I'm thinking something along these lines will help move things along without rushing people too much:
Amend 305 to read:
305. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must may participate in every vote on rule-changes or judicial overrides. An abstaining player will be considered a non-player for the purpose of calculating whether a rule change or judicial override passes.
Any player may voluntarily abstain from a vote. A player who does not vote within 96 hours of a vote opening is considered to have abstained.
Thoughts?
96 hours? Doesn't that imply we will be waiting around 4 days for each and every vote? Excuse me if I missed something obvious here...
Unless everyone votes.
I think 4 days would be faster than we have now. Plus we won't need the consent to move on votes.
Anyway I'm open to anything between 48 and 96. Just consider that a starting bid.
You have my support anywhere in that range.
Me too, though I'd prefer to see that number closer to 48 personally.
I'd like 48 too, but am forced to vote yes regardless.
AAA: Aren't you now free to vote your conscience?
...vote "yes" on every proposal until some form of majority rule is brought in or the next 5 proposals, whichever is greater
whichever is greater
Oh, weird. I was so sure it was "lesser" that I don't know I ever even read that far in the sentence. I'm impressed with the generosity of your side offer -- you went farther than I'd expected you might.
Which is to say, you earned that shiny star of gold.
The timeline thing may be too hard a nut to crack, even now, but I still think we should get the no-player-may-judge-their-own-invocation language in there.
What if we just add it to the end? I think volkspider (or AAA? someone) showed earlier that there's no rule that says a proposal can't have more than one rule; it just has to be talked about beforehand.
No player may judge their own invocation.
It's the last glorious step.
these timeline proposals are just so BORING. I'm having trouble getting JAZZED.
gerryblog: I think volkspider (or AAA? someone) showed earlier that there's no rule that says a proposal can't have more than one rule; it just has to be talked about beforehand.
Yeah, that was me. But I don't generally advise multi-rule proposals because they're harder to pass.
Regarding 312, is override supposed to be the same as overrule? If it is, I think we're better off keeping the language in the rules consistent. If not, I'd like to see it clearly defined.
An abstaining player will be considered a non-player for the purpose of calculating whether a rule change or judicial override passes.
So if 80% of the players abstain and 20% vote yes, a rule-change may pass? I'm not sure that keeps with the democratic spirit of the game. Should abstaining always be taken to mean "I don't care if this passes or not"?
Don't forget that outlawing no-player-may-judge-their-own-invocation only curtails the powers of a judge with zero accomplices.
That's a fair point.
As for the 80% abstain scenario, how would you judge that question? It fails because it failed to clear 50%? It seems to me that in that highly unlikely and unusual situation, the bill should pass. Why else did all those people vote "abstain" instead of "no"?
I think there needs to be an distinction between those who explicitly abstain, and those who do not vote. And a quorum instituted as well, to prevent an "Oh, I posted the proposal in this other forum only one other player (who happens to be the judge) knew about, and it passed 2-0" situation. Quorum would be met by a sufficient number of players voting or explicitly abstaining.
A minimum quorum makes good sense.
As for the 80% abstain scenario, how would you judge that question? It fails because it failed to clear 50%? It seems to me that in that highly unlikely and unusual situation, the bill should pass.
Actually, now that I think about it, I don't believe that rule-change would pass. 312 would conflict with 211 and, since 312 doesn't explicitly say it takes precedence over 203 or 311 (not that I consider 311 an actual rule), the rule-change would fail per 203/311 (NTIC311AAR).
jeblis, you might want to add in a precedence stipulation if you want 312 to work that way.
I'm not trying to solve all our ills in one turn. This just sets a maximum turn length.
There's still the issue of someone not proposing something at all (guess we'd need to invoke judgment on their status in that case)
Alternately we could just make a no sock puppets rule, punishable by a perma-ban.
Er, meant to say 312 would conflict with 203/311 (NTIC311AAR) and because of 211 would defer to one of those.
No player may judge their own invocation.
No, as jay has pointed out, that's a red herring. A judge with an accomplice (or enough accomplices to block an overruling vote, now) could certainly get someone else to invoke it for him.
As this proposal is pretty much 308, with the exception of the number 96 instead of 48, and the chance to actually pass, I like it. I'd prefer 48 again, but if you consider currently it takes at least 48 hours to vote, at least 48 more to argue and have judgments to remove non-players, then 48 more to have a consent to move on, 96 hours is still much faster.
Anyway I'm open to anything between 48 and 96. Just consider that a starting bid.
48 was pretty popular last time, with the important dissent advocating even lower. I wouldn't vote no on 96, but I think you can get away with a little more agressive limit.
I'm not terribly satisfied that a person voluntarily abstaining is considered a non-player. Does that mean if someone explicitly abstains they are stricken from the player list?
An abstaining player will be *considered* a non-player for the purpose of calculating whether a rule change or judicial override passes.
The way I read this is that they're still players, they just don't count in terms of passage threshold or how many votes you need to override a judge.
There may be side-effects of playerhood during voting later, like how we take points based on votes now. It may be safer to tack "but is still considered a player for all other purposes" onto the 3rd sentence.
That language sucks too, actually, since a quasi-non-player might then abstain in some situation to gain playerhood.
Actually, I think it's OK to just leave out "An abstaining player will be considered a non-player for the purpose of calculating whether a rule change or judicial override passes" altogether. The common definition of abstain should suffice, I think, without any "considered a non-player" nonsense.
Halfway: "Any player may voluntarily abstain from a vote, in which that player's participation will not count in voting algorithms or points scored from that vote."
The point of "considered a non-player" is this:
10 voters, 5 vote yes, 2 no, 3 abstain = 5/10 = less than 2/3 majority to pass, vote fails
10 voters, 5 vote yes, 2 no, 3 abstain = 5/7 = vote passes
I don't want an abstention to be a no vote.
I think the nonplayer language should be kept in just for clarity. It's clear that it's a legal distinction and not an actual removal from the game.
It's pretty specific to only be considered a non-player for determining pass/fail of the measure.
I'd love to see that number go down, jeblis. Otherwise I am fully on board with this.
Abstain is kind of a wishy washy way of saying yes. I'm good with that though and actually like it better than removing the palyer from the game. I think we're down to the ongoing active players by now so it makes more sense.
And yeah, I'm happy with anything from 48 hours upwards.
I always use it as "I don't know wtf I'm talking about so I leave this to someone with an opionion."
Abstain is kind of a wishy washy way of saying yes.
No it isn't. It's a direct way of saying don't care one way or the other, so everyone else decide. That's why it can't count towards total votes. Otherwise, it's a wishy washy way of saying no - it would add a total vote and a non-yes, lowering the approval fraction.
Ok aside from possibly adjusting the time limit, I'm ready to post this.
72 hours?
72 has my blessing, but so would 48.
I'm still rooting for 48, but would vote for 72.