Friday, January 25, 2013

Proposal: Incentivization

Passes 7-5. — Quirck

Adminned at 27 Jan 2013 10:30:15 UTC

Enact a new rule entitled “The Party Line” that reads as follows:

When an Admin resolves a Proposal as Enacted, then its author gains 2 Credibility and every Honourable Member who had a valid vote AGAINST the proposal at the first moment at which it could have been Enacted loses 1 Credibility.

When an Admin resolves a Proposal as Failed, and that Proposal was not Vetoed, then its author loses 3 Credibility and every Honourable Member who had a valid vote FOR the proposal at the first moment at which it could have been Enacted loses 1 Credibility.

When an Admin resolves a Proposal that was Pending for more than 48 hours, every Honourable Member without a valid Vote on that Proposal loses 1 Credibility.

The “at the first moment at which it could have been Enacted” ensures that there are no timing scams with people changing votes before resolution to avoid penalties.

Comments

scshunt:

25-01-2013 17:14:56 UTC

for  arrow to hit the other pending proposals.

nqeron:

25-01-2013 18:03:03 UTC

against This interferes a bit with some mechanisms I want to introduce.  Also, I don’t really like this mechanism for gaining/losing Credibility.

Josh: Observer he/they

25-01-2013 18:50:46 UTC

for I instinctively dislike this kind of rule, but it’s nice to leave the comfort zone from time to time.

quirck: he/him

25-01-2013 19:55:32 UTC

against

Larrytheturtle:

25-01-2013 21:14:53 UTC

for

Patrick:

25-01-2013 22:27:44 UTC

against
This will discourage amateurs (like myself) from making proposals for the fear of losing credibility.

Skju:

25-01-2013 23:03:06 UTC

for
Although I agree with Patrick, I think this would make people more careful and get Credibility moving because it affects almost all of the game. I would like to see some kind of related incentive for risky Proposals and perhaps decrease Credibility loss to 2 to lessen possible fear.

Cpt_Koen:

26-01-2013 01:25:40 UTC

for
‘The “at the first moment at which it could have been Enacted” ensures that there are no timing scams with people changing votes before resolution to avoid penalties.’
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t block *every* possible timing scam of the like.

Note that this proposal will probably make the first few votes on every proposal have more weight, because they’ll incentivizazize the later voters to follow the lead.

Oh, also I don’t like:
“When an Admin resolves a Proposal that was Pending for more than 48 hours, every Honourable Member without a valid Vote on that Proposal loses 1 Credibility.”
I assume you added that to prevent people from deliberately not taking the risk to end up in the opposition… But it means that if someone is away for a couple of days, they’ll be very likely to lose credibility.

RaichuKFM: she/her

26-01-2013 01:32:35 UTC

against I dislike this.

Kevan: he/him

26-01-2013 09:31:43 UTC

for Per Josh. Requiring admins to make a lot of gamestate updates every time they process a proposal can be discouraging, but let’s try it.

scshunt:

26-01-2013 17:52:14 UTC

Patrixk, Skju: Feel free to come on IRC and discuss with regulars on how to write proposals, to write Protosals (draft Proposals that aren’t in the Proposal category), or just PM someone like myself for some drafting advice.

Josh: Observer he/they

26-01-2013 18:13:13 UTC

Here’s how to write protosals: Don’t.

robo1995:

26-01-2013 19:26:24 UTC

against

Spitemaster:

27-01-2013 02:34:56 UTC

“When an Admin resolves a Proposal as Failed, and that Proposal was not Vetoed, then its author loses 3 Credibility and every Honourable Member who had a valid vote FOR the proposal at the first moment at which it could have been Enacted loses 1 Credibility.”
But it could never have been enacted, only failed.

I’d still vote FOR, as this doesn’t break anything, but I’m still idle. For now.

scshunt:

27-01-2013 04:22:28 UTC

Good point. Could someone please propose a fix? I’m out of slots.

Spitemaster:

27-01-2013 14:31:43 UTC

for