Sunday, August 01, 2021

Proposal: [Core][Appendix][Special Case] So what is a vote, anyway?

Unpopular at 1-10. Failed by Brendan.

Adminned at 02 Aug 2021 16:49:19 UTC

In “Votes”, change

Each General may cast one Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the Official Post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, or DEFERENTIAL. Additional voting icons may be permitted in some cases by other rules. A valid Vote is, except when otherwise specified, a Vote of FOR or AGAINST. A General’s Vote on a Votable Matter is the last valid voting icon that they have used in any comment on that Votable Matter. Additionally, if the author of a Votable Matter has not used a valid voting icon in a comment to the post, then the author’s Vote is FOR. A non-General never has a Vote, even if they were a General previously and had cast a valid Vote.

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

to

Generals may vote on Votable Matters by making comments to the Official Post that comprises that Votable Matter containing voting icons. Only generals have Votes; a General’s Vote on a Votable Matter is the last valid voting icon that they have used in any comment on that Votable Matter. Additionally, if the author of a Votable Matter is a General and has not used a valid voting icon in a comment to the post, then the author’s Vote on it is FOR. FOR and AGAINST are valid voting icons; other voting icons are valid only when a rule says they are.

The DEFERENTIAL voting icon, when used by Generals other than the Leader, indicates confidence in the Leader. If the Leader has a Vote other than VETO on a Votable Matter, voting icons by other Generals of DEFERENTIAL on that matter are valid; a vote of DEFERENTIAL (except by the Leader) on a votable mattter is treated as equivalent to the Leader’s vote on that matter for the purpose of other rules (unless they specify otherwise).

In “Special Proposal Voting”, change

When a General casts a vote AGAINST their own Proposal (which is not in the form of a DEFERENTIAL vote), this renders the Proposal Self-Killed, even if the author later changes their Vote. The Leader may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a Proposal; when the Leader casts a vote of VETO on a Proposal, this renders the Proposal Vetoed, even if the Leader later changes their Vote.

to

If a General’s Vote on their own Proposal is AGAINST (and not a DEFERENTIAL resolving to AGAINST), the Proposal becomes Self-Killed (and remains so even if their Vote later changes). VETO is a valid voting icon when used by the Leader on a Proposal; if the Leader’s Vote on a proposal is VETO, the proposal becomes Vetoed (and remains so even if their Vote later changes).

In Keywords, under the “Voting Icons” entry, change

For use in voting, a check box http://blognomic.com/images/vote/for.gif shall represent a Vote FOR, an X http://blognomic.com/images/vote/against.gif shall represent a Vote AGAINST, a DEF http://blognomic.com/images/vote/imperial.gif shall represent a Vote of DEFERENTIAL, and a crossed-out circle http://blognomic.com/images/vote/seal.gif shall represent a vote to VETO.

to

For use in voting, a check box http://blognomic.com/images/vote/for.gif is the FOR voting icon, an X http://blognomic.com/images/vote/against.gif is the AGAINST voting icon, a DEF http://blognomic.com/images/vote/imperial.gif is the DEFERENTIAL voting icon, and a crossed-out circle http://blognomic.com/images/vote/seal.gif is the VETO voting icon.

and under the “Vote” entry, change

The word “Vote”, used as a noun, means a Vote that is cast in accordance with Rule “Votable Matters”. The word “Vote”, used as a verb, means the act of casting such a Vote.

to

The word “Vote”, used as a noun, is defined in the rule “Votable Matters”; a “FOR Vote”, “AGAINST Vote”, etc., refers to a Vote that is the corresponding voting icon (i.e. a FOR voting icon, an AGAINST voting icon, etc., respectively). The word “Vote”, used as a verb, means the act of a General placing a comment containing a voting icon onto a votable matter, in such a way that it would change their Vote. The state of “Voting X” on something means “having a Vote of X” on that thing.

and under the “Effective Vote Comment (EVC)” entry, change

A General’s Effective Vote Comment with respect to a given Votable Matter is that General’s Comment to that Votable Matter, if any, that contains that General’s Vote on that Votable Matter.

to

A General’s Effective Vote Comment with respect to a given Votable Matter is the last comment by that General on that Votable Matter, if any, that contains a valid voting icon.

