposals), under the heading "The Ministry of Change",
> > add a
> > > new paragraph that reads:
> > > {
> > > At the beginning of an nweek, the Minister of Change is responsible
> > for
> > > naming one Active Player the Apologist, naming a different Active
> > Player
> > > the
> > > Devil's Advocate, and notifying each of them of their role via a
> > Private
> > > Forum. At the end of an nweek, the Minister of Change must announce
> > the
> > > identity of the Apologist and of the Devil's Advocate via a Public
> > Forum.
> > > }
> > >
> > > Add 2 bullet points to the bottom of Rule 2-6 (Scoring), that read:
> > > {
> > > * If the Proposal was ever Won, the Apologist gains and the Devil's
> > > Advocate
> > > loses a number of points equal to the Proposal's Strength.
> > > * If the Proposal was never Won, the Devil's Advocate gains and the
> > > Apologist loses a number of points equal to the Proposal's Strength.
> > > }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > >
> > > Billy Pilgrim
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > spoon-business mailing list
> > > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss