Sunday, February 10, 2013

Proposal: Das Capital

Reaches Quorum 8-0 and passes. Adminned by RaichuKFM.

Adminned at 11 Feb 2013 15:28:55 UTC

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Political Capital:

Each Honourable Member has an amount of Political Capital, which can be any positive integer, is tracked in the GNDT, and defaults to zero.

Whenever an Honourable Member casts a vote on a votable matter other than a CfJ, they my spend any quantity of Political Capital. If they do so then they may append the words “Political Capital: x” to their EVC, where x is the amount of Political Capital thus spent. In an Honourable Member who has spent Political Capital on a vote changes that vote then the Political Capital is lost; it is neither returned to them nor is it transferred to the new vote.

When a proposal is resolved, its eligibility for resolution (i.e. whether or not the number of votes cast equal or exceed quorum) is calculated ignoring Political Capital. However, any Political Capital attached to an EVC is added to the counts FOR and AGAINST for the purposes of determining whether or not the proposal has passed or failed,

Remember that “spend” is defined in the glossary and does not permit players to spend more than they have.

posted by Josh at 10 Feb 2013 21:10:54 UTC Comments (12)

Comments

RaichuKFM: she/her

10-02-2013 21:21:32 UTC

imperial I’m wary of multi-voting, but this seems okay.

Henri:

10-02-2013 21:42:30 UTC

for Do you need to define that the proposal will not be passed if either the FOR count or the AGAINST count is equal to or greater than the quorum?

Skju:

10-02-2013 22:55:41 UTC

for
Although the last sentence doesn’t seem strong enough; the Capital can be added to either by the Admin.

Cpt_Koen:

10-02-2013 23:07:53 UTC

for
Though I agree with Skju;
also,
“Whenever an Honourable Member casts a vote on a votable matter other than a CfJ, they my spend any quantity of Political Capital. If they do so then they may append the words “Political Capital: x” to their EVC, where x is the amount of Political Capital thus spent.”
appears to imply that appending the words “Political Capital: x” to an EVC is not mandatory (meaning you could spend political capital without informing the other Honourable Members, making it impossible for admins to properly resolve the proposal).

scshunt:

10-02-2013 23:33:48 UTC

I think this is clear enough to have the intended effect.

Larrytheturtle:

10-02-2013 23:55:58 UTC

for

Spitemaster:

11-02-2013 05:10:09 UTC

for

Josh: Mastermind he/they

11-02-2013 07:35:46 UTC

Koen- Political Capital that isn’t attached to an EVC isn’t counted as such, so if someone did do that then they’d be wasting their time.

Purplebeard:

11-02-2013 07:46:25 UTC

for, although Political Capital has an illegal starting value (zero isn’t a positive integer).

Josh: Mastermind he/they

11-02-2013 08:03:42 UTC

Isn’t it? Gah, maths is hard.

Josh: Mastermind he/they

11-02-2013 08:04:19 UTC

How should I have phrased that?

Purplebeard:

11-02-2013 08:32:52 UTC

‘Nonnegative integer’ would’ve worked. I might also have used ‘natural number’, but that’s is a bit more tenuous since some people don’t include zero in that set. You could also have left out the definition and let rule 3.3.1 handle it, since it specifies the set of nonnegative integers as a default range.