Re: [s-d] [s-b] Codae's Refresh Proposal

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

On Nov 29, 2007 3:35 PM, Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Still another revision (by the way, I want some feedback!):
> As a Game Action with 2 Support, the Oracle or the Chairman may declare an
> Impromptu Voting Period for a Pending Oracularity.  This Impromptu Voting
> Period begins once the second Player to pledge his Support for this Game
> Action does so, and ends immediately after one of the following things
> happens:
>
> Three ndays have passed since the beginning of the Impromptu Voting
> Period.
> At least half of the Active Registered Voters have voted on the
> Oracularity.
>
> A Player may not Give his Allegiance to a Faction during the Impromptu
> Voting Period if he has voted on the relevant Oracularity.
>
> At the beginning of the Impromptu Voting Period, the Oracularity becomes
> Open.  No other Proposals are affected by the beginning of the Impromptu
> Voting Period, although other Oracularities may be affected by their own
> Impromptu Voting Periods.
>
> At the end of the Impromptu Voting Period:
>
> If five or more Players have voted on the Oracularity, and the AGAINST
> Vote Power is greater than the FOR Vote Power, the Status of the Oracularity
> is set to Historical and its Success State to Lost.
> If five or more Players have voted on the Oracularity, and the AGAINST
> Vote Power is not greater than the FOR Vote Power, the Status of the
> Oracularity is set to Historical and its Success State to Won.
> If fewer than five Players have voted on the Oracularity, the Oracularity
> continues to be Pending.  Another Impromptu Voting Period may not be
> declared for this Oracularity.
>

OK I have a few problems with this part's implementation, notwithstanding
whether the whole thing is really relevant or not (see Wooble's post).

I can see that you want this to be speedy, but I really don't like the idea
that the voting period may end abruptly when half the active players have
voted. This would create some sort of rush where people would be trying to
pre-empt other players' votes.

Along with the fact that the oracularity passes if vote power FOR and
AGAINST are tied (while in the current ruleset proposals fail in the event
of a tie, which imo is better), this creates the possibility for VERY easy
abuse.

A conspiracy of the Oracle and 2 other players - that's just 3 in all -
could ram through any oracularity they want, if there are 12 active players
which is a reasonable number. Imagine this scenario:

Priest puts forth an Oracularity. Oracle and his accomplices coordinate
their actions so that Oracle proposes impromptu voting, immediately obtains
two support, and then all three players vote for. This leaves 3 voting slots
open before the impromptu period ends (UNLESS other players can coax some
inactives from coming out of hiding) and a maximum of 3 against votes can
happen. Tie: oracularity passes.

So yes. I think the part about oracularities (which I also like for being
careful about dependencies and faction voting and such) could do without
that tie clause and the shortened voting.

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