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.
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. New players are always welcome and can join in at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
Comments
Josh:
Rodlen:
Kevan:
arthexis:
spikebrennan:
spikebrennan:
Bucky:
Darknight:
Wakukee:
Whatever happened to EVCs?
Kevan:
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:
Bucky:
CoV
Bucky:
CoV
Trivial
arthexis:
CoV
Wakukee:
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:
Excalabur:
I’m with kevan on this one. Only your most recent vote counts, people.
Oranjer:
arthexis:
@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:
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:
spikebrennan:
This is exactly why the EVC definition exists.
Kevan:
But that definition could be applied to the word “vote”, rather than using a clunky acronym.
Oze:
ais523:
EVCs refer to comments with a counted vote, IIRC, rather than the counted vote itself. So it’s not quite the same thing.
ais523:
EVCs refer to comments with a counted vote, IIRC, rather than the counted vote itself. So it’s not quite the same thing.
Wooble:
Shem:
spikebrennan:
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no sense if its meaning was identical to EVC, such as when it talks about a player’s vote on a given proposal being superseded by the player’s subsequent vote on that proposal.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:
Ienpw III:
Failing 10-9 (?)
Kevan:
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:
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:
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.