Saturday, August 06, 2011

Proposal: Fair is Foul and Foul is Fair

Reached quorum 6 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Aug 2011 05:15:36 UTC

In the rule “Fouls”, replace “If, after 24 hours, a quorum of Gladiators have voted AGAINST the Foul Post, then the awarded Foul is transferred from the Gladiator who was initially accused to the Gladiator who made the Foul Post.” with:-

A Foul Post is a Votable Matter. If a Foul Post is more than 48 hours old, any admin may mark it as closed, at which point it is no longer a Votable Matter - if more Gladiators voted AGAINST the Foul Post than FOR it at this point, then the awarded Foul is transferred from the Gladiator who was initially accused to the Gladiator who made the Foul Post.

Change the definition of “Votable Matter” in the Keywords rule from “The word “Votable Matter”, means a Proposal, a CFJ or a DoV.” to:-

A post which Gladiators may cast Votes on, such as a Proposal, a Call for Judgment or a Declaration of Victory.

When this proposal enacts, any comment on a Foul Post which contains a voting icon shall be considered to have been cast as a Vote on that Foul Post, by the Gladiator who posted the comment.

It’s not clear whether Fweep posts are timing out with no effect because most players silently agree that they’re legal, because players aren’t sure, because they don’t have time to vote, or because they don’t really care which of two rival players is disadvantaged with a Foul. This bumps their voting duration up to 48 hours, and operates on a majority of expressed opinion rather than requiring a full quorum to disagree.

This will open up all previous Foul Posts for reassessment, so players may wish to go back and vote on the expired ones.

(It also amends the definition of “Votable Matter” so that we can actually say “this new type of post is a Votable Matter” without contradicting the Appendix.)

Comments

Ely:

06-08-2011 21:04:32 UTC

for

Josh: Announcer he/him

06-08-2011 21:24:40 UTC

This will open up all previous Foul Posts for reassessment, so players may wish to go back and vote on the expired ones.

I’m very uncomfortable with this, and not just for reasons of personal gain. Changing the parameters by which a votable matter is assessed after it has already expired, then re-assessing it under the new criteria, seems like a bad way to do things - people will have made decisions under one system that are no longer valid, and that makes me mildly uncomfortable. If you think that you have been unfairly lumbered with fouls (and in at least one of the cases I suspect that you have) then I would rather you resolved it via CfJ or proposal, or at least got your own back in kind, rather than retconning a different result that is more advantageous to yourself.

against

Blacky:

06-08-2011 21:38:10 UTC

for I like the part of your proposal, emphasizing the opportunity to vote on game matters . However I’m with Josh on the last sentence. What is done is done. Something like: “When this proposal is enacted, all Foul Posts older than 24 h are closed. These closures have no effect on the Gamestate.” Thus:  against

Darknight: he/him

06-08-2011 22:13:58 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

06-08-2011 22:18:22 UTC

It seemed important to apply this to any Fweeps raised while the proposal was pending - right now, calling a Fweep (even an entirely spurious “Josh’s shoelaces are untied!” one) is looking like a reasonable tactic over a slow weekend, because it’s probably not going to hit quorum in 24 hours. Extending this to cover the two Fweeps that timed out a few hours earlier didn’t seem like a big leap, if the Foul system was that broken.

Looking at the votes, the only votes cast before I proposed this are the ones that Bucky, Hello Kitty and myself made on your Fweep against me. Assuming that Bucky is impartial and that I don’t mind, the only issue is whether Hello Kitty would have wanted to retract their AGAINST vote on your Fweep, for whatever reason. (The only one I can think of is a tactically duplicitous “I can see that this won’t reach the required quorum, but would like to offer the illusion of support to the targetted player”.) It wouldn’t be fair to call Kitty out on whether the vote had an ulterior motive, so if the Fweep resolves in such a way that Kitty’s vote makes the difference (even if they insist that it was genuine) I’ll make a proposal to give myself the Foul back.

scshunt:

06-08-2011 22:42:21 UTC

imperial

Josh: Announcer he/him

06-08-2011 23:05:41 UTC

@Kevan - it’s not the specific fweeps that bothers me - I voted for your CfJ which would have reversed my fweep before I realised that it would have no effect, and would likely vote in favour of a fix proposal if that CfJ passed, because ultimately fair’s fair. I just don’t think that proposals should contain blanket retcons. It’s bad precedent.

Doctor29:

06-08-2011 23:08:22 UTC

for

Bucky:

07-08-2011 03:37:53 UTC

for