BlogNomic: The Ninth Dynasty of ais523

I don’t think we need an abstention system, or to explain the icons in the Core Ruleset as well as the Glossary.

Also you seem to have accidentally thrown out the proposer’s vote being inferred to be “FOR”.

Kevan - In the last dynasty there were a few occasions when travellers expressed a desire to undo a vote, to take it back and be left with no vote at all.  However, there’s no way to do that at the moment.  This proposial introduces a mechanism to do so.  Rather neatly, it doesn’t require any other rules to actually talk about ABSTAINing in order for it to work.

In general, I think the whole glossary thing is a little vague.  However, you’re right that I should have repealed the relevant bits of the glossary at the same time.  You’re also right that I accidentally dropped the proposer’s inferred FOR.

However, I think that neither of these things are desperately bad and I’ll fix them in another proposal if this passes.  If, nonetheless, you vote against this proposal because of the two mistakes, please could you indicate whether you’d vote for it if I re-proposed with corrections.

Ta.

Eh, feeling strongly enough to regret your vote but not strongly enough to change it to the opposite seems a bit wishy-washy. I’m generally against abstention in Nomics, simply because it slows the game down.

Not that it matters at this particular time. ;)

I’d vote for it if abstentions were counted off the quorum. Just now, we have 3-6 votes, with 7 “abstention” non-voters. May be some of those 7 would be happy to mark this as a explicity abstention vote and be counted off the quorum.

I’d prefer to try that mechanic for a game, and then see if it has enough utility to put it in the core rules.