Friday, March 10, 2006

Proposal: Solve voter apathy.

Failed by Kevan - can’t be enacted with 12 votes against.

Adminned at 11 Mar 2006 15:03:58 UTC

Add a new rule entitled “Bars” with the following text:

Bars are the official unit of exchange for Gostaks and the Entities.  Each Gostak and Dosh Production Group has an amount of funds, measured in Bars and tracked in the GNDT.  A specific amount of Bars may be denoted by a | symbol in front of the number of Bars.  For example, new Gostaks start with |0.  Whenever a proposal becomes enacted, each Gostak that voted FOR it may claim |1 any time in the next 24 hours.  Whenever a proposal becomes failed, each Gostak that voted against it may claim |1 at any time in the next 24 hours.  Only one of the above two may happen per proposal, and the reward may only be claimed once per proposal per Gostak.  New Gostaks start with |0.

Any Gostak which has a Bar may give it to another Gostak at any time.  Other rules take precidence over this paragraph.

When this proposal passes, set the number of Bars each Gostak has to |0.  Then, give |1 to each Gostak which voted FOR this proposal.

If this passes, we should have rules for Dosh auctions, donations to Dosh Production Groups and maybe even using Bars to move.


Angry Grasshopper:

03-10-2006 04:54:23 UTC

Insofar as the book-keeping goes, anybody with a mind to gains |1 any time they vote—for FOR, then AGAINST, or vice versa.

I like that you have each Gostak responsible for his or her own Bars, but trying to sort out the motion of play in the GNDT might be a little difficult. I don’t want to
check each proposal to see who voted, and how.

Will points in the GNDT will get everybody to vote in a timely manner? (Not rhetorically, I’m really not so sure one way or the other.)


03-10-2006 04:58:48 UTC



03-10-2006 04:59:58 UTC

Each Gostak may only claim one Bar per proposal.  Also, ONLY THE LAST VOTE COUNTS from 1.4.


03-10-2006 05:07:48 UTC

Completely irrelivant, but proposals through “concern about dosh concerns” may be adminned (one timed, one quorum and two self-kills)


03-10-2006 07:07:29 UTC

against Rack up some bar voting against on some self kills, no?


03-10-2006 10:41:44 UTC

against If voter apathy’s a problem, we should be idling people to get quorum down.


03-10-2006 12:53:02 UTC

against Bookkeeping high for little reward.

Elias IX:

03-10-2006 12:54:51 UTC

against, unless the reward goes to everyone who voted on a proposal… and some brand new GNDT functionality could relieve the burden of giving Bars on every proposal.

Angry Grasshopper:

03-10-2006 13:31:03 UTC

Elias IX, I don’t see how that could easily be done, the way things are set up now.


03-10-2006 14:42:46 UTC



03-10-2006 15:31:56 UTC



03-10-2006 17:20:30 UTC



03-10-2006 17:39:58 UTC

against 1. I’m not sure that voter apathy is entirely a bad thing, as if all the active players voted immediately a great many wouldn’t even see the proposals before they were enacted. 2. Historically, adding results to votes has encouraged tactical voting for specific rewards, rather than people voting for waht they actually want. 3. Predisastered’s scam.


03-10-2006 18:01:54 UTC

against why the reward for voting with the majority? How does that help apathy?


03-10-2006 21:29:58 UTC

imperial  for  against s-k abusable (especially with empty queue).  Also, even though only the most recent one is counted, this comment does contain 3 votes, no?


03-10-2006 21:46:34 UTC



03-10-2006 23:23:13 UTC

against I think this comment thread is proof enough that there is no voter apathy. Though I liked the idea at first, there are issues - for instance, while yes, only the last vote counts, it is also true that you can change your vote once the outcome becomes obvious, for the sole purpose of gaining |, and not cause you changed your mind. Also, the self-kill loophole is a problem.