Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Proposal: Vote early and often

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 06 May 2010 03:14:30 UTC

Part 1:
Rename Rule 1.5 (presently entitled “Enactment”) to “Resolution of Proposals”.  In that rule, change the phrase “passed or failed” to “enacted or failed”

Part 2:
In Rule 3.1 “Keywords”, add the following two definitions:

Vote
The word “Vote”, used as a noun, means a Vote that is cast in accordance with Rule 1.4 “Voting”.  The word “Vote”, used as a verb, means the act of casting such a Vote.

Resolve/Resolution
The world “Resolve” means to perform the act, as an Admin, of enacting or failing a Proposal, a Call for Judgment or a Declaration of Victory.  The world “Resolution” means the act of doing so.

Part 3:
In the definition of “Effective Vote Comment (EVC)” in Rule 3.1 (“Keywords”), replace the word “Adminned” with “Resolved”.

Part 4:
In Rule 1.6 (“Calls for Judgment”), replace the sentence:

All Voters may add votes of agreement or disagreement in comments to this entry, using appropriate voting icons (a Voter’s later votes overriding their earlier ones).

with the sentence:

All Voters may cast Votes on that CfJ to indicate agreement or disagreement with the position taken in that CfJ by using the process described in Rule 1.4 (“Voting”) as modified by this Rule 1.6, except that only FOR and AGAINST Votes may be cast.

and replace the sentence:

After this time, if more than half of the cast votes are in favour, the Gameset and Ruleset shall be amended as was specified

with the sentence:

After this time, if more than half the cast Votes are FOR Votes, the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating or correcting the Gamestate and Ruleset as specified.

Part 5:
In rule 1.9 (“Victory and Ascension”), replace the word “passed” with “enacted”, the word “passes” with the phrase “is enacted”, and the phrase “a passing DoV” with the phrase “an enacted DoV” wherever they appear, and replace the sentence:

Every Voter may respond to an active DoV saying whether or not he believes the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty (using the FOR and AGAINST icons).

with the sentence:

Every Voter may cast Votes on that DoV to indicate agreement or disagreement with the proposition that the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty by using the process described in Rule 1.4 (“Voting”) as modified by this Rule 1.9, except that only FOR and AGAINST Votes may be cast.

Part 6:
Throughout the ruleset, capitalize all instances of the words “Vote”, “Voted” and “Votes”

Because all the cool kids are doing core ruleset cleanups.
This proposal cleans up some inconsistent terminology.  The current ruleset uses the word “Vote” as both a noun and a verb, implicitly defining the noun in Rule 1.4 but not really defining the verb.  The ruleset also uses inconsistent terminology to refer to the concept of enacting or failing a Proposal, CfJ or DoV—this proposal mandates the use of the terminology “Enact/Fail” in each of the three instances, and defines “Resolution/Resolved” as the act of either enacting or failing.

Comments

Keba:

05-05-2010 14:34:25 UTC

against

Nice idea, but this would disallow voting on CjJs and DoVs (or at least complicate the Ruleset):

very Voter may cast Votes on that [DoV] to indicate agreement or disagreement with the proposition that the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty by using the process described in Rule 1.4 (CjF similar)

Rule 1.4 does not describe a process of voting for DoVs (and CfJs), only for Proposals.

Besides, this would allow self-killing, and many Players don’t want DoVs having the ability of self-killing.

muiro:

05-05-2010 14:34:54 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

05-05-2010 14:46:12 UTC

against Per Keba - Rule 1.4 still only talks about votes being cast on proposals (“Any Voter may cast his Vote on a Pending Proposal”, “If a Voter uses more than one Voting Icon in comments on a Pending Proposal”, etc.).

A good step forwards otherwise, though.

Kevan: he/him

05-05-2010 14:48:01 UTC

[Keba] This wouldn’t allow DoVs to be self-killed - self-killing is part of Rule 1.5 (“The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if [the] Voter who proposed it has voted AGAINST it.”), it doesn’t come up in Rule 1.9.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-05-2010 15:37:32 UTC

against I would vote for a fixed reproposal of this, however.

Klisz:

05-05-2010 15:37:51 UTC

against  Because I don’t like how spikebrennan divides his proposals into “parts”; I can stand it if he does only 2 or 3 parts, but 6 is ridiculously confusing.

spikebrennan:

05-05-2010 16:24:26 UTC

Darth: The “Part” labels are just to facilitate discussion of my proposal.  I lumped all this into a single proposal because the terminology issues are related and are scattered throughout the ruleset.

I take the point about Rule 1.4.  Maybe a better omnibus way of addressing this would be to introduce a new term, say “Votable Matter” that collectively includes Proposals, CFJs and DoVs.  Then, Rule 1.4 can be refashioned into a general rule that governs how Votes are cast on Votable Matters (so that it can be the engine that drives the voting sections of the “Enactment”, CFJ and DOV rules).  Rule 1.4 would then specify, when appropriate, that a Vote of VETO or DEFERENTIAL may only be cast if the Votable Matter is a Proposal.

Right now, strictly speaking, a CJF or a DoV really can’t be resolved (even though we do it all the time) because a “FOR vote” and an “AGAINST vote” are only formally defined in the context of a proposal.

spikebrennan:

05-05-2010 16:28:46 UTC

against
S/K because I’m going to take a stab at doing this per my comment above.

scshunt:

06-05-2010 08:02:50 UTC

against
for reasons stated by others