I smell a debate. =P

Doesn’t really sit right with me.

For one thing, you don’t get a ticket for voting DEF before the Chairman has voted, which is 75% of the time why I use a DEF vote, because I could go either way and just want to boost the vote count in whichever direction the Chairman goes.

Something also feels wrong about inventivizing voting like this, but I can’t quite put my finger on what.

The reason for not receiving a ticket for a DEF vote before the Chairman has voted is because it doesn’t seem right to beable to not think, and yet still receive a ticket.  You *can* still vote DEF and then later amend your vote to something else, and *then* receive a ticket.

Surely this means I can just vote multiple times? Someone with a better understanding of the core ruleset should feel free to correct me, but my initial reading of this implies that any comment with a vote indicator in it (as opposed to an Effective Vote Comment) will result in a ticket. If you go the other way with the interpretation of “single”, it reads as if only your first vote for any proposal will result in a ticket, neither of which are ideal.

Does this also mean that the proposing player increases their ticket count every time they make a proposal, due to the implicit FOR vote? What happens when they self-kill? Do they get a second ticket?

I also disagree that voting DEF before the Chairman is “not thinking”. Not thinking is not voting. Voting DEF after the Chairman has voted is a political exercise with no real purpose, except for the unlikely event of the Chairman changing his mind. Per lilomar, it seems wrong to de-incentivise this activity.

Thank you, William, for pointing out the flaws of the amendment.  I agree mostly, and also the amendment, after I thought about it, is rather uninteresting, regardless of flaws.  :)