Saturday, October 17, 2009

Proposal: Buying Votes, Reredux

Timed out and failed, 8-4. Minus 2 Excalapoints.

Adminned at 19 Oct 2009 06:17:34 UTC

Create a new dynastic rule, entitled “Buying Votes”, with the text

Players may buy additional rules on a proposal, according to the details given in this rule’s sub-rules, by making a comment to the proposal containing a vote icon and text explicitly invoking the rule under which the votes were bought.  When votes have been so bought on a pending proposal, quorum shall be calculated by adding the number of votes so bought to the number of active Players, dividing by two, rounding down and adding one. No proposal shall be enacted if votes have been bought thereupon for 24 hours after its posting.

The subrules of this rule are always overridden by the text of this rule, that is, the restrictions and instructions given above shall apply whenever a player buys a vote according to one of this rule’s subrules.

As a sub-rule to “Buying votes”, add a subrule, entitled “Two For Votes [7 Points]”, with the text

Twice per proposal, a Player may buy an additional vote FOR the proposal.

As a sub-rule to “Buying votes”, add a subrule, entitled “Three Against Votes [5 Points]”, with the text

Thrice per proposal, a Player may buy an additional vote AGAINST the proposal.

As a sub-rule to “Buying votes”, add a subrule, entitled “Bought Veto [30 Points]”, with the text

As a daily action, a Player may buy veto for a proposal, with the same effect as if they were the leader.

Does this work yet?

Also, I need a better way to say ‘this rule’s subrules’, seeing as I seem to say it all the time.

Comments

Excalabur:

10-17-2009 13:15:39 UTC

Jeez, that looks much longer in fully rendered form than it did in the raw HTML. 
for (EAV)

Ienpw III:

10-17-2009 14:34:54 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

10-17-2009 14:57:44 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

10-17-2009 15:35:26 UTC

for
Sounds interesting. Don’t know what the 24 hour reference means, though- can you prevent or delay a proposal’s enactment by buying a For vote?

Excalabur:

10-17-2009 16:04:33 UTC

Delay.  The aim is to avoid a smallish cabal getting together and quoruming something up with only three people.  24 hours is long enough that everyone in the game can look at it once, and express their opinion (even via spending Points on a veto, if they feel that strongly).

Klisz:

10-17-2009 17:52:17 UTC

imperial

Oze:

10-17-2009 18:12:48 UTC

for

Bucky:

10-17-2009 20:04:34 UTC

As I read it, “No proposal shall be enacted if votes have been bought thereupon for 24 hours after its posting” means that if anyone buys votes on a proposal during its first 24 hours pending, the proposal can’t ever be enacted.  Therefore,  against

Ienpw III:

10-17-2009 20:43:11 UTC

Ahh, misplaced modifiers.

Darknight:

10-17-2009 21:50:40 UTC

against Per Bucky

Excalabur:

10-18-2009 01:35:02 UTC

What?  that’s not what that sentence means at all!  “for 24 hours after its posting” is subordinate to the entire first half of the sentence.

No proposal shall be enatcted (if votes have been bought thereupon) for 24 hours after its posting. 

Is how it was intended to parse, and is a perfectly valid interpretation of the sentence.  As its the way that makes the game NOT BREAK, how about we use that one?  (also, the other one can’t make someone win, so if someone wants to argue that the game should break we can have a CfJ…)

Ienpw III:

10-18-2009 02:04:55 UTC

No proposal [singular] shall be enatcted (if votes [plural] have been bought thereupon) for 24 hours after its [singular] posting.

I can only conclude that the singular pronoun refers to the singular noun. against

arthexis:

10-18-2009 04:40:03 UTC

against

Bucky:

10-18-2009 06:08:01 UTC

On further reflection, even without the wording issue, this proposal would probably slow the game down quite a bit, so I would still be AGIANST.

Kevan:

10-18-2009 10:38:14 UTC

against Per odd sentence and game-slowing. Just the veto would be good, though.

Josh:

10-18-2009 13:35:12 UTC

against

Excalabur:

10-18-2009 14:16:38 UTC

Yeah, i may go for the /fourth/ round of this proposal with just hte framework and hte veto and let people figure it out from there. 

I really like this idea, but I can’t seem to make it work.

arthexis:

10-18-2009 23:59:52 UTC

Yes, the framework seems fine, but just skip the 24 hour part. Perhaps instead, Players are require to purchase votes only in the first 24 hours of that proposal?

Excalabur:

10-19-2009 02:43:51 UTC

Doesn’t help: the problem is people runnign stuff through the queue before other people can see it.  I’d actually put it in the other way, then. 

I’ll likely re-prop the framework and the veto and make other people add other sub-rules.

ais523:

10-19-2009 07:53:23 UTC

against