OK, I have posted my proposal. I believe you can vote on it here: http://blogshares.com/mefino/node/30
Basically it will change the requirement for a rule to pass from unanimity to a simple majority.
I propose this not because it's necessarily ideal, but because it's going to happen automatically if we don't come up with something else during this go-around (see Rule 203), and it seems unlikely that any other voting system will be approved unanimously before then, at which point this would become law anyway having wasted a lot of our (and our employers') time.
So please, vote YES on my pretty boring proposal so that, on your next turn, your own EXCITING proposal won't need unanimity to be adapted.
lovingly yours,
1
Nice, simple needed. Thanks.
I can dig it.
I propose that this be amended to something like the following:
Any alteration to a mutable rule shall require a simple majority to pass. An alteration to an immutable rule shall require unanimity to pass.
A change to a mutable rules is any rule change for which its target rule is initially a mutable rule. The corresponding definition applies to immutable rules as well.
======== END proposal
I suggest this because I believe that changing the immutable rules should remain difficult; let's not open the game up too much, too fast.
Let's not amend 302 because it would require re-voting and we're already halfway there. The immutable rules are still protected because 203 doesn't deal with that issue. Immutable 103 still requires the transmutation of 100-series rules before they can be changed.
Also, elegant move, 1.
So every time a proposal gets put forward in an American type time zone it will be voted to majority relatively quickly and I'll turn up and oops, too late no point participating. No.
I'm still all for reasonable timelines that allow everyone to participate. A sweeping change like this doesn't do that at all. If people don't like time limits in hours then quorum voting would still be better. That gives a requirement for a certain level of participation (above the 51% that is implied in simple majority) and gives all of us a better chance to be involved. So maybe a majority after 90% (or whatever, maybe 80% would be better) of people have voted, or even a weighted majority, e.g. needs 60% of the quorum to vote yes to be passed.
Right now we still need unanimity and I'm still participating to the point that it would be hard to remove me from the voting list. And I'll vote no on this as it stands.
It should be harder to make an immutable rule into a mutable one than it is to modify a mutable rule or pass an entirely new one. While the wording of this kind of ignores the immutable/mutable distinction there are other rules that protect the immutable side that this does not overrule. So I can live with that aspect of it.
I believe immovable rules are still protected.
Note "or" not "and/or". That, combined with
and
means that changing an immutable rule still requires two turns. Also, Rule 109 still requires the transmutation to pass unanimously.
immutable, not immovable.
I don't know where we currently stand on changing votes or changing proposals so I'm holding off from voting right now in case this does get amended. I'm not trying to be purposefully obstructive or anything and do want the game to proceed. I just want to be part of that, and to allow everyone else to be part of it too.
Shelleycat: So every time a proposal gets put forward in an American type time zone it will be voted to majority relatively quickly and I'll turn up and vote no, earning 10 points by Rule 204.
Assuming everyone voted the way they really felt, would voting last be a disadvantage in any way? It's still the total that matters. Even if your single no was the very first one, you'd lose. [in a non-unanimous system]. You get more information than anyone else before you vote, is all, which can be nothing but an advantage.
Furthermore, you still can campaign for others to change their votes before you cast yours and close the voting.
Hell, you could vote no and earn 10 points (and deny the proposer some fraction of a point) even for proposals you like, after it already has a majority. I might just vote last on purpose.
Rereading, I think I may have missed your point.
I'm still all for reasonable timelines that allow everyone to participate.
Rule 105 requires everyone to participate. Time limits allow us to not wait for extreme slowpokes, but as we don't have those yet (and when we do, I very much doubt they'd be shorter than a couple of days), you're guaranteed to get to vote. You're not going to get steamrolled and miss a whole turn just by being in a different time zone.
Okay, so what's the deal with starting voting as soon as the proposal goes live? From 111:
Zero minutes is not a reasonable amount of time.
yeah, that's not how I had imagined it going either. You can still debate in the discussion thread before voting, though, and you could convince everyone to change their votes. I don't think it violates the spirit of 111, but next time we should open the discussion thread first.
Then we get to have the "what is a 'reasonable' amount of time" argument.
Hmm. This makes more sense now. See I assumed voting would end as soon as there is a majority, but you're all right in that rule 105 still precludes that. Technically we do have to meet a quorum - 100% of voters. This is an important point for us (heh, me!) to remember.
So this rule change would make it easier to get a new rule voted in but wouldn't do anything about the possible issue of people not voting and thus stalling the game. Which I'm actually fine with at this stage. We may want to lower the quorum later but there's time to wait and see if it's necessary. I still like the idea of a weighted majority, so like 75% in favour or something, but again that's a fine tuning that can be looked at as we go.
We may also need to introduce time limits still at some point to stop everyone trying to wait until the end and be the last voter. Because it does have some benefits re points etc as has been pointed out and could drag things out. An alternative would be to hide the information about who has voted and how until after the voting period has finished making things a bit more blind. Again we can come to that once we see how things are moving.
So now I'm going to vote yes. Thanks for explaining.
Heh, I'll probably wait a bit to cast my official vote though, just in case there was something else really obvious I missed.
"If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play ... or if it is otherwise of questionable value. . ."
Not to toot my own horn, but I'm sure that none of those apply to this proposal.
I have to agree with shelleycat's initial objection, too, though; I'm not convinced that this rule is going to make for fair play for non-North-American players; they'll see the rules at a point where they can stall the game, but can not participate in the acceptance or rejection of the rules.
A rule that establishes a quorum size would be more acceptable to me. I can't vote yes for this as it is written.
(Also: how will we know what the voting deadline is?)
"I have to agree with shelleycat's initial objection, too, though; I'm not convinced that this rule is going to make for fair play for non-North-American players; they'll see the rules at a point where they can stall the game, but can not participate in the acceptance or rejection of the rules"
The reason I propose this is that it's going to happen anyway, automatically, after all of the more interesting proposals are shot down by one lone objector. (Possibly me!) Once this passes it will be much easier to to figure out a quorum, etc. Otherwise we're all going to have to wait for (at this rate) about a month before we're able to pass anything.
What I don't see is any positive reason why people should be voting for this proposal "that it's going to happen anyway, automatically" really doesn't cut it, and besides there is nothing stopping proposals being reintroduced if they are that interesting.
On the other hand I think there are very good reasons for unanimity during the first tow rounds -- this is the time that many of the major directions of the game will be set, and when many of the rules that will determine how the game is run will be voted upon, for these consensus is important. Proposers should be giving extra consideration to their proposals because of this, ad so should voters. The requirement for unanimity forces proposers to come up with something they think everybody can agree upon.
Had majority voting already been in place notJim's original proposal might already been in force, complete with time limits that would have been unworkable for residents of the minority time zones, unanimity provides protection for minority interests.
There are many important things that need to be considered and put in place for the game to work, these should be inclusive, and I would argue should be in place before the adoption of majority voting. This mirrors by real world experience of setting up constitutions where the constitution itself is agreed by consensus, though it might well enact proposals such as quoracy and majority voting, because of the weight these foundational rules will carry.
Having too fats a game doe snot seem to be a problem.
I don't think anyone wants to shut out players from participating. Perhaps on a future rule we should define what a reasonable time frame is such that we have a least a day or so prior to voting. This discussion/amendment process will help put forward useful rules that are likely to pass. However as it stands we'll be lucky to have one turn per week. This rule will help us gets some basic time limits setup that make it so one person missing, on vacation etc. doesn't hold up the game.
If we have a longer discussion time, then everyone will have a chance to see the proposal.
As it stands we're already in a vote, stopping, amending restarting could be done if you insist. A lot of us want this to pass so I'm sure people would be willing to go for a higher percentage. However given the past speed of voting, I'm sure even at 51% you'll have plenty of time to discuss rules:
If a proposal is getting a majority of votes very quickly it's likely to pass anyway even at a higher percentage. If it's controversial, plenty of people are going to hold off and discuss it.
heh fats. Can't type...
So for the folks who are objecting, What do you want to see this rule as?
A different percentage: 60%, 75% etc.
A minimum discussion period
How would you like this changed?
- Amend proposal, restart vote (this could be seen as ok since the current vote may *could* be considered void due to not being a "reasonable" time period) - May need/want to invoke judgment for this
- Finish vote and have it fail, someone else propose on another turn
Or is there any way to,make a softer agreement?
Such as promising to propose a longer discussion period in a future turn for your yes vote now.
I'd accept this (with reservations, but there you go) if it were a 75% supermajority required.
I'm fine (since I haven't cast a vote yet) with scrapping the votes on the current proposal and moving on.
Ditto on the 75%. (I'd be fine with 70% + 1 too.) Also, since the text of 302 would replace 203, it should mention "eligible voters." (The fact that it lacks this definitely makes it of "questionable value," in my book. If you're trying to skip debate, please don't be so sloppy.) With these changes, I'd vote yes; otherwise, no.
(BTW, if anyone mentions percentages in a draft I think it'd be helpful to specify whether they should be rounded up or down.)
I don't agree that a simple majority is the best way to determine when a vote has concluded, but I have voted Yes on this proposal because I believe it is an improvement over the current system.
I think we should revisit the criteria for when a vote is best declared as completed if this rule passes.
Yeah, I think you guys are overlooking the fact that this rule can easily be changed as early as the next rule, but if it doesn't pass you're stuck with unanimity as the requirement.
Personally I don't like 75% as a criterion and would vote against it. And eventually we'd wind up with majority rule by default, at which point the majority would pick something they like more than that. I guess I repeat myself and should shut it, but I think this conversation seems to be ignoring the key point that we're going to wind up with this eventually as nothing else is going to get unanimous support. (And the only reason I think that this has a chance to is because we're going to wind up with it eventually no matter what; not because a simple majority if necessarily best.)
And what about the "eligible voters" issue? What was your rationale for removing that phrase?
Incidentally, I wouldn't want to use the 75% measure forever. Just for the first full circuit.
"And what about the "eligible voters" issue? What was your rationale for removing that phrase?"
Ah, that would be a mistake. :/
Was just pasting the text about the majority from later in the sentence, which didn't repeat it. I'm pretty sure that you'd be able to get a simple majority of people to agree to fix that. At any rate, it is certainly the intention of this rule to include only eligible voters.
Do you (collectively all of you) think that we will ever get a unanimous vote on anything?
Someone voted no on continuing to this turn, for fuck's sake.
I'm having trouble imagining a simpler, less controversial change to the rules as this proposal. If we can't all vote for this one, I guess we're going to have to sit here proposing stupid cosmetic rules, like "the name of this nomic is..." until Rule 203 changes itself anyway.
I doubt we could get a unanimous vote on what our name is, though
Unanimous votes are for things that should be extremely difficult to do. Transmute a mutable rule. Override a judge's decision. Those make sense to be unanimous.
Make a change to the rules, the basic action in the game, should not be one of those things.
A rule that establishes a quorum size would be more acceptable to me. I can't vote yes for this as it is written.
We tried that. Quorums less than 100% are illegal by Rule 105, and changing 105 (or even making that possible) got shot down.
they'll see the rules at a point where they can stall the game, but can not participate in the acceptance or rejection of the rules. -offby1
Voting last is no different from voting first with some magical ability to know what everyone else is going to do. Your vote counts the same. You can get someone else to change their vote.
We should open the discussion before the vote gets called. That's a separate issue from whether or not the proposal requires a unanimous vote or not. This proposal is about requiring unanimous approval. Only.
I'd think I would reluctantly agree on the 75% liimit or there abouts but I still haven't seen any reason why I should be voting for this (and won't as it stands).If it is intended to create basic time limits, and or to try and get a reasonable speed to the game then it fails -- we will still the 100% quoracy requirement and that's a much bigger practical obstacle -- and it's the wrong tool for the job.
The claim that we will never have unanimity seems disingenuous, nobody claims it will be easy, but neither do I see any serious attempt to address it here, certainly the ramifications of this proposal do not seem though through.
If you vote for this and it passes, then when it's your turn you can suggest a requirement for a 75% limit or whatever and it won't fail when I vote against it. (I can tell you right now that I think a super-majority requirement will be no fun at all and will absolutely vote against it. Then we'll be stuck with what I'm already proposing, albeit after a month of failed proposals.)
I don't know what ramifications you're anticipating and I'd like to hear what they are so that we can address them. I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. If this passes, on your very next turn you can make your proposal and, if you can convince most of us, you'll see it passed. Otherwise you'll have to convince me in order to get it passed, and I'm cranky and annoying.
He is.
Just trying to help.
I'll vote yes on this if "eligible voters" is added back in. I think it's a bad idea adopt amendments that make the original rules less specific.
I voted no, and here's why. There are still a lot of procedural kinks to be worked out. Not rules, but just "hey, how do we play this game again?" kinks. Needing unanimous acceptance is a good way to make sure nothing horridly broken gets added in when people are still figuring out how the game is being played.
