Monday, April 26, 2010

Proposal: Equal Rights for NPCs

Can’t pass with 10 votes against. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 26 Apr 2010 21:33:08 UTC

Enact a new Rule, “Floating Voters”:-

Several NPCs from past Dynasties are eligible to vote in the election, as listed in this rule. An NPC is tracked in the GNDT as if it were a Voter, and each NPC has a Ballot and a Voting Intention (which is not tracked in the GNDT, and which may be “Spoil”, “Meta”, “Undecided” or the name of any Voter). The Ballot of an NPC defaults to blank. Any Voter may change an NPC’s Ballot to its defined Voting Intention, at any time, unless that Intention is “Undecided”.

  • Mortis Maximis: Mortis Maximis’s Voting Intention is the Proposer of the most recent failed Proposal, if that Proposer is a Voter; otherwise their Voting Intention is Undecided.
  • The Demented Baron: If a single Voter is not selected by any Ballot, The Demented Baron’s Voting Intention is that Voter. Otherwise, his Voting Intention is Undecided.
  • Moose: The Moose’s Voting Intention is always “Spoil”.

Two from Ais’s earlier dynasties, and the Moose, to start off with. I’m sure we can think of some others.

Comments

Josh:

04-26-2010 14:06:45 UTC

against I somewhat like the idea, but the Demented Baron will always be useless (unless he participates in a massive three-way tie) and Mortis Maximis could be actively malign (for example, if we see a string of junk proposals pop up on Wednesday morning then we’ll have a pretty clear idea of why). Moose I don’t like chiefly because I don’t fancy another meta.

ais523:

04-26-2010 14:27:14 UTC

against I also like the idea, but as Josh points out, there are problems with those specific intentions. Perhaps we could discuss ideas for them in the comments to this proposal, and try reproposing later?

Thoughts include rewarding for passed proposals (risky in case it politicises the proposals process), for people who meet various requirements, and as game-theoretical plays (e.g. the Mad Prince and Demented Baron each vote for a random player who sides with them, and players can’t side with both).

Klisz:

04-26-2010 14:53:43 UTC

against  per Josh and ais523.

spikebrennan:

04-26-2010 15:00:58 UTC

for
Because weird is always good.

Igthorn:

04-26-2010 16:17:39 UTC

for

dbdougla:

04-26-2010 16:20:05 UTC

The Demented Baron can never change the outcome of the vote if this passes - only a majority of votes from actual Voters, or the tie-breaking vote cast by Mortis Maximus could do so.  against, as soon as I am re-added to the GNDT.

Roujo:

04-26-2010 16:29:37 UTC

against Per ais523

Kevan:

04-26-2010 17:51:29 UTC

[Josh/dbdougla] It’s possible the Mad Baron could change the outcome; NPCs don’t flip back to a blank Ballot if they become Undecided, so the Baron could end up picking an early candidate and making or breaking a tie much later in the game. It’s initially unlikely that he’ll ever find a candidate, but with more NPCs around, it becomes easier for there to be only one Voter with no Ballots.

[Josh] Moose doesn’t vote Meta, he votes Spoil. Or hmm, are you just concerned that this increases the odds of a meta-triggering tie? That does seem an odd effect for a tie, I’ll propose a change.

But yes, Mortis Maximis isn’t a great idea in retrospect.

Josh:

04-26-2010 18:01:10 UTC

@ Kevan - Fair point on the Mad Baron. The Moose thing is based on the fact that, if you repeal the voting rule (which is what Spoil does), we’re effectively in a Metadynasty - sure, there’s an emperor, but no guiding theme or structure.

Put:

04-26-2010 18:12:59 UTC

against

ais523:

04-26-2010 18:18:15 UTC

@Josh: Metas normally do have a theme, though. I imagine I’d try to reintroduce a mechanic similar to the current one if the voting rule got repealed and nobody had any better ideas for how to continue.

Ienpw III:

04-26-2010 19:37:16 UTC

Tossed a coin:  against

SeerPenguin:

04-26-2010 20:05:42 UTC

against Per this proposal sucks

Wakukee:

04-26-2010 20:23:06 UTC

against , Because the point of this dynasty is a simple vote.

Keba:

04-26-2010 20:31:49 UTC

Nice idea, but against per Josh and ais