Bucky has been unidled.  Quorum remains at 8.  I vote since I’m not for unidling Travellers against their wills.  In fact, I’ve talked myself into a .

Well, it’s too late now but I wasn’t proposing to unidle em against eir will - e had asked for it!

It just looked like nobody was going to do it (because of the scam).  I hoped this would get em unidled and undo the scam at the same time.

The fact that Bucky’s been unidled means that this proposal is now just “deduct the Influence that Bucky gained by exploiting a loophole”, if you want to reconsider that veto.

This is precisely the sort of manipulation of the materials of the game rather than the rules that was such a problem in the last dynasty.  Quitting a game is not a strategic manuver that should be rewarded within the game.  It becomes more and more clear that we do need some guidelines as to what is valid manipulation of vague rules and what is simply cheating.  I would also say that the fate of this proposal is a telling reply to the people who responded to my “Gamestate/Blogstate” distinction that all problems will be corrected by consiencious players.

Okay,  then.  I know that this Proposal was meant to unidle a Traveller who had requested to unidle, but one certainly can’t tell that just from reading the Proposal.  It will unidle Bucky whether e wants it or not (that e wanted to unidle at time of this Proposal’s posting makes no difference to me).

As for the Influence that Bucky gained “unethically”, I consider it to be partially my fault for wording my Proposal poorly, partially everyone’s fault for either voting for it or not noticing the error, and (of course) partially Bucky’s fault for doing it (assuming it was intentional).  The solution should simply be to reasonably nullify the advantage e gained.  As far as I’m concerned, that would simply be to reduce eir Influence by 10 (yeah, e may have used eir increased Influence for some benefit in the meantime, but no solution’s perfect).

And don’t even get me started on what I think about the fact that only FOR voters can influence which mode of this Proposal (i.e. 10 vs. 12 Influence) goes into effect upon Enactment.

And don’t even get me started on what I think about the fact that only FOR voters can influence which mode of this Proposal (i.e. 10 vs. 12 Influence) goes into effect upon Enactment.

Actually, I’m quite interested in this since I word all my proposals this way by habit.  Why is it that you object?

I don’t like the trend for these “more than half” things, either - it means that there’s no way for a player to say “I would vote FOR in case A, but AGAINST in case B” - you can help something reach quorum when you didn’t want it to pass.

And more critically, it means that you’re able to sub-propose something that only requires half of quorum to approve it, and half not to mind too much (or to believe that they were in a majority at the time of their voting).

This did come up last year, I think - someone making a proposal with a very strong optional-vote-comment element, and most people voting in favour but rejecting the optional-vote, and then two accomplices voting FOR-plus-option at the end.

Yeah, most Proposals which have a really major element conditionally determined get against votes from me (the exception is when I find ALL possible modes more acceptable than the status quo).  I get frustrated not knowing what I’m voting on.  The difference between 10 and 12 influence here, for example, isn’t so bad.