What kinks are you talking about? Anybody can figure out how to play the game by reading the rules. If you're confused about how to play, then ask in the forum. If someone's not following the rules, then they won't be able to get rules passed.
The ambiguity and kinks are going to be worked out with new procedural rules that simplify the process. Not with endless forum debate and a series of rules that don't pass because there's one person who objects.
Throwing a wrench into a common-sense (begging the question!) rule to temporarily adapt majority-rule, which will happen anyway after a month of the contrarians (ME!) voting down anything more clever, isn't going to work out any kinks. I am SO TOTALLY GLARING AT YOU (through my facepalm).
I ask that you reconsider your vote, or at least elaborate a little bit on your reasoning.
Oh crap, a no vote. *GLARES*
Well, aspo, I don't know how to defend against that logic. I guess we'll just keep going through the motions, getting nothing done, and taking minus points until you're happy with the "procedural kinks to be worked out."
This is exactly why this rule needs changing - so one person cannot hold the entire game hostage on a whim.
That may have been too harsh. We do need to change this rule, though, the sooner the better.
A rule that establishes a quorum size would be more acceptable to me.
But we do have a quorum already, 100%. Any change to that will make things less inclusive, not more.
I agree that the wording about eligible voters needs to be explicit, but it already is over in 105 and immutable rules take precedence over mutable ones.
I already mentioned I'd like a greater majority than just 51%. I can't find a definitive players list (is there one around somewhere) so I'm not sure how many of us are actually playing right now, but getting 20 out of 30 votes ish sounds about right to me.
But I also agree with 1 that this can be changed later on once we see how it goes. Simple majority makes it easier to firm things up as well as easier to (potentially) break them. Plus I don't actually think it's all as easy to break as aspo worries about, particularly since there's been a lot of work already put into setting up the webpage and sorting out the procedures. No one here's going to be easily walked over I'd say and we're too anal to let things slide.
So what about hiding the details about who has voted and how they voted until either you vote or the vote is over? So then you wouldn't know if majority has been met or not and every vote would at least feel like it has equal weight even if it doesn't. Lots of polls run like this already and it's supposed to help prevent bias too (running with the cool crowd).
I doubt I'd maintain attention through 60 odd votes with none being passed and would probably wander off. I'm sure I'm not alone in that and was the reason I just voted yes last night without waiting for more discussion.
I also don't think anyone should be grumped at because you disagree with their vote. aspo isn't holding the game hostage and doesn't deserve being bitched at. We all have the right to hold whatever opinions we like and to vote accordingly. Please lets keep it civil.
I agree with shelleycat, though I'm still thinking about how the vote hiding thing would work. Seems like there's a gotcha in there somewhere, but I just can't put my finger on it.
I apologize to aspo for being grumpy. The 'hostage' thing was extrapolating to examples in my head, not that aspo is doing that.
For example, what if I decide that I'm not voting for any proposal unless it has properly numbered sub-paragraph points? That's not required in the rules; it would just be me forcing that on everyone. Tough luck for the rest of you, though. You can't pass a proposal without me.
That's why across-the-board unanimous voting is harmful and needs to be changed.
Shelleycat - the player list is linked in the Current Status page.
Oh yeah, I found the player list. Was going to mention it but forgot. I counted 29 on there so still think about two thirds feels right, but have nothing to really back that up with.
After reflecting on the use of judges and what I perceive as a general "let's make it work" attitude, I've decided to vote yes. But I still think it's irresponsible to presume that one's proposal is perfect and try to eschew meaningful (i.e., potentially draft-altering) debate. Omitting "eligible voters" is unwise, but I doubt any of our potential judges will try to exploit that error.
I changed my vote to "no" as well, just for the hell of it, seeing as 302 won't fly anyway.
I am taking names.
Guess that's the value in a longer discussion period. Maybe we should start a thread for the next proposal.
Aaron, You do realize you're next. 1 looks like he's holding a grudge.
Arghh, more no votes. I'm voting no on the next proposition just out of spite for those who didn't pass this one.
Well can we move on to 303?
I suppose we could start discussing it. We can't have the official proposal until everyone votes and 1 calculates his score.
Well 1 can end his turn as notJim did. Thought this would pass...
"Aaron, You do realize you're next. 1 looks like he's holding a grudge."
God, so true. I'll bitterly tally my score as soon as I get home and we can move on dot com.
Well can we move on to 303?
