Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Proposal: The simplest fix

Times out and passes 8-1. -Bucky

Adminned at 15 May 2010 07:39:23 UTC

If any sentences in the ruleset begin “If a Blognomicker votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal”, then delete those sentences.

In rule 1.4 “Voting”, replace

If there is no Victorious Blognomicker, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention.

with

If there is no Victorious Blognomicker, or the vote is made by the proposal’s author on his own proposal, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention, and has no effect except possibly to void earlier voting icons by that voter on that proposal.

The real issue is that DEFing your own proposal (when not the Emperor-equivalent) is currently pretty much meaningless. This gives it a specific meaning (cancel the IAV without s/king), and one in which its interaction with imperial AGAINSTs is obvious. This also makes CoV DEF plausible for a proposal author, with meaningful semantics.

posted by ais523 at 12 May 2010 13:50:21 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

Klisz:

12-05-2010 15:53:42 UTC

imperial

Anonyman:

12-05-2010 16:05:14 UTC

for
A definite yes from me!

flurie:

12-05-2010 17:59:39 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

12-05-2010 19:50:41 UTC

for Even though I prefer the other solution, it’s better that it’s unambiguous.

Kevan: he/him

12-05-2010 20:30:30 UTC

for Although I don’t see the need for “has no effect except possibly to void earlier voting icons by that voter on that proposal” - it’s surely enough just to make sure the basic voting rules factor correctly around an abstention. There are already several “effects” that can be triggered by someone casting a vote of abstention.

redtara: they/them

12-05-2010 20:34:49 UTC

Wait. I don’t understand this proposal.

Kevan: he/him

12-05-2010 20:40:08 UTC

[Ienpw] For what it’s worth, this does nothing to fix the disputed ambiguity of whether “has Voted AGAINST it” means “has explicitly cast a vote of AGAINST on it at some time in the past” or “is currently considered to be voting AGAINST it by whatever mechanism”. Although this blocks the only current way for a proposer’s vote to be changed to AGAINST, it still leaves an unnecessarily ambiguous clause in the ruleset.

SeerPenguin:

14-05-2010 01:29:55 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

14-05-2010 04:23:58 UTC

imperial

Qwazukee:

14-05-2010 07:18:31 UTC

“a Vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention”

disagrees with the statement that immediately follows,

“and has no effect except possibly to void earlier voting icons by that voter on that proposal.”

since of course it does have an effect: it cancels the FOR vote that the Author would otherwise automatically have.

against

Igthorn:

14-05-2010 09:47:56 UTC

for