Sunday, October 18, 2009

Proposal: Walk the Line

Times out 8 votes FOR to 9 AGAINST (including 1 DEF). Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 20 Oct 2009 18:30:21 UTC

Any player who voted against this proposal is awarded 10 points.
Any player who voted for this proposal is awarded 6 points.

posted by redtara at 18 Oct 2009 21:03:18 UTC Comments (34)

Comments

Josh: he/they

18-10-2009 21:08:06 UTC

against Boring.

Rodlen:

18-10-2009 21:18:47 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

18-10-2009 21:40:11 UTC

against

arthexis: he/him

18-10-2009 21:52:43 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

18-10-2009 22:04:36 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

18-10-2009 22:04:48 UTC

for

Bucky:

18-10-2009 22:10:49 UTC

against Trivial

Darknight: he/him

18-10-2009 22:25:19 UTC

against

Wakukee:

18-10-2009 22:48:54 UTC

Whatever happened to EVCs?  against  for

Kevan: he/him

18-10-2009 22:55:07 UTC

Maybe we should just add an explicit, common-sense interpretation of the past-tense term “voted” to the ruleset. No proposal has ever cared about the the prior-to-CoV votes of a player.

Klisz:

19-10-2009 00:16:00 UTC

against  for

Bucky:

19-10-2009 00:19:48 UTC

CoV for

Bucky:

19-10-2009 00:20:07 UTC

CoV against  Trivial

arthexis: he/him

19-10-2009 00:30:21 UTC

CoV against  for

Wakukee:

19-10-2009 00:45:05 UTC

I believe that it is only the usage of voted, rather than votes. At some point I hd voted against, so it counts. However, my vote is for.

Rodlen:

19-10-2009 00:47:43 UTC

against  for COV

Excalabur:

19-10-2009 00:58:29 UTC

I’m with kevan on this one.  Only your most recent vote counts, people.  against

Oranjer:

19-10-2009 02:56:44 UTC

imperial Ha!

arthexis: he/him

19-10-2009 03:36:14 UTC

@exca: in fact, I believe that what kevan tried to say is that the rules do not have a common-sense definition for a case like this yet, not that they do.

Excalabur:

19-10-2009 03:52:45 UTC

In the event that the rules do not define a term, common-sense or conventional usage applies.  In this case, the vote that counts, frankly.

ais523:

19-10-2009 08:09:23 UTC

against Because I don’t want this to pass, and it gets me more points even if it does.

spikebrennan:

19-10-2009 14:07:41 UTC

This is exactly why the EVC definition exists.

Kevan: he/him

19-10-2009 15:40:42 UTC

But that definition could be applied to the word “vote”, rather than using a clunky acronym.

Oze:

19-10-2009 18:15:36 UTC

for

ais523:

19-10-2009 19:11:21 UTC

EVCs refer to comments with a counted vote, IIRC, rather than the counted vote itself. So it’s not quite the same thing.

ais523:

19-10-2009 19:18:00 UTC

EVCs refer to comments with a counted vote, IIRC, rather than the counted vote itself. So it’s not quite the same thing.

Wooble:

19-10-2009 19:22:13 UTC

against trivial

Shem:

19-10-2009 19:51:52 UTC

for Trivial

spikebrennan:

19-10-2009 20:06:12 UTC

What ais523 said.  Also, the ruleset uses the term “vote” in some instances that would make no sense if its meaning was identical to EVC, such as when it talks about a player’s vote on a given proposal being superseded by the player’s subsequent vote on that proposal.

Qwazukee:

19-10-2009 20:55:35 UTC

against Trivial

redtara: they/them

20-10-2009 00:51:34 UTC

Failing 10-9 (?)

Kevan: he/him

20-10-2009 08:40:21 UTC

Referencing EVCs would be of no use here, then, as they don’t include the vote, only the comment. There is no way to use them to trigger “Any player who voted against this proposal”.

Yes, supercession is obviously the big case where the word “vote” applies to something other than the most recent vote. If that’s the only time, though, then that could be where we explicitly say that the superceded vote is no longer considered a vote.

spikebrennan:

20-10-2009 16:40:47 UTC

A Player’s “Effective Vote Comment” with respect to a given Proposal (which may be abbreviated for all purposes as “EVC”) means that Player’s Comment to that Proposal (if any) that contains that Player’s Vote on the Proposal that is given effect in accordance with Rule 1.4 when the Proposal is Adminned.

(Interestingly, “Adminned” is not defined in the ruleset—presumably it means “Enacted or Failed”).

Kevan, I think we’re agreeing with each other.  Ideally, this proposal would have said something like “Any player who casts a FOR vote on this Proposal that is given effect in accordance with Rule 1.4 when the Proposal is Adminned is awarded 10 points….”

Kevan: he/him

20-10-2009 16:51:15 UTC

Well, ideally, just saying “any player who voted FOR this proposal” would be fine, and we’d have had a rule definition that backed up the common sense interpretation of what that means.

I’ll have a stab at this when I’ve got my proposal head on again.