Home

Vote on 319

Yea
45% (5 votes)
Nay
55% (6 votes)
Total votes: 11
  • By backseatpilot at 06/27/2008 - 21:04
  • Login or register to post comments
 

319: Amend rule 204 to read the following:

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.

#
  • By backseatpilot at 06/27/2008 - 21:05
 
 

I apologize, that's incorrect. This is the real proposal:

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. If there are zero dissenters, there shall be one "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. The judge's awarding of points shall not count as an official judgment and must be completed within 48 of the end of the vote.

Example:
9/12 favorable votes, 3/12 dissenting. 11/3 = 3 points per dissenter, judge awards 2 bonus points.

#
  • By backseatpilot at 06/27/2008 - 21:06
 
 

ssg:

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 hadn't read the judge's discretionary points as something we need to wait around for, and I think bsp makes that clear with the new version -- this is something that Just Happens, not something that prevents the next turn from beginning.

And the points maximizing method is still to vote no on every proposal with this change is probably true, but it's a big improvement in the right direction for those people who think the No Vote Bonus is a problem. It's actually a pretty good compromise in that respect. I don't really see why you're voting no.

#
  • By gerryblog at 06/27/2008 - 21:52
 
 

Till now, there hasn't been a judge every turn. They're sworn in upon dissent. But it's logically self-correcting, since any disagreement that the previous player should award bonus points would create the judgeship specified in 319.

If passed, points should be calculated the old way, with the new formula taking effect next turn.

#
  • By jay at 06/27/2008 - 22:42
 
 

What about partial points? Are they rounded up? Down? Swedish?

#
  • By shelleycat at 06/27/2008 - 23:22
 
 

The proposal doesn't make any provision for partial points and the maths at the bottom is incorrect. This is why I'm voting no.

(And why discussion should last at least 24 hours. The new proposal was put forward at midnight my time then put to vote at 4 pm while I was still at work, with no chance of my seeing it in between. A couple more hours and I'd have got home, seen it and hopefully cleared up this issue so that I could vote yes)

#
  • By shelleycat at 06/27/2008 - 23:30
 
 

shelleycat, this is all actually handled by the proposal. The points are divided evenly, with the remainder going to the judge to be awarded on the grounds of awesomeness.

11 / 3 = 3 with 2 left over. The dissenters get three votes each, the remaining points go to the judge to be distributed.

Given this, you should change your vote to yes.

#
  • By gerryblog at 06/28/2008 - 00:19
 
 

Does someone with admin powers want to unlock ctmf's proposal discussion, so that we can get started there?

#
  • By ssg at 06/28/2008 - 12:53
 
 

"Divided evenly" doesn't leave a remainder, which is why the maths is wrong. It needs to say something about whole numbers or integers or rounding to be unambiguous so my vote stays as no.

#
  • By shelleycat at 06/28/2008 - 14:17
 
 

That's crazy nitpicky, given that this thread stands as a record of what this actually means. If it's such a big deal, can't we pass this and then emend it?

btw, ssg, the 320 thread is now unlocked.

#
  • By gerryblog at 06/28/2008 - 14:18
 
 

Looks like this one goes down too.

(319 - 291) * 4/9 = 12.4 - 10 rounds to 2? I'll update the player page, assuming I've done the math right.

#
  • By gerryblog at 06/30/2008 - 04:06
 
 

I think that's right.

#
  • By backseatpilot at 06/30/2008 - 04:55