Friday, July 30, 2010

Proposal: Fixing Imperial DEF and EVC

Times out at 10-4. Enacting. - lilomar

Adminned at 02 Aug 2010 04:16:15 UTC

In Rule 1.4 Voting, change the text:

If the High-Programmer casts a Vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, it serves the purpose of cancelling any previous Vote on that Proposal that was cast by the High-Programmer.

to:

If the High-Programmer casts a Vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, it serves the purpose of cancelling any previous Vote on that Proposal that was cast by the High-Programmer and counts as an explicit vote of abstention.

and the text:

If there is no High-Programmer, or the vote is made by the proposal’s author on his own proposal

to:

If there is no High-Programmer, or the vote is made by the proposal’s author on his own proposal and the High-Programmer does not vote on it

In the Glossary, change the definition of Effective Vote Comment from:

A Citizen’s Effective Vote Comment with respect to a given Proposal means that Citizen’s Comment to that Proposal (if any) that contains that Citizen’s Vote on the Proposal that is given effect in accordance with Rule 1.4 when the Proposal is Resolved.

to:

A Citizen’s Effective Vote Comment with respect to a given Proposal means that Citizen’s Comment to that Proposal (if any) that contains that Citizen’s Vote on the Proposal that is given effect in accordance with Rule 1.4 when the Proposal is Resolved, not including explicit votes of abstention.

 

These changes, when combined, correct the “infinite loop” problem that occurs when the High-Programmer votes DEF and other Citizens vote DEF as was discovered in the Proposal “Nothing arbitrary about this.”

Comments

spikebrennan:

07-30-2010 21:33:20 UTC

for

Keba:

07-30-2010 21:36:05 UTC

imperial

lilomar:

07-30-2010 21:47:58 UTC

Sooooo tempted to vote imperial ...

for

Qwazukee:

07-30-2010 22:45:49 UTC

@lilomar: I loled

scshunt:

07-30-2010 23:44:31 UTC

for

glopso:

07-31-2010 01:14:09 UTC

for

Darknight:

07-31-2010 03:00:21 UTC

for

Put:

07-31-2010 10:16:50 UTC

imperial

Bucky:

07-31-2010 16:38:43 UTC

for

ais523:

07-31-2010 20:47:56 UTC

against per the second change. This was changed the other way for good reason: it means that if someone DEFERENTIALs on their own proposal, then if the High-Programmer votes AGAINST the proposal becomes self-killed, which makes no sense. I also don’t see how it helps achieve the desired goal.

Qwazukee:

07-31-2010 22:35:19 UTC

It actually DOES make sense: Voting DEF on your own Proposal means you are putting full faith in the High-Programmer, which includes the possibility of Self-Killing.

ais523:

07-31-2010 22:58:38 UTC

@Qwazukee: It caused a huge storm when I s/ked someone else’s proposal during one of my dynasties (my first?), and the rule was changed for that reason.

Qwazukee:

07-31-2010 23:09:46 UTC

I only have a vague recollection of that incident, but it’s not a serious problem. If you don’t want someone self-killing your Proposal, don’t vote Def on it!

lilomar:

08-01-2010 01:13:46 UTC

@ais523: I agree with Qwaz, why would you vote DEF if you didn’t want to go with the High-Programmers vote?

Galdyn:

08-01-2010 02:34:29 UTC

for

ais523:

08-01-2010 04:10:56 UTC

@lilomar: To abstain on your own proposal. Voting DEF does not go along with the High-Programmer’s vote on your own proposal with this change; it goes along with a FOR vote, but causes an AGAINST vote to kill the proposal altogether.

lilomar:

08-01-2010 04:32:56 UTC

If you are that wishy-washy about the proposal, you should have thought twice about proposing it. I can see the argument for letting someone vote abstain, or even against their own cfj or dov, but not a proposal.

ais523:

08-01-2010 04:50:34 UTC

@lilomar: It’s been done when people fix each other’s proposals, IIRC.

Kevan:

08-01-2010 07:40:44 UTC

against Per Ais, and per the past quorum who voted for that particular change. It doesn’t seem that good to put the Emperor in a situation where they can’t vote against something without killing the proposal.

Wakukee:

08-01-2010 08:06:17 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

08-01-2010 09:13:11 UTC

It’s your own Proposal. If you Propose something, you should either be willing to support it or you should Self-Kill it. Don’t Propose things that you think are so questionable that even you do not necessarily support them.

Purplebeard:

08-01-2010 09:37:07 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

08-01-2010 09:46:36 UTC

Let me point out a flaw in this system. If I voted DEF on this Proposal and Keba also voted DEF, we would have the same votes but they would mean completely different things. Does no one see a problem with this?

If the ability to explicitly abstain from something is so important, we should make another Voting Icon to represent that and add an appropriate clause to the Voting rule.

lilomar:

08-01-2010 18:23:52 UTC

I agree with Citizen Qwazukee-R, DEF means defer to the High-Programmer. No reason to overload it with so many other meanings in special circumstances.

In addition, adding an ABSTAIN vote would allow for canceling past votes by anyone, not just the High-Programmer and proposal author, which is a possibility that does not currently exist. If we want to allow explicit abstinence in those cases, why not for everyone?

Also, my 2c is that the open.gif icon would do well for an ABSTAIN voting icon. (both the current and the default ones)

lilomar:

08-01-2010 18:24:31 UTC

2c == 2 credits, btw.

Kevan:

08-01-2010 21:16:24 UTC

[Qwazukee] As Ais says, it’s been used before when proposing something on behalf of someone else; you may wish to help out a slot-lacking player by reproposing a fixed version of something, even if you didn’t have any strong opinions on it. We can fix the problem in a way that still allows the proposer to vote DEF if they want to.

And I may be misjudging common usage, but I think DEF is used in practice to mean both “the Emperor should decide this, perhaps because it has a clause that would require extra work from him, perhaps because I the voter am unsure how whether this fits his dynasty” and “I am not sure, but rather than slowing the queue by not voting, I will let the trusted Emperor decide on my behalf”. Which seems fine - a FOR vote can mean dozens of things, including “I have studied this and it is a useful addition to the ruleset”, “haven’t got time to read this but most people seem to be voting FOR”, “Bucky told me on IRC to vote for this”, “ha, this flavour text is hilarious” and everything else.

Qwazukee:

08-01-2010 21:23:45 UTC

If someone else doesn’t have enough slots to Propose something, but it has enough support to pass, one of the people who actually does support (which is theoretically more than half the population of Blognomic) will propose it. It doesn’t require someone who does not support it to get involved.

And while FOR, DEF, and AGAINST can all have different impetuses, for the purpose of counting votes they should mean the same thing (aka a DEF is a DEF is a DEF). It just doesn’t make sense to have one DEF be a FOR vote and one DEF be no vote at all.