Thursday, May 29, 2025

Call for Judgment: Ballots are for Plans, not Drafters

For all edits to the gamestate tracking page for all Drafter’s Ballots from the beginning of this dynasty to this enactment, treat each allocation of a whole number to a named Drafter as an allocation of that same whole number to that Drafter’s Plan.

In the rule “Ranked Choice”, insert the following as the second paragraph:

For each Drafter’s Ballot, the allocation of a whole number to a Plan may be represented in gamestate tracking as an allocation of that same whole number to the name of the Drafter who authored that Plan.

We’ve been using Drafter names in Ballots this whole time, and one could argue that all of the Ballot edits submitted since the beginning were invalid, because they were allocated per Drafter name rather than per Plan name as spelled out by the rule text.

Rather than redo the gamestate tracking page and force everyone to redo their Ballots, let’s just make this interchangeable.

This may seem trivial, but I don’t want ais to get to the point of performing the Instant Runoff and then suddenly not be able to execute the steps because the gamestate doesn’t show the allocation of whole numbers to Plans.

Comments

Josh: he/they

29-05-2025 16:10:27 UTC

I think that, at worst, this is a gamestate tracking issue that can be fixed by simply correcting the source.

Josh: he/they

29-05-2025 16:37:59 UTC

for I suppose, out of an abundance of caution.

Kevan: he/him

29-05-2025 16:50:47 UTC

I’d agree that it just seems like a tracking issue. We’ve been asked to “allocate each whole number [...] to a single Plan”, and writing “JonathanDark = 1” is an unambiguous way to say “I rate JonathanDark’s current Plan a 1”. There’s nothing else it can mean.

It’s a less clear statement if a player changes their Plan Link to something else (do the numbers refer to that player’s earlier or current Plan?), but I think the numbers just fall off of the Ballots in that case, since the old Draft will stop being a Plan. And this hasn’t happened yet, that I’ve noticed.

for as this does no harm.

Darknight: he/him

29-05-2025 21:22:34 UTC

for

ais523: Supervisor

29-05-2025 21:31:13 UTC

for If someone thinks there may be an issue, and the fix doesn’t hurt anything, vote FOR the fix.

What we have at the moment is probably a reasonable abbreviation, but I don’t see any harm in being clear.

DoomedIdeas: he/him

29-05-2025 23:38:51 UTC

for

You must be logged in as a player to post comments.