Monday, July 31, 2006

Proposal: Heisenberg loops 2

Timed out (3-3)
Failed by Hix.  What’s that you say?  I could have changed my vote at the 11th hour?

Adminned at 02 Aug 2006 12:38:01 UTC

Add a new subrule “Heisenberg Snare” to the Rule “Modus Ponens”.  Give it the following text:

Requirements: Target Traveller is within this Traveller’s range, and this Traveller has an influence greater than 10.
Action: This traveller reduces eir Influence by 10.  Target Traveller gains a Heisenbeerg Loop.

Add a new Rule to the Ruleset entitled “Temporal Uncertanty”.  Give it the following text:

Some Travellers may be in one or more Heisenberg Loops, denoted by one asterisk per Loop after eir Influence in the GNDT.

If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the text “Effects”, Add the following to the end of the Rule entitled “Temporal Uncertanty”

  If any Traveller takes an Action dependant on the TL of another Traveller (aka the target) in any Loops, e must afterwards move the target forward in time by DICE(20N+1)-10N Years and DICE12 Months, where N is the number of Loops the target has.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

31-07-2006 16:49:22 UTC

against Good old “more than half”.

Hix:

31-07-2006 18:38:03 UTC

against indeed.  I like one mode of this proposal, but not the other.

Saki:

31-07-2006 22:07:28 UTC

against

Thelonious:

01-08-2006 08:00:59 UTC

Well, I like one mode of this proposal and not the other too.  But I’m willing to vote for and to keep an eye on it so I change my vote if it’s looking like the wrong mode will pass.

TAE:

02-08-2006 12:24:27 UTC

for
I’m with Thelonious on this one.  Perhaps we could start using the form “More than half of the comments containing votes wihch were counted in favor of passing this proposal”.  That way only people whose final votes on the proposal were in favor of it could manipulate the outcome.

Thelonious:

02-08-2006 12:27:42 UTC

TAE, I’ve been doing exactly that for some now.  My usual wording is “If more than half of the counting FOR votes…”.  However, I recently got a “mild telling off” from the Arbiter for this behaviour.

Personally, I don’t agree with his rationale but for now I’m avoiding making multi-mode proposals where possible.

Kevan: he/him

02-08-2006 13:23:16 UTC

As you demonstrated in your own vote, you have to keep an eye on the proposal to make sure that your vote does what you want it to. And even then it’s still possible for a few quick votes to slip in while you’re asleep, and you end up having helped enact something that you didn’t actually like.

I suppose it’d be fair if these proposals required a quorum of FOR votes to include the keyword. But having rule changes potentially getting passed on half-quorum is extremely dodgy.

Thelonious:

02-08-2006 13:29:53 UTC

But having rule changes potentially getting passed on half-quorum is extremely dodgy.

At the moment rule changes can get passed on a single vote, let alone a half-quorum.

Kevan: he/him

02-08-2006 14:05:49 UTC

Oh, quite, and I hope the fix goes through even if, ahem, Bucky feels that the possibility of an obscure malfunction means that we should wait a while longer.

The problem is that I can’t vote for a proposal like this one without also voting for the optional clause to be taken as a half-quorum vote. I’d vote against anything that had a side-effect of causing a half-quorum vote on something that I thought was dangerous.

Bucky:

02-08-2006 18:00:33 UTC

Not at all.
It’s the exact same as making 2 proposals at the same time, with the second doing nothing if the first one fails.

Vote on proposal 1 using FOR and AGAINST; Vote on Proposal 2 using “Effects” and “-”.

Bucky:

02-08-2006 18:05:06 UTC

Would a more agreeable wording be “If the number of comments containing counted votes that also contain “Effects” is greater than the number of comments containing counted votes that also contain “Inert”?”

Hix:

02-08-2006 19:35:42 UTC

Yeah, it’s the same as making 2 proposals at the same time with the second being conditional on the first.  But Kevan and I aren’t claiming that we don’t find that just as annoying.  I’ll vote against a proposal I like to help prevent a later contingent proposal’s having an undesired effect.