Thursday, October 01, 2015

Proposal: Accusatory Glance

Times out 1 vote to 3. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 03 Oct 2015 22:12:05 UTC

Increase by 5 the Sentence of each player whose first vote on this proposal was FOR.

Increase by 10 the SHIV Score of each player whose first vote on this proposal was AGAINST.

My first vote is implied to be FOR.

Comments

ais523:

10-01-2015 22:01:41 UTC

I suspect the most sensible way to deal with this is to not vote at all, so as to keep options open. (And/or veto it: I could well understand a policy of vetoing this sort of proposal on sight.)

That said, what’s to stop someone making their preferred vote, then immediately doing a CoV? I doubt this proposal will really work the way you expected it to.

Tantusar:

10-01-2015 22:05:33 UTC

Note: This proposal is super experimental. If it does anything, cool. If it doesn’t, oh well.

Kevan:

10-01-2015 22:15:59 UTC

against Good to see a classic vote-punisher, but surely nobody will actually want this to pass.

ais523:

10-01-2015 22:17:36 UTC

Well, if it passes, it’s got to benefit someone, right? BlogNomic dynasties only have one winner, so inconveniencing yourself is typically an advantage if you can inconvenience everyone else more in the process.

(This is an interesting contrast to Agora, where wins typically don’t reset the rest of the gamestate, and thus where it’s usual to help someone else win in exchange for a bribe that will help you win in the future.)

delcooper11:

10-01-2015 22:44:18 UTC

imperial

In case it does pass, a strict reading of this proposal shouldn’t apply to this vote.

ais523:

10-01-2015 22:46:12 UTC

Oh, clever. That works too.

imperial

ayesdeeef:

10-01-2015 22:52:37 UTC

for

Tantusar:

10-01-2015 23:18:39 UTC

Um, actually…

When the Warden has a valid Vote other than VETO on a Proposal, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL are instead considered to be valid and the same as the Warden’s Vote for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified.
- Rule 1.5.1, Special Proposal Voting, Ruleset

As a result, your first vote is currently against, but if Kevan changed his vote to for, your first vote would technically also become for?

Tantusar:

10-01-2015 23:19:45 UTC

This proposal is strange and amazing in so many ways.

ais523:

10-01-2015 23:24:41 UTC

“For the purpose of other rules”. Your proposal isn’t a rule.

Tantusar:

10-01-2015 23:26:45 UTC

Ah, but the enactment of proposals is.

Kevan:

10-02-2015 12:11:38 UTC

Hmm. I’d say it stays in the purview of the proposal. The rule is “apply the effects of proposal X” and the proposal is “give 10 SHIV to anyone’s whose first vote is AGAINST”. “Give 10 SHIV to someone who voted DEF” is not an effect of the proposal.