Monday, March 24, 2014

Proposal: The ‘three times’ rule.

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 26 Mar 2014 06:01:34 UTC

Add a new keyword to the Glossary:

Extra Vote

Sometimes a rule may give an Infected one or more Extra Votes on a Votable Matter. To cast an Extra Vote, that Infected uses additional identical voting icons in their EVC: one additional icon to the first for every Extra Vote used. For each Extra Vote cast, that vote counts one additional time for the resolution of the Votable Matter.

Extra Votes cannot be cast on Core Proposals, Calls for Judgment, or Declarations of Victory.

Change “may use two identical voting icons when voting on a Hive Proposal; if they do, their vote on that proposal counts twice.” in the “Shovel” rule to “has one Extra Vote on Hive Proposals.”
Change “may use two identical voting icons when voting on an Invention Proposal; if they do, their vote on that proposal counts twice.” in the “Toolbox” rule to “has one Extra Vote on Invention Proposals.”
Change “may use two identical voting icons when voting on a Dynastic Proposal that is neither a Hive nor an Invention Proposal; if they do, their vote counts twice.” in the “Evil AI Interface Room” rule to “has one Extra Vote on Dynastic Proposals that are neither a Hive nor an Invention Proposal”

This isn’t the first time we have weird voting rules, and it probably isn’t the last. Also, I think there’d be lots of additional weirdness involving having two extra votes on the same proposal in the old style (does it count as three (addition), or four votes (multiplication, i.e. twice twice)?) It’s interfering with a proposal I’d like to make, so let’s codify this for now and for future generations.

Comments

Justice:

24-03-2014 16:40:50 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

24-03-2014 17:03:30 UTC

against Because “For each Extra Vote cast, that vote counts one additional time for the resolution of the Votable Matter.” looks a bit too much like a loophole. (If I make ten consecutive double-FOR votes, I have “cast” all of them. The tenth counts twice, and the first nine each count zero times plus one additional time, making a total of 11 votes from me.)

Rodney:

24-03-2014 19:05:03 UTC

against S-K. While it does say, “in their EVC”, I do see now that it’s ambiguous. Any ideas for better wording?

benzene:

24-03-2014 19:22:00 UTC

I just thought of another issue involving extra votes. It is possible for a proposal to be failable and entactable at the same time because both of these can be true simultaneously.

It has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been Vetoed or Self-Killed.

The number of Infecteds who are not voting AGAINST it is less than Quorum.

Babylon:

25-03-2014 20:10:05 UTC

against