Thursday, October 08, 2009

Proposal: Proxies

Self-killed, failed by Kevan. -2 points to Spikebrennan.

Adminned at 09 Oct 2009 12:35:45 UTC

Part 1: Add a new section to the Glossary, entitled “Proxy terminology”, as follows:

‘’‘Proxy’‘’ means the authority of the relevant Proxy Holder to cast a Vote on behalf of the Proxy Grantor as permitted by the Ruleset.
‘’‘Proxy Grantor’‘’ means, with respect to a Proxy, the Player who posted the Proxy Declaration that creates the Proxy.
‘’‘Proxy Holder’‘’ means, with respect to a Proxy, the Player who has the authority to exercise the Proxy as permitted by the Ruleset.

Part 2:

Add a new core rule, entitled “Proxies”, as follows:
A Player may create and grant a Proxy by posting a Proxy Declaration, whereupon that Player is the Proxy Grantor with respect to that Proxy.  A Proxy Declaration is accomplished by [posting an entry] in the “Story Post” category that (i) expressly provides that it is a Proxy Declaration, and (ii) expressly identifies the Proxy Holder of the relevant Proxy.  The Proxy Declaration may also provide that it expires at any expressly-stated time that is later than the time that it is posted.

A Proxy Holder may exercise the Proxy to cast a Vote on behalf of the Proxy Grantor by posting a comment (containing a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST or DEFERENTIAL, as applicable) to the relevant Pending Proposal if the comment expressly states that it is a Vote on behalf the Proxy Grantor pursuant to a Proxy.  Such a Vote is deemed, for all purposes, to have been cast by the Proxy Grantor and not by the Proxy Holder at the time that such comment is posted.  A Vote may not be cast by Proxy on a Call for Judgment or on a Declaration of Victory.

A Proxy remains in effect until the earliest of: (i) its express cancellation by means of either the Proxy Grantor or the relevant Proxy Holder [posting an entry] in the Story Post” Category stating that it cancels the Proxy; (ii) the expiration time stated in the relevant Proxy Declaration, if any; or (iii) the enactment of a Declaration of Victory.  However, if a Vote cast by Proxy is validly cast at the time it is cast on a particular Pending Proposal, then the occurrence of an event specified in clauses (i) or (ii) of the previous sentence does not, in and of itself, invalidate that Vote if an event specified in clauses (i) or (ii) of the previous sentence occur between the time that such Vote is cast and the time that the relevant Proposal is enacted or failed.

Part 3: If the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords” is not “player”, replace all instances of “Player” in this Proposal with the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords”.

Comments

Amnistar:

10-08-2009 18:35:10 UTC

against Don’t want it as a core rule just yet.  I’d rather see how it works as a dynastic rule first.

Bucky:

10-08-2009 19:14:43 UTC

against  on aesthetic grounds; I prefer a minimalistic core ruleset and glossary.

Qwazukee:

10-08-2009 19:32:05 UTC

against This is a really bad idea as any kind of rule. A bunch of spikebrennan’s (for example) friends can join blognmoic, make sb their proxy, and leave. Then then can let sb vote for them indefinitely, since his vote for them by-proxy counts as a comment by them and prevents them from going idle.

Bucky:

10-08-2009 19:34:30 UTC

@Qwazukee:Only until the end of the dynasty.

Qwazukee:

10-08-2009 19:38:40 UTC

It is true, he will only be able to win one time in a row. Unless he uses his proxies to alter the Core Rules….

spikebrennan:

10-08-2009 20:06:47 UTC

Qwaz—quoth Rule 1.2:
Admins may render a Survivor Idle if that Survivor has asked to become Idle or if that Survivor has not posted an entry or comment for more than 7 days

An exercise of a Proxy, as I have it, constitutes a Vote but does not constitute a posting of an entry or comment on the part of the Proxy Grantor.

Ergo, it doesn’t toll the idling clock.

QED.  Here endeth the lesson.

Qwazukee:

10-08-2009 20:11:25 UTC

“Any Survivor may cast his Vote on a Pending Proposal by making a comment on that entry using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST or DEFERENTIAL.”

From this Proposal:

“Such a Vote is deemed, for all purposes, to have been cast by the Proxy Grantor and not by the Proxy Holder at the time that such comment is posted.”

“All purposes” means that it is counted as a comment by the Proxy Grantor, and thus prevents him from going Idle.

spikebrennan:

10-08-2009 20:13:35 UTC

Qwaz: I still disagree.  A Comment contains a Vote, not the other way around.  The fact that a Vote is deemed to have been cast does not mean that a Comment has been posted.

spikebrennan:

10-08-2009 20:15:00 UTC

“Such a Vote is deemed, for all purposes, to have been cast by the Proxy Grantor and not by the Proxy Holder at the time that such comment is posted.”: the reference to “comment” means the comment posted by the Proxy Holder, and nothing in this proposal causes that Comment (as opposed to the Vote contained in the Comment) to be deemed to have been cast by the Proxy Grantor.

Qwazukee:

10-08-2009 20:21:07 UTC

Depends on how liberally you interpret “all purposes” because Votes are generally defined to be Comments on the blog. I don’t feel comfortable with that wording.

In any case, it is a bad idea to give someone the option of hoarding power. It takes a few minutes to create an account and proxy your vote. I see no reason that a person should be allowed to be represented if they can’t take the time to vote anyway. That’s part of the game.

spikebrennan:

10-08-2009 20:37:21 UTC

“Votes are generally defined to be Comments on the blog.”

I don’t agree. “Vote” and “Comment” are distinct concepts.  A vote is not a comment for the same reason that my coffee is not the cup.

Klisz:

10-08-2009 20:44:06 UTC

against  per Amni.

Klisz:

10-08-2009 20:48:05 UTC

against  per Amni.

arthexis:

10-08-2009 21:45:55 UTC

against No need for this kinda thing. If some one wants to play, well, they should play.

spikebrennan:

10-08-2009 21:48:59 UTC

against
s/k since the consensus is that this should DIE DIE DIE

Ienpw III:

10-08-2009 21:56:35 UTC

for

Darknight:

10-08-2009 22:18:24 UTC

against proxies = very bad

Amnistar:

10-08-2009 22:35:14 UTC

Just so we’re clear, I’m for the idea as a dynastic rule

Kevan:

10-08-2009 22:37:28 UTC

for Redundant positive vote, for what it’s worth. Seems an interesting toy, votes aren’t comments, and we could have amended it to be a dynastic rule later.

Qwazukee:

10-08-2009 22:43:33 UTC

Seems to be heavily divided.

Excalabur:

10-08-2009 23:00:35 UTC

I’m for the idea of proxies, but against this implementation therof.  Concerns about idling, and no need to make it core, which does nothing but make it hard to get rid of upon DoV imperial

Shem:

10-08-2009 23:02:03 UTC

against I don’t see how this could become interesting.

Josh:

10-09-2009 08:33:52 UTC

for I can see how it would be interesting. I can also see how it would be totally broken, but nothing evntured, nothign gained.

ais523:

10-09-2009 12:38:39 UTC

imperial The idea is interesting but should be dynastic. (And @Shem: you haven’t played much nomic if you don’t realise how game-changing something like this can be.)

Ienpw III:

10-09-2009 16:26:42 UTC

This has been self-killed.