Saturday, February 02, 2013

Proposal: Final Fix

Timed out and passed, 6-1. Raichu gains 4 Credibility, nqeron loses 2 for voting AGAINST, Koen, Patrick, scshunt and Spitemaster all lose 2 for not voting. Josh

Adminned at 06 Feb 2013 00:37:49 UTC

Replace any and all instances of “[total Party EVCs / (Party EVCs FOR - Party EVCs AGAINST)]” throughout the Ruleset with “[total Party EVCs * (Party EVCs FOR - Party EVCs AGAINST)]”, and replace any and all instances of “(F - A)/T” throughout the Ruleset with “T * (F - A)”.

Fixes Party consensus, as multiplying size times consensus rewards both. Works whether or not various fixes passes. If anyone finds an issue in this please propose a deliberation or point it out; this has been going on long enough.

posted by RaichuKFM at 02 Feb 2013 01:59:48 UTC Comments (12)

Comments

Skju:

02-02-2013 03:37:30 UTC

against
This is biased towards larger Parties; division by total votes compensates for Party size.

RaichuKFM: she/her

02-02-2013 04:14:24 UTC

Its biased towards larger parties because that means more players support it. Smaller Parties with more unified behaviour can do better than large Parties at disjointed purposes. And division doesn’t compensate for Party size, it merely favors smaller Parties, which doesn’t make logical sense. An example: a Party 5 FOR 4 AGAINST and another split 1 FOR 2 AGAINST are the contenders for Consensus. The larger would have a score of 1/9, the smaller 1/3, which is greater and therefore better. What is closest to what you seem to want is merely calculating |(F-A)|, and using size for tie-breaking. This is fine as well, but I think size would logically affect a Party’s influence more directly.

Josh: he/they

02-02-2013 08:13:15 UTC

for

Larrytheturtle:

02-02-2013 08:13:38 UTC

for I think that larger parties should be rewarded to some degree for being large but as raichu pointed out they have to be unified to hold any real power which is somewhat unlikely.

nqeron:

03-02-2013 03:36:37 UTC

against  As a member of a small party without a clean, easy way to switch, I’m going to have to oppose this.

Klisz:

03-02-2013 20:15:18 UTC

for

Skju:

04-02-2013 02:18:05 UTC

for CoV

Purplebeard:

04-02-2013 08:23:13 UTC

for

Klisz:

04-02-2013 18:37:56 UTC

for

Skju:

06-02-2013 02:47:14 UTC

Um, resolve?

6 for, 1 against, 4 days old.

“It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid Vote cast on it, more valid Votes cast on it are FOR than are AGAINST, and it has not been Vetoed or Self-Killed.”

RaichuKFM: she/her

06-02-2013 03:24:38 UTC

Everyone’s scared of the GNDT editing. If only our Speaker were here. As is, U-Turn will probably be passed before this. Now I’ve been against the whole Party Line rule, but this is ridiculous.

Josh: he/they

06-02-2013 08:33:04 UTC

Urgh, fine, if no-one else will…