No. Rule 105 clearly states that all eligible voters need to vote and so far only 20 of the 29 listed on the user page have voted. We can't move on until the rest have voted.
This is the whole reason I voted yes, because we currently have a 100% quorum. You can't just brush off anyone who is late to the vote and everyone has the right to have their say regardless of how slow they are. Sure that say won't mean as much if there is a majority ruling already but this can be got around to some extent by hiding the votes while it's in progress.
Aaron can certainly start discussion about what he is going to propose. Right now I could start a discussion about what I'm going to propose once we get that far (there are no rules against it after all). But he can't actually make that proposal yet because it's not his turn. I would also argue that reasonable discussion still needs to happen once it is his turn, i.e. we don't jump straight to voting on 303 as soon as the last person votes for 302. Otherwise the last voters will never be able to catch up.
Note that !Jim didn't unilaterally end his turn and that all the currently active players voted before 302 was proposed. None of the players who got dropped have turned up since (I think?) indicating we did the right thing. But we can't keep culling the player list every time someone gets antsy and wants to move on to the next vote before we're finished so for now I say was wait until voting is completed.
No. Rule 105 clearly states that all eligible voters need to vote and so far only 20 of the 29 listed on the user page have voted. We can't move on until the rest have voted.
And waiting would serve what purpose? The proposal is effectively killed.
Late voters could potentially influence earlier ones to revote? Not in this case, but in general.
I hearby end my turn. At the time of the ending, my proposal had received 87% of the votes. Therefore, i receive 9.57 points. I guess if this is a problem then it goes to the judges or something but jesus christ let's keep this boat moving.
Also, I will be voting against the first proposals of whoever voted against this, out of spite.
And waiting would serve what purpose? The proposal is effectively killed.
1's score could be affected.
I will be voting against the first proposals of whoever voted against this, out of spite.
This seems counterproductive if one of our inital goals is to make the game run more smoothly. (How's that "eye for an eye" Ghandi quote go again?)
Therefore, i receive 9.57 points.
"rounded to the nearest integer." [202]
Yay, ten!
Wait, how did you get points and notJim got negative points?
I voted yes ( I think) because it is retarded to keep voting against these simple, reasonable proposals. If you want to kill the game, by all means continue, and maybe we'll start another game.
Jay:
Rule 202 says about points that "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" and rule 206 says that "when a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points."
!Jim gets (301-291)*20/26=7.69. Rounding this gets 8 points. Because the proposal was defeated, !Jim gets 8-10 = -2 points.
Here, 1 gets (302-291)*22/25 = 9.68 pts. Rounding gets 10; subtracting ten for the defeat gets 0 points.
1 doesn't get any points at all.
Recalculate your score 1, so that I can vote no on 303.
Come off it, notJim, I was happy to see your thing pass. Once it was clear it would not, I changed to "no" purely for score calculation resons.
Anyway, whether or not it is officially my turn I am going to "pre-propose" my proposal and start the discussion.
If I elect to vote no as promised, it won't be because of a grudge, but to prove a point. Please don't take it personally.
Also, voting no doesn't affect your score:
I sadly recalculate my score to zero.
Still to vote:
Chuck
cortex
Taksi Putra
xorry
Plus, we gained Dave.
And waiting would serve what purpose? The proposal is effectively killed.
Not telling those people to fuck off we don't care enough about them to follow the rules so they get to have their say. I know if I turned up and you'd all moved on, explicitly against the rules, before I had my vote that is the last you'd see of me. It's a pretty hostile move.
I voted no for 301 specifically so shit like this doesn't happen.
I should also point out that I'm only going to vote yes for 303 because everyone still has to vote on it, and therefore actually see the proposal, so no one will be removed from the players list for not voting within 48 hours without having been notified and having agreed that that is what will happen. Giving everyone the chance to vote also gives everyone the chance to read the proposal, this is important at this stage.
"It's a pretty hostile move."
How would it be hostile to move on before someone got to cast a meaningless additional vote on a proposal that required unanimity?
I finally voted!
Glad to see you guys waited! I hadn't been paying attention.. Totally going to vote yes on 303..
And we still would have had a 100% quorum if 302 had passed. 302 would have done nothing to change 105's requirement.
302 would have done nothing to change 105's requirement.
Exactly, that's my point. If 302 had somehow changed the quorum I would have voted no (except of course it can't because 105 is currently immutable but still).