Thursday, July 03, 2025

Proposal: Deferentials Upon Deferentials [Appendix]

Popular, 5-2. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 04 Jul 2025 23:52:45 UTC

In “Rules and Votable Matters” in the Appendix, replace

If the Puzzler has voted DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, they are not considered to be a Wordsmith for the purposes of totaling quorum on that Proposal. Votes of DEFERENTIAL made by other Wordsmiths on the same Proposal are not considered to be valid, but the Wordsmiths who made them still contribute to quorum

with

If the Puzzler has voted DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, they (and any other Wordsmiths who have voted DEFERENTIAL on it) are not considered to be a Wordsmith for the purposes of totaling quorum on that Proposal.

We’ve had a few cases this dynasty of players voting DEF on the Emperor’s DEF, and because these votes “are not considered to be valid”, we’ve had to duly wait (in some cases for the full 48 hour proposal timeout) to see if they might cast a FOR/AGA vote on it, in the same way that we’d wait for someone who hadn’t voted at all.

Maybe it would make more sense to also count these votes as abstentions? Even in cases where the player DEF is cast before the Imperial DEF, it still seems fair to interpret it as “I will vote FOR if the Emperor votes for, AGAINST if they vote against, and abstain if they abstain”, if they don’t check back in later to reconsider their vote.

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

03-07-2025 18:32:01 UTC

for

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

03-07-2025 20:48:27 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

03-07-2025 22:01:36 UTC

for

DoomedIdeas: he/him

03-07-2025 23:29:17 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

04-07-2025 08:07:41 UTC

against Making an unresolvable DEF is occasionally a deliberate position. Removing the Emperor from quorum is kind of a compromise position - it’s a way of resolving the problem of how to handle imperial abstentions, which is a question that the game has journied around on over 20 years - but I think in general we should avoid invalidating votes and removing them from quorum wherever possible. Quorum is the target a proposal should seek to meet, if it fails to convince people to make a positive choice in favour of it then it should stay open longer to review and discuss.

The game does not need to be quicker.

Kevan: Yard he/him

04-07-2025 09:10:23 UTC

That deliberate position is still available by posting a comment with no voting icons. Which happens all the time (and more strongly, for not being tied to the vote of the Emperor): if a player replies to an open proposal without hitting a voting button, they’re indicating to the group that they’re not ready to cast a vote and are open to being persuaded either way.

Josh: he/they

04-07-2025 11:16:59 UTC

Sure, but there’s no way of withdrawing a vote - so if a player votes DEF and then the Emperor follows, they’re locked in to coming off the fence or staying stuck.

It’s all very marginal, but the principle is the thing that animated me more than the use cases - we shouldn’t be reducing quorum, if a proposal doesn’t persuade then it doesn’t get to be voted through quicker, and speed is not a noble objective or motivator for core rules changes.

Clucky: he/him

04-07-2025 20:17:01 UTC

against Josh has convinced me. Its okay for people to have a “I don’t care” view on a proposal, but I think it makes sense to give such proposals a bit more discussion time