If any of the preceding changes were unsuccessful (e.g. because the text to replace did not exist in the ruleset), or if they would cause it to become impossible to enact CFJs that were posted after this proposal resolved, revert all of them and make no further changes.

In “Two Leaders”, change

While more than one Leader exists, votes of DEFERENTIAL are only valid if all EVCs posted by Leaders on that Votable Matter contain the same valid vote.
to
While more than one Leader exists, DEFERENTIAL voting icons are invalid unless all valid Leaders’ Votes on that Votable Matter are the same. If all valid Leaders’ votes on a Votable Matter are the same, a vote of DEFERENTIAL (except by a Leader) on that mattter is treated as equivalent to as one of those Leader’s votes on that matter for the purpose of other rules (unless those rules specify otherwise).
Set the Imperial Deferentials special case rule to Inactive.

The current definition of voting is self-contradictory in the case where people use multiple voting icons in a post – the current rules describe something that’s a bit of a mix between an action of “cast one Vote” and a state check (“see which voting icons someone used”), and are inconsistent as to whether a Vote is an action or a comment. This changes it to consistently use the latter format. Additionally, the definition of EVC technically didn’t work at all. Because this proposal changes the rules for resolving CFJs, I’ve included a “revert everthing if this doesn’t work” clause to avoid any risk it’ll permanently break things if it’s buggy.

This mostly didn’t matter in previous dynasties, but in this one, a vote like FOR DEFERENTIAL or AGAINST DEFERENTIAL is actually meaningful and useful (FOR DEFERENTIAL means “I defer to Jumble and lemonfanta if they agree, but vote FOR if they disagree”). It’s unclear under the current voting rules whether such a vote works or is simply illegal. As a bonus, we can simplify the core rules somewhat at the same time.

Note: a side effect of this is that votes cast while idle are unambiguously not counted while the player is idle (and become uncounted if the player is idled), but unambiguously become counted when the player is subsequently unidled. I don’t think there’s any breakage in this, and it’s how we’ve been doing things anyway, but it’s ambiguous under the current rules.

This also fixes Two Leaders to work as expected if Jumble and/or lemonfanta posts multiple voting icons in the same comment, and turns off Imperial Deferentials (because this was almost certainly left on by mistake given the mechanics so far – it’s [Inactive] on the wiki but was turned on implciitly on the ascension address – and it’s just going to make everyone’s head hurt if we leave it on in combination with this mechanic).

Comments

ais523:

01-08-2021 21:24:00 UTC

Note: this proposal was posted at around 21:22 UTC, but it took about 40 minutes to write. I would have reset the “Entry Date”, but the core rules ban me from doing so – I don’t know what the best solution to move it to its proper place in the queue is.

It ended up a lot longer than I expected it to be.

Madrid:

01-08-2021 21:37:39 UTC

Imagine if there was a scam hidden in this.

ais523:

01-08-2021 21:46:58 UTC

There would be no point – core rules scams are banned by fair play.

The old version is somewhat scammable (e.g. by putting an EVC vote in a proposal that exploits the fact that EVCs don’t work at all – under the present ruleset, a Vote is either an action or a comment or a state, but none of those can be contained in a comment), but again, nobody’s scammed it due to the fair play rules.

The new version is intended to be much clearer and harder to scam, by being consistent about what votes actually are.

Chiiika: she/her

01-08-2021 21:49:02 UTC

0548 is not a time to check if a proposal is drilled or not.

Chiiika: she/her

01-08-2021 21:49:13 UTC

at least for me

ais523:

01-08-2021 21:49:54 UTC

Another issue with the existing version is that as far as I can see, changing your vote is illegal. It isn’t immediately obvious whether the new vote is counted anyway, but “may cast one vote” strongly implies that you can’t cast a second.

Chiiika: she/her

01-08-2021 21:50:37 UTC

ahh, no point in engineering a drilled Core; drilled Core is off our limits.

for

Josh: he/they

01-08-2021 22:08:10 UTC

I don’t love the changes to deferentials.

