Sunday, April 01, 2007

Proposal: Complexity, second take

Quorumed: 6-3
Proposer: 21
Voters (Seebo, Amnistar, Clucky, Woofy, Cosmologican, Tiberias, Chronos, Hix) - 9
DNA Pool & Non-Voters: 4

Adminned at 02 Apr 2007 14:19:30 UTC

Add a new Rule titled “Lifeform Complexity” with the following text:

Each Lifeform has a value called “Complexity”, which is tracked in the GNDT.  A new Lifeform begins with Complexity equal to:
*C - 1, where C is the Complexity of the active Lifeform with the lowest Complexity, or
*1
whichever is greater.  A Lifeform may not take any action that would raise any of eir Evolutionary Variables to a value greater than eir Complexity, nor reduce eir Complexity to a value less than any of the values of eir Evolutionary Variables.  For each Proposal that is not a Trivial Proposal that is Passed, if a Lifeform’s counted vote on that Proposal had the effect of a FOR vote, e may, within 48 hours of the Proposal Passing, increase eir Complexity by 1.

Unless at least half of all counted votes are accompanied by the text “No Dice”, add the following text at the end of the rule Lifeform Complexity.

Lifeforms not having a counted vote of FOR for the Proposal may instead, within 48 hours of the Proposal passing, roll DICEX once in the GNDT.  On a result of a 1 from this roll, the Lifeform making the roll may increase eir Complexity by 1 once.

The first instance of the text “DICEY”, where Y is a number, in each comment with a counted Vote will be construed as one count for DICEY.  Replace DICEX above with the DICEY that receives the most counts, as long as that DICEY has received at least 3 counts.  If there are multiple DICEY’s that are tied for the most counts, the Admin resolving the proposal may choose one of the DICEY receiving the most counts to replace the DICEX.  If there is no suitable DICEY, replace DICEX with DICE3.

Initialize all Lifeforms’ Complexity to 1.


A bit of a fire drill, but compatible with Less Burden.  Clucky, if this still doesn’t meet your criteria, I’d be interested in knowing what could be changed.  I still think that this would allow a desirable trade-off to occur.

Comments

Cosmologicon:

01-04-2007 23:59:47 UTC

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

DICE1

Clucky: he/him

02-04-2007 00:02:05 UTC

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.

  against

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

Seebo:

02-04-2007 00:02:36 UTC

for 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)

Clucky: he/him

02-04-2007 00:03:01 UTC

DICE1

Good idea Cosmologicon. Just incase, I guess =P

Seebo:

02-04-2007 00:07:03 UTC

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. >_<

Clucky: he/him

02-04-2007 00:12:05 UTC

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.

Amnistar: he/him

02-04-2007 01:33:53 UTC

for Because I agree with Seebo.  Also, no Dice.

Axeling:

02-04-2007 07:42:35 UTC

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.

Woofy:

02-04-2007 09:36:56 UTC

for No dice though, it’s a good idea.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-04-2007 11:37:06 UTC

for No dice

Tiberias:

02-04-2007 15:25:55 UTC

for No dice, DICE2

Hix:

02-04-2007 15:33:19 UTC

against 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.

Seebo:

02-04-2007 17:44:55 UTC

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.

Seebo:

02-04-2007 17:45:11 UTC

*CfJ

Axeling:

02-04-2007 18:36:38 UTC

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.