Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Proposal: Swaying The Vote

Times out 4-8 and fails. -scshunt

Adminned at 31 Jan 2013 13:27:29 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule called “Sway” and give it the following text

When an Honorable Member casts a Vote on a proposal, he may spend X^2 - 1 Reputation (where X is a positive integer) and include the text “Weight: X” within the comment containing the Vote, which gives the Vote weight X. If he does not do so, the Weight of his vote is considered to be 1.

Proposals may only be resolved if they have been pending for 48 hours. When a Proposal is resolved, it may be enacted if sum of the Weights of all FOR votes exceeds sum of the Weights of all AGAINST votes and at least two Honorable Members cast FOR votes, otherwise it is failed.

this will probably fail because everyone loves that terrible “pass proposals out of turn after 12 hours by using arrows” rule. But I personally think slowing the dynasty down a bit for the option is worth it for trying new voting mechanics, which I thought was supposed to be the purpose of this dynasty.

Comments

Patrick:

29-01-2013 19:44:44 UTC

for

When I was proposing “Political influence” this is what I was trying to head towards, I would also like to see Corrupt Honourable Members have a Weight of 0.

Josh: Observer he/they

29-01-2013 19:47:17 UTC

Is it problematic that “Reputation” should presumably be “Credibility”?

Patrick:

29-01-2013 19:49:38 UTC

Ah, didn’t notice that. It means pretty much the same thing, would that fall under obvious spelling errors or no? If anything it can be fixed pretty easily.

Murphy:

29-01-2013 20:05:31 UTC

against

Larrytheturtle:

29-01-2013 20:40:07 UTC

for

RaichuKFM: she/her

29-01-2013 20:56:47 UTC

If you dislike Speedy voting, propose to repeal speedy voting. Don’t make a completely different rule and shoehorn that into it. I’m against multiple votes per person, and so against

Cpt_Koen:

29-01-2013 21:50:18 UTC

for

If I recall correctly speedy voting was advertised as making it possible for Proposals to meddle with older pending Proposals; but currently we’re only using it to pass Proposals faster - which in my opinion makes the dynasty hard to follow, as many proposals are enacted before I have even read them.

Since we’re not using speedy voting in a very interesting fashion, I’m in favour of trying other change of mechanics like this one; and this is better than actually repealing speedy voting, since with this we could still use arrows to pass proposals out of turn.

scshunt:

29-01-2013 22:22:23 UTC

If this passes, I’ll be very tempted to spend all my credibility on a single vote and start a meta.

Patrick:

29-01-2013 22:56:12 UTC

@scshunt

A few people could band together to counter your vote with significantly less damage to their own Credibility.

Josh: Observer he/they

29-01-2013 23:13:06 UTC

for

scshunt:

29-01-2013 23:22:24 UTC

Patrick: By dropping my credibility to 0, I mean.

Clucky: he/him

29-01-2013 23:22:46 UTC

To Josh’s point - yes, but nothing is broken. Just none of us have any reputation to spend. Clearly I meant Credibility, but it also isn’t a typo. Will have to be fixed with a followup proposals.

To scshunt’s point - you can do that, but with 200 credibility you can get at most 14 votes. You just need you just need 5 other people to spend 9 credibility to defeat you.

Spitemaster:

29-01-2013 23:24:33 UTC

against Yeah, I’m against multiple votes as well.

scshunt:

30-01-2013 01:13:09 UTC

Clucky: I’m referring to the second sentence of 2.10.

Patrick:

30-01-2013 01:19:29 UTC

Your resignation would be a votable matter and I don’t think people would want to end this dynasty so early… on another note, after some deliberation I’ve decided to change my vote anyways.

against

Purplebeard:

30-01-2013 07:48:19 UTC

imperial

Klisz:

30-01-2013 21:04:05 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

31-01-2013 07:29:34 UTC

against CoV.

Josh: Observer he/they

31-01-2013 08:18:01 UTC

CoV against

nqeron:

31-01-2013 20:53:19 UTC

against

scshunt:

31-01-2013 21:26:43 UTC

against