You change

may cast one Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the Official Post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, or DEFERENTIAL

to

FOR and AGAINST are valid voting icons; other voting icons are valid only when a rule says they are.

and

If the Leader has a Vote other than VETO on a Votable Matter, voting icons by other Generals of DEFERENTIAL on that matter are valid

Which means that a vote of DEF is not valid unless the Leader has already voted. Votes of DEF start out as invalid before having their validity pop into effect when the Leader votes - or not, if they don’t - which means, for example, that if a vote of DEF carries an EVC rider on a proposal that the Leader then doesn’t vote on, the EVC rider isn’t counted.

I don’t understand why it’s necessary to make DEFs into non-votes; they can be votes that have no effect unless a condition was met.

It’s vote-locked so I guess I’ll vote against, unless there’s something I’m missing?

Josh: he/they

01-08-2021 22:12:56 UTC

Re: the clock issue: whenever I write a long post I write it in notepad, or open a new New Post window, and paste the text when completed to ensure correct queue positioning. There’s no way around the timestamp issue once posted, except CfJing to have the time field changed manually.

ais523:

01-08-2021 22:26:09 UTC

A vote of unresolved-DEFERENTIAL is already invalid under the current rules: “A valid Vote is, except when otherwise specified, a Vote of FOR or AGAINST.” … “When the Leader has a valid Vote other than VETO on a Votable Matter, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL on that Votable Matter are instead considered to be valid”. I was preserving that.

Also, “A General’s Vote on a Votable Matter is the last valid voting icon that they have used in any comment on that Votable Matter.”, so commenting with an unresolved-DEFERENTIAL, under the current rules, does not give you a Vote (as the DEFERENTIAL icon is invalid).

Perhaps this is an argument to change even more than this proposal is currently changing? (It certainly seems reasonable that unresolved-DEFERENTIAL could be counted as a vote.) I was trying to make the minimal changes to remove the brokenness, though.

Josh: he/they

01-08-2021 22:29:37 UTC

The current rules are broken and this is one example, as the existing text of “may cast one Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the Official Post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, or DEFERENTIAL” pretty clearly says to me that a comment containing DEF fulfills the criteria of casting a vote… I think the current rule is broken and ambiguous but the proposal resolves it the wrong way, sadly

Clucky: he/him

01-08-2021 23:11:49 UTC

I’m very hesitant of core rule changes like this. voting is a big part of the game. what we have currently works, at least by the standard we’ve been running the game (so if someone tries to say we’re doing it wrong we can just default to saying “we’re going to keep doing it this way”) but if we change it, we could wind up breaking that.

Clucky: he/him

02-08-2021 01:16:10 UTC

taking a closer look, even after just the first paragraph this appears to break the game

Under the current rules, we have a clear definition of what a valid vote is:  A valid Vote is, except when otherwise specified, a Vote of FOR or AGAINST

We then use that definition in many places such as “It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid Vote cast on it, and more valid Votes cast on it are FOR than are AGAINST.”

this removes the definition of “valid vote” only defining valid voting icons

against

Brendan: he/him

02-08-2021 03:14:48 UTC

tldr against

Chiiika: she/her

02-08-2021 04:07:08 UTC

@Clucky -> CoV against

Raven1207: he/they

02-08-2021 05:45:40 UTC

against

Josh: he/they

02-08-2021 07:56:05 UTC

I think that this is necessary but needs a second pass.  against

Kevan: City he/him

02-08-2021 07:57:12 UTC

against

Chiiika: she/her

02-08-2021 11:54:25 UTC

Agreed with Josh. I think doing it bit sized can help, the current Proposal is long even by my standards.

Chiiika: she/her

02-08-2021 11:55:43 UTC

I have all the wordings for the Betterment of the Ruleset written in my Google Keep, but it should be done One Proposal at a Time since otherwise it’s very confusing.

Darknight: he/him

02-08-2021 12:09:42 UTC

against

pokes:

02-08-2021 13:27:44 UTC

against

Janet: she/her

02-08-2021 14:57:24 UTC

against

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

02-08-2021 16:17:16 UTC

against