Sunday, October 11, 2015

Proposal: Spending Influence Good?

Fewer than a quorum of players not voting against. Failed 1-6 by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 Oct 2015 10:01:49 UTC

In the Ruleset, replace “Any Cardinal may Bid on the Appointment by spending 1 Influence and posting a comment to that entry including the phrase “Bid: X” where X is the name of a Cardinal.” with

Any Cardinal may Bid on the Appointment if they have not already done so for that Appointment by spending 1 Influence and posting a comment to that entry including the phrase “Bid: X” where X is the name of a Cardinal.

Set Darknight’s Influence to 8, set Josh’s Influence to 7, set Kevan’s Influence to 12, set Brendan’s Influence to 8, set Tantusar’s Influence to 8, set Purplebeard’s Influence to 8, set Aname’s Influence to 8, set ayesdeeef’s Influence to 7, set delcooper11’s Influence to 8, set Roberto’s Influence to 8, and set EliasIX’s Influence to 5.

There is a conflict of interest right now.

Comments

Roberto:

10-11-2015 05:42:21 UTC

I agree with the rule change.
But I don’t fully understand the Influence reset part.

Kevan:

10-11-2015 09:31:56 UTC

against In the absence of any kind of explanation about what the “conflict of interest” is, or what the Influence twiddling (+2 to me, +3 to Ayesdeeef, +2 to Delcooper11 and -1 to EliasIX, at the time of the comment) is meant to be about.

Kevan:

10-11-2015 09:41:29 UTC

Limiting to one Bid per Appointment makes sense, though.

Darknight:

10-11-2015 10:10:43 UTC

against

ayesdeeef:

10-11-2015 14:53:36 UTC

Explanations!

Conflict of Interest: Papabiles are those with 10 Interest or higher. Thus, the opportunity for infinite Bids allows anyone to remove their status as a Papabile at any time and is problematic.

+2 Kevan: I’ll be honest Kevan, this is just meant to screw you over. Hopefully the other voters can get behind it.

+3 ayesdeeef: It was actually +1 at the time of Proposal, and is meant to get me back to the middle of the pack where the benefits tend to be in a majority wins game such as Nomic.

+2 delcooper11: This was actually +0 at the time of Proposal. Little explanation needed.

-1 EliasIX: Again, meant to alienate a Player by giving them an excessively low Influence, thus increasing the odds of victory for the rest of us.

Brendan:

10-11-2015 16:07:12 UTC

against As this does not sufficiently pander to me.

Kevan:

10-11-2015 17:06:37 UTC

If you’re concerned about infinite Bids, you could just propose to undo any that might happen. Setting Influence to specific values just wipes out any changes that happen for other reasons, and lets the enacting admin quickly spend some and have it refunded.

ayesdeeef:

10-11-2015 19:51:19 UTC

I can see how we would reset the loss of Influence, but how could we undo the fact that multiple Bids were placed? Are you Proposing that we reward infinite Bidders by giving them their Influence back?

If anything, Kevan, this Proposal benefits you most. You can Bid 10 times and then hop back up to 12 Influence.

Elias IX:

10-11-2015 23:11:21 UTC

against  obviously

Purplebeard:

10-12-2015 08:14:03 UTC

against

Roberto:

10-12-2015 09:52:34 UTC

against