Proposal: Voters Offer Their Empathy
Enacted popular, 7-1. Josh
Adminned at 22 Aug 2021 17:21:59 UTC
Create a new dynastic rule, “Statistics”:
Each Legislator has an Empathy, a publicly tracked integer (that can be positive, negative, or zero, and defaults to zero).
Each Legislator has a Veto Usage, a publicly tracked nonnegative integer that defaults to zero.Whenever a Proposal not authored by the Wielder of Vetoes is Enacted or Failed, then:
- If the proposal was vetoed, the Veto Usage of the Legislator who vetoed it is increased by 1;
- Otherwise, if the proposal was self-killed, no changes are made to Empathy or Veto Usage;
- Otherwise, every Legislator who ever voted AGAINST the proposal (even if they subsequently changed their vote) loses 1 Empathy, and:
- if the proposal had been open for voting for less than 48 hours, each other Legislator gains 1 Empathy; or
- if the proposal had been open for voting for at least 48 hours, each other Legislator who voted FOR that proposal gains 1 Empathy.
The Admin who Enacts or Fails the proposal must update the dynastic tracking page to reflect these changes, unless someone else does so first. However, a failure to do so does not count as failure to enact/fail the proposal.
Set the Wielder of Vetoes’s Veto Usage to 3.
Tracking the FOR/AGAINST voting tendencies of players. I’d love to see lots of proposals pass (despite all the vetoes), so I’m going to be biased to the side of the FOR voters.
Also tracking the vetoing tendencies of players. Right now, it’s just me vetoing things, but given the nature of this dynasty, that may well change at some point. (So far, I’ve vetoed three proposals that were stuck in the queue from the previous dynasty.)
This proposal is also me saying that the expected activity cycle of this dynasty is 48 hours (the length of time it takes for a proposal to time out) – we shouldn’t be punishing players who can’t get to a proposal before it quorums, but may consider mechanics that benefit players who get to a proposal before it times out.
Clucky: he/him
I’m not really a fan of punishing people for voting against a popular idea, especially if they can’t even change their vote later. I think this hurts discussion, and makes people more likely to just go with the flow rather than risk speaking out about what they believe to be a bad rule. (Take your proposal where you accidentally made it so that people don’t clock in. The red x is a good way to single something is wrong with the proposal, where text might just get missed)
Where I think this really breaks down is that it applies to failed proposals too.
In theory, this could allow you to make sweeping changes to the dynastic rules that no one wants, but they would be actively punished for voting against. And so now you get this game of chicken to see who is going to be willing to sacrifice their own state in the game for the overall sake of the blog.
Stuff not made by you, we could maybe hope out for a veto on, but counting veto usage could turn getting vetoes into having gameplay relevancy so that isn’t great either. So I think you see a lot more proposals time out as people are hesitant to bother to be the one voting against them.