Thursday, October 27, 2011

Proposal: Temp Workers

Times out 14-9-1 and is enacted - coppro

Adminned at 28 Oct 2011 23:40:26 UTC

If the Proposal “Employment” has failed, this Proposal does nothing.
Create a new rule, “Downsizing”:

In today’s economy, Employers (Players who have hired other Players) cannot afford to keep all of their Employees.  Therefore, in an effort to reduce overhead, they can use the following methods to reduce headcount:

a) An Employer may, when voting against an Employee’s Proposal, declare that they are Firing that Employee in a comment on that Proposal.  They shall change that Employee’s Employment to Free Agent immediately, and their vote shall count double on that Proposal.  If the Employer changes their vote, it no longer counts double.

b) An Employer may fire an Employee if that Employee voted against a Proposal that the Employer proposed, and that vote was their latest vote.  They shall comment on that Proposal, declaring that they are Firing that Employee, and change that Employee’s Employment to Free Agent immediately.  The Employee’s vote shall be counted as DEF on that Proposal.

Comments

omd:

27-10-2011 04:40:11 UTC

for

arthexis: he/him

27-10-2011 04:56:49 UTC

for Normally against cases that alter vote counting too much, but I think in this example, it happens very rarely enough too be much of an issue and goes well with the Theme.

scshunt:

27-10-2011 05:34:34 UTC

against due to referent ambiguity of ‘their’ in the second paragraph.

arthexis: he/him

27-10-2011 05:37:19 UTC

There is no ambiguity, only the Employer’s vote is mentioned in that paragraph, and the pronoun refers to it.

arthexis: he/him

27-10-2011 05:37:59 UTC

It wouldn’t even make sense the other way around (why would the Employee’s vote count double on their own proposal??)

Darknight: he/him

27-10-2011 06:04:06 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

27-10-2011 06:11:53 UTC

for

Bucky:

27-10-2011 06:36:03 UTC

for , but only since it only affects AGAINST votes

zuff:

27-10-2011 08:33:01 UTC

for

ais523:

27-10-2011 09:00:17 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

27-10-2011 13:44:26 UTC

for

Ely:

27-10-2011 13:54:27 UTC

for

Prince Anduril:

27-10-2011 14:32:57 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

27-10-2011 18:07:39 UTC

against Employer/Employee is not defined by Employment.

Also seems rather weak.

arthexis: he/him

27-10-2011 18:34:39 UTC

Clucky: I think we can fix the rules, but I like the concept in general and it won’t cause any problems if enacted.

Clucky: he/him

27-10-2011 19:16:01 UTC

I still argue its a litle weak. It also has the same problem as SingularByte’s proposal. When you start doubling votes, quorom becomes very odd.

Pavitra:

27-10-2011 21:13:55 UTC

for It can only double one vote per proposal. Quorum might become slightly odd, but unless the number of players drops to about seven, I don’t think this particular proposal is game-breaking.

Amnistar: he/him

27-10-2011 22:00:51 UTC

Clucky: Employed is defined, employer is not defined.

Amnistar: he/him

27-10-2011 22:01:09 UTC

but they don’t reference employed.  Nevermind.

Shadowclaw:

27-10-2011 22:26:56 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

27-10-2011 22:29:47 UTC

I’d rather not enact broken rules and then fix them later.

Winner:

27-10-2011 23:02:25 UTC

for

lazerchik:

28-10-2011 03:14:13 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

28-10-2011 08:58:08 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

28-10-2011 10:44:30 UTC

against

Ornithopter:

28-10-2011 18:50:01 UTC

against
This can actually double more than one vote. Kevan is my employer, he votes against my proposal and fires me; his vote is doubled. Zuff then hires me, votes against my proposal, and fires me; his vote is also doubled.

I’m not sure doubling an AGAINST on a proposal actually accomplishes anything, though, since bonus AGAINST votes don’t affect ability to reach quorum. (Proposals fail when they can’t reach quorum without a vote being changed, not when they get a quorum of AGAINSTs.)

ais523:

28-10-2011 19:04:57 UTC

against per Ornithopter. That’s quite a significant bug.

Spitemaster:

28-10-2011 21:02:43 UTC

I’m not going to SK this, as I think the second Firing method is worthwhile.  I will post a fix posthaste, however.

redtara: they/them

28-10-2011 21:23:13 UTC

against per Orni.

Murphy:

28-10-2011 23:14:16 UTC

against

Moriarty:

28-10-2011 23:31:12 UTC

against per Ornithopter. I like the concept though.

Ornithopter:

29-10-2011 00:51:29 UTC

Maintaining AGAINST vote in light of patch per Clucky.

Doctor29:

29-10-2011 05:47:54 UTC

imperial