Proposal - modify 202 to read the following (bold indicates changes):
One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) calculating points and adding the points to one's score, if applicable.
To calculate points, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)
Points calculated in this way are only awarded if a rule proposal is successfully passed during this turn.
We've gotten to the point where you can still gain points even if the proposal fails. This rule change fixes that bug.
Nope. My people will have none of this, but we eagerly hope for its passage regardless.
Is this really a bug? We should get more ambitious.
I think a rule which just fails is worth more than one which is voted down by everyone, so am actually pretty happy with how things stand.
202 does need cleaning up though. When does a turn actually start? How does judgement fit in with the turns?
I'm hoping to provide incentive for more carefully crafted legislation and also to keep the game interesting. I'm also hesitant to cram too much into this rule change, but if there seems to be more favor for clearly defined turn structure we can go in that direction.
I'm hoping to provide incentive for more carefully crafted legislation and also to keep the game interesting.
I suggest the more direct path of actually making an interesting proposal.
I'm with shelleycat on this one. Why shouldn't we get a few points if some of the players like our proposal? Also, note that all failed proposals would still lose the player 10 points.
Can we get rid of the down-vote bonus instead?
But when has the down-vote bonus caused us problems? Neither of these strike me as worth a proposal.
Say what you will about the Secret Fraternity idea, at least it had the potential to switch things up a bit.
Ambition! Excelsior!
Down-vote bonuses are keeping anything from getting passed, e.g. I'm not the only one voting No just for points' sake right now.
Who has actually gained any "no" points recently? Nothing has passed for many many rounds.
And just for the record, I want to restate. backseatpilot, because you did not engage in any debate regarding my proposal, just came in and voted no, me and my people will be voting against this and anything else you put up for vote.
Wait, people are actually voting "no" on everything for point reasons? Really? Okay, let's change that then.
I'm sorry my busy schedule has cause you some anger, AAA. Why can't we all just get along?
2nd pass - modify 204 to read the following:
204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 11 points, divided evenly among the dissenting voters. If there is only one dissenter, he/she receives 10 points, with one point as a remainder. The judge will distribute any remainder as "bonus points" for the purposes of rewarding excellent rhetoric or particularly daring feats of bravery. The judge may not award "bonus points" to him/herself.
Example:
9/12 favorable votes, 3/12 dissenting. 11/3 = 3 points per dissenter, judge awards 2 bonus points.
I would support that very heartily. With great feeling.
yawn-o. i'm voting no. so should all right-thinkers who want to send a strong message of "I hate you so much for voting against the last two proposals without discussing it first."
I don't think waiting around for judgement on every turn is really a great idea. The game is slow enough as it is. In any case, the points maximizing method is still to vote no on every proposal with this change.
I think with this scheme there is less incentive to vote no, as a large dissenting block dilutes the number of points one could potentially receive. I also don't think the bonus point distribution is an official "judgment", and is therefore not bound by standard judging procedure. I can add language to prevent delay-of-game ("distribution of bonus points must occur within 48 hours of the conclusion of a vote but shall not impede the tallying of points or the beginning of the next turn) if you feel it is necessary.
Also, I will add language to state that if there are zero dissenting votes there shall still be one "remainder" point available for distribution.
Although my people luuurve the idea of judges handing out bonus points, we still have to deal with the black ball of resentment you planted deep inside of us, backseatpilot, and vote no out of spite. Hope it passes though.
Is there any act of contrition I might perform to assuage your black balls and heal this great rift that has come between us?
Is there any act of contrition I might perform...
Indeed there is. After I have voted no, and your proposal fails by one vote, spend a few moments thinking about me, and how sad you made me feel.
I will be sure to sing the "I'm so sorry" song, followed by mixing my own tears in my glass of whiskey. This whole thing stems from some deep-seated personality issues caused by always being picked last for kickball in gym class.
But 11 divided by three equals three point six repeating, not three. Partial points haven't been clarified but it's too late now (proposal has been put to vote) so I'll have to vote no. I like the idea and will vote yes if it's put forward again without ambiguities and incorrect maths.
Integer division. 11 / 3 = 3 (2 remainder)
So bonus points available is 11 mod n, where n = number of no voters.