Friday, May 04, 2018

Proposal: Election rewording

Timed out 2 votes to 4. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 06 May 2018 08:53:46 UTC

Change the text of rule “The Election” to:

A ballot is a comment on The Ballot Box, containing the string “I support X”, replacing X with the name of a Candidate other than the Pawn who posted the comment, before 0:01 on May 5, 2018 (“Closing Time”). The Pawn who posted that comment is said to have cast that ballot.

A ballot may be valid or invalid, defaulting to valid.
- At any time, at most one of the ballots casted by a single Pawn may be valid. If a Pawn has cast more than one ballot, all but the last ballot casted by that Pawn are invalid.
- A ballot supporting more than one Candidate is invalid.

At Closing Time, all ballots supporting Candidates who have not cast a valid ballot become invalid.

Then, the Candidate who is supported by the most valid ballots achieves victory. In case of a tie, any Pawn may resolve the tie by selecting one of the tying Candidates randomly with the GNDT. The tiebreaking Candidate selected in this manner achieves victory. A tie may be resolved at most once.

Candidates are the Pawns named:

Cuddlebeam
Kevan
pokes
Thunder
Cpt_Koen

In my opinion, this is simpler.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

04-05-2018 08:53:46 UTC

This is very unlikely to hit quorum within 15 hours, particularly now that it’s been raised to 7.

If you think there’s a genuibne problem with the current system such that it might not give us a fair result tomorrow, a simple repeal-it-for-now CfJ would probably be a better idea (and still might not pass in time).

Cpt_Koen:

04-05-2018 09:07:20 UTC

Even if there was a potential for problems, it wouldn’t turn into a problem unless someone tried to exploit it.

1) I wouldn’t blame them, it’s a nomic after all.

2) If everyone has given up on this dynasty, even if there were an issue with the election rule, I’d rather risk an unfair result than delay things for no reason.

Lulu: she/her

04-05-2018 12:35:56 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

04-05-2018 12:44:41 UTC

Reading this again, the “In case of a tie” clause could be read as triggering on any tied result; one player could win, and those tied for second place could have their tie resolved to also win.

against

(There’s a similar problem in the existing rule, but it would only trigger if there was a tie for the winner and another tie further down the scores.)

derrick: he/him

04-05-2018 13:45:15 UTC

against

As per Kevan

Brendan: he/him

04-05-2018 18:09:05 UTC

against

card:

05-05-2018 01:06:08 UTC

against