I don’t like rules that encourage strategic voting. Also, this is a strategic vote!

DICE1

I still am very much against a reward for a FOR vote. A lifeform should never have to vote FOR a proposal e is against simply because e will receive a reward that way.

Ideas for a fix: Each time a proposal passes, roll a DICEN where N is the number of lifeforms who voted on the proposal. And give a complexity boost to the lucky lifeform. That probably doesn’t give enough, but its a way of doing it so that it isn’t unbalanced towards the FORs.

Maybe you could actually give complexity boosts to AGAINST votes. That would make this dynasty really big on getting proposals that pass, but only be the skin of eir teeth =P

I like it better… I would vote for almost anything at this point that would give incentive to vote FOR proposals >_<

As an example of why I want said rules passed, observe the following text that I’m tacking on the very end of my comment just in case:
(Trivial)

DICE1

Good idea Cosmologicon. Just incase, I guess =P

Clucky: You said:
“I still am very much against a reward for a FOR vote. A lifeform should never have to vote FOR a proposal e is against simply because e will receive a reward that way.”

But right now, there is NO REASON why anyone should EVER pass a non-trivial proposal. The only way anything will ever get passed is by making it trivial. If anyone proposes something non-trivial, even if it deserves it, it’s going to get voted down (and then probably reposted as trivial). See all of the above votes as evidence! This would provide JUST ENOUGH incentive to make proposals have the possibility of passing. >_<

I disagree. I am still FOR passing non-trivial proposals. The better way to provide a fix would be to simply make trivial proposals give nothing at all.

Because I agree with Seebo.  Also, no Dice.

The problem is that the way the Rules are set up now, if a proposal looks like it will pass, it makes no sense to vote for it (and indeed, there’s a net benefit for voting against it).  Essentially, it is a reward to voting against, even if the lifeform is for the proposal (which, I grant, is probably a bit better than a bias for FOR, but I think it’s still undesirable).  I think this proposal just creates a balance, so a Lifeform can more easily vote eir true opinion, as long as we don’t make Complexity points too valuable (and I don’t think they will be).

My previous proposal also had a similar incentive for against votes, though there were some complaints about that.  I do think that that would be a good idea, and could reintroduce that incentive in another proposal if this passes, or would probably vote for something with similar effect.

No dice though, it’s a good idea.

No dice

No dice, DICE2

No Dice.
DICE2

Infinite Complexity gains would be possible from a single proposal.

Clucky:  You say that “A lifeform should never have to vote FOR a proposal e is against”, but you’re okay with a lifeform having to vote AGAINST a proposal e is for?  Anyway, can we get a VETO or s/k?  This Proposal scares me.

Hix: that is questionable…. although, I would probably just let this pass and make a CfV to fix it (and retroactively any possible abuses of it) immediately after.

*CfJ

Yeah, I was wondering if anyone would interpret it like that.  It depends on how one reads it (whether the for each part applies to “may” or the “by 1”).  I think the “by 1” interpretation is valid as it is currently used in the Ruleset (c.f. definitions of often, occasionally).

I’m willing to self-kill this if the ambiguity is determined to be too great.  I do think Seebo’s idea of a CfJ would probably be sufficient to tie up any loose ends, though.