Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Proposal: Even Delegated Voting needs Proposal Power

s/k - failed. - lilomar

Adminned at 06 Aug 2010 14:14:13 UTC

Enact a ULTRAVIOLET Rule entitled “Do you trust me?”:

For the purpose of this dynasty, the second-last paragraph of Rule 1.4 entitled “Voting” has no effect.

Any Citizen has a Delegation, which is tracked in the GNDT and defaults to “lilomar”. A Citizens Delegation may be either the name of any Citizen who has a higher Clearance Level than said Citizen or “-”, which means no Delegation. If a Citizen‘s Delegation does not fulfil these requirements, it‘s invalid and any Citizen may set by any Citizen to “-”. As a Weekly Action, any Citizen may change their Delegation.

A Citizen‘s Delegator is determined recursively: Generally, it is the Citizen named in said Citizen‘s Delegation, if the Delegation is neither blank nor invalid and else none. If a Citizen‘s Delegator has a Delegator (known as the superior Delegator), too, both Citizen‘s Delegator is the superior Delegator. All Citizen, which Delegator cannot be determined (because of an infinitive loop), does not have a Delegator.

For the purpose of all other Rules, a vote of DEFERENTIAL (used in a Proposal by any Citizen) a Vote of DEFERENTIAL is a Vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of said Citizen‘s Delegator. The Vote will count as the same as this Delegator’s Vote. If said Delegator casts a Vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, it serves the purpose of cancelling any previous Vote on said Delegator that was cast by said Delegator and counts as an explicit Vote of abstention. If said Citizen does not have a Delegator or the DEFERENTIAL Vote is made by the proposal’s author on their own proposal and the author‘s Delegator does not Vote on it, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention, and has no effect except possibly to void earlier voting icons by that voter on that proposal.

Add a new GNDT field entitled “Delegation” and set the Delegation of all Citizen except lilomar to “lilomar” and sets lilomar‘s Delegation to “-”.

If at least half of the EVCs of this Proposal contain the phrase “DYNASTIC ONLY” replace in the rule entitled “Do you trust me?”  “For the purpose of this dynasty, the second-last paragraph of Rule 1.4 entitled “Voting” has no effect.” with:

For the purpose of all dynastic Rules, the second-last paragraph of Rule 1.4 entitled “Voting” has no effect.

Additionally replace (in said Rule) “For the purpose of all other Rules” with:

For the purpose of all other dynastic Rules

To understand the general idea, have a look at this image taken from wikimedia and used in the English wikipedia explaining the principle of Delegated Voting. Copied “some” phrases from Rule 1.4 to avoid lots of loopholes.

The restriction of changing the delegation weekly is made to restrict the chaos. Besides, note that if no Citizen changes his delegation, it‘s the same as it is now.

If there is interest, I would also vote for more complex delegation systems like seperate delegations for Core Rule Proposals and non-Core Rule Proposals. Besides, I would vote for a delegation system in the Core Rules, but I‘m not convinced the majority agrees to that… Well, a delegation system fits perfectly in this theme. Citizens which higher Clearance Level should have more power.

I could write a script that would count the votes for the enacting admin (and inquisitive Citizens). I have written both a script which parses the GNDT and another one which parses Proposals. I could combine them easily. In a few days I will (hopefully) own a vServer again, blognomicbot could use that script then. Additionally, someone who knows to write JavaScript (an ugly language, in my opinion) could write a Graesemonkey script.

 

Reproposing with Proposal Power… Old flavour text:

To understand the general idea, have a look at this image taken from wikimedia and used in the English wikipedia explaining the principle of Delegated Voting. Copied “some” phrases from Rule 1.4 to avoid lots of loopholes.

The restriction of changing the delegation weekly is made to restrict the chaos. Besides, note that if no Citizen changes his delegation, it‘s the same as it is now.

If there is interest, I would also vote for more complex delegation systems like seperate delegations for Core Rule Proposals and non-Core Rule Proposals. Besides, I would vote for a delegation system in the Core Rules, but I‘m not convinced the majority agrees to that… Well, a delegation system fits perfectly in this theme. Citizens which higher Clearance Level should have more power.

I could write a script that would count the votes for the enacting admin (and inquisitive Citizens). I have written both a script which parses the GNDT and another one which parses Proposals. I could combine them easily. In a few days I will (hopefully) own a vServer again, blognomicbot could use that script then. Additionally, someone who knows to write JavaScript (an ugly language, in my opinion) could write a Graesemonkey script.

Comments

scshunt:

08-04-2010 23:13:48 UTC

imperial (ironic)

Keba:

08-04-2010 23:26:52 UTC

I am too tired to propose something. For some reason, and I don‘t know why, a C&P mistake I assume, the flavour text is there twice. Fortunately, there are lots of “if"s and “could"s in there, so it won‘t be a big problem…

Qwazukee:

08-04-2010 23:42:33 UTC

against We’ve done something like this before, I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea… but I don’t want to be required by this Proposal to click that link. :p

Ienpw III:

08-04-2010 23:55:37 UTC

against Qwaz - the non-flavour flavour has no link to look at.

Too complex.

Darknight:

08-05-2010 00:11:22 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

08-05-2010 00:25:52 UTC

Yes, that makes it even more difficult to view the image!

Kevan:

08-05-2010 07:41:27 UTC

against

Keba:

08-05-2010 09:08:41 UTC

Do you vote against, because of the flavour text fail, or because you don’t like the idea generally?

Purplebeard:

08-05-2010 11:58:03 UTC

against

lilomar:

08-05-2010 14:07:16 UTC

against Due to flavor-text issues. Also, I don’t like the use of weekly action.
Also, I know it’s optional, but I don’t think

For the purpose of all dynastic Rules, the second-last paragraph of Rule 1.4 entitled “Voting” has no effect.

does what you think it does. Rules don’t usually refer to the voting mechanics. I think what you wanted was “Dynastic Proposal” which is not well-defined currently (or even defined, really).

Keba:

08-05-2010 21:59:28 UTC

S/K against per lilomar. I‘ll propose a fixed version later.

Princerepulsive:

08-06-2010 12:17:11 UTC

against Also, I’m surprised no one else has realized that this is TREASON!