Saturday, July 08, 2017

Proposal: [Core] Multi-leader Voting

Reaches quorum 7-0. Enacted by pokes.

Adminned at 09 Jul 2017 11:23:50 UTC

In “Proposals”, replace

The Expedition Leader may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a proposal; when the Expedition Leader casts a vote of VETO on a Proposal, this renders the Proposal Vetoed, even if the Expedition Leader later changes their Vote.

with

Any Expedition Leader may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a proposal; when an Expedition Leader casts a vote of VETO on a Proposal, this renders the Proposal Vetoed, even if that Expedition Leader later changes their Vote.

Replace

If an Explorer other than the Expedition Leader casts a vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, then the Vote of DEFERENTIAL is an indication of confidence in the Expedition Leader. When the Expedition Leader has a valid Vote other than VETO on a Proposal, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL on that Proposal are instead considered to be valid and the same as the Expedition Leader’s Vote for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified.

with:

If an Explorer other than the Expedition Leaders casts a vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, then the Vote of DEFERENTIAL is an indication of confidence in the Expedition Leaders. When a quorum of Expedition Leaders has the same valid Vote other than VETO on a Proposal, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL on that Proposal are instead considered to be valid and the same as the Vote of the quorum of Expedition Leaders with the same valid Vote for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified.

In “Victory and Ascension”, replace

It has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and either the Expedition Leader has Voted FOR it or it has no AGAINST Votes.

It has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and either a quorum of Expedition Leaders has Voted FOR it or it has no AGAINST Votes.

These currently don’t make sense with multiple ELs.

posted by pokes at 08 Jul 2017 14:50:00 UTC Comments (15)

Comments

Madrid:

08-07-2017 15:04:21 UTC

The second part doesn’t work as intended I suspect. If Emperor 1 votes greentick and Emperor 2 votes redcross, with there being just 2 or 3 Emperors, then “a quorum of Expedition Leaders has a valid Vote other than VETO on a Proposal” is true.

Then how would this be solved? “then all votes of DEFERENTIAL on that Proposal are instead considered to be valid and the same as the Vote of the quorum of Expedition Leaders for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified.”

Would they be greentick or redcross?

pokes:

08-07-2017 15:09:15 UTC

Yeah, what I intended was “a particular valid vote other than VETO”; if there’s a quorum of greenticks, then DEFS become greenticks, for example. But it is sort of ambiguous. I’ll edit it in.

pokes:

08-07-2017 15:11:37 UTC

Fixed.

card:

08-07-2017 16:03:57 UTC

What if someone agrees with a particular Expedition Leader and wants to side with them?

Madrid:

08-07-2017 17:19:28 UTC

@Card: I think that to know if you agree with them or not, you need to see their vote first. And if that happens, you can just vote that same thing yourself instead of DEFing.

Madrid:

08-07-2017 17:20:34 UTC

Also, looks good, so for

card:

08-07-2017 18:02:03 UTC

“And if that happens, you can just vote that same thing yourself instead of DEFing.”
What’s the point of having a DEF in the first place then?

card:

08-07-2017 18:02:21 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

08-07-2017 18:10:59 UTC

for But would prefer to see the back of overexplaining multi-Emperorship in Core.

Axemabaro:

08-07-2017 18:16:58 UTC

for

Sphinx:

08-07-2017 18:24:47 UTC

for

pokes:

08-07-2017 19:15:17 UTC

There is a tension between an expanded core having more fun things but also being more forbidding for noobs. Maybe we could have a non-binding simple core for getting up to speed? A core-core could be a quarter of the size and leave details for expanded-core.

Madrid:

08-07-2017 21:00:03 UTC

Could work, although we could clean up the voting process too. I dont like too much how proposals, CFJs, etc all have separate ways of processing stuff instead of using a common system or at least some kind of common shorthand. I believe its mostly because the rules pretty much patchwork though, a larger reforms need huger proposals which are much more effort to do, which dissuades doing them.

pokes:

08-07-2017 21:28:12 UTC

That would be nice if we had one “here’s how voting generally works” section (maybe the Proposal process by default?), and then only noted the differences for each type.

Thunder: he/him

08-07-2017 22:03:24 UTC

for