A player shall be defined as anyone who has voted on the currently open resolution within 48 hours of the vote being opened.
Someone who loses player status due to failure to vote can regain player status by voting within the time limit on any future proposal.
Please, guys, similar to 1 I just want some rules that will allow this game to move with some sort of regularity. notJim, please let me know if your intention is to torpedo this out of spite - if so, I'll move it to vote quickly.
ok so essentially every vote would last a max of two days after it's proposed?
That would seem to work and hopefully allay the fears of the Europeans.
If this gets shot down, I'm invoking judgment on what a player is. (which, depending on the judge, could end up meaning the same a what you have here)
I'll be the judge next turn, so you can imagine what my ruling will be.
Oh this also allows us to skip their proposal turn if they haven't voted.
What if someone votes, then goes missing before proposing their item. Any good way to work that in?
Baby steps, grasshopper, baby steps.
Saying "for the purposes of the current vote" implies that this rule applies to itself. I assume this isn't what you meant, but if it is, it's illegal. If not, it should be clarified.
When it is established as a rule it will begin to apply. So "the current vote" will not be this vote, but whatever future vote takes place while this rule is in effect.
But I have changed it as you suggest for clarity.
Also, what about votes that take more than 48 hours to resolve? If I vote on Saturday morning, but the vote doesn't close till Monday afternoon, it's been more than 48 hours.
can't a vote be set to automatically close?
I want to vote for what you mean. The exact wording is tricky, though.
How about starting by recognizing what's already true, (always good policy when making a rule), and then adding in the extra restriction and its mitigating factor.
example: A player is any person on the List of Players. To avoid unnecessary game delays, a person will be removed from the List of Players if they have not performed a game action required of them within 48 hours. A person removed from player status in this way will be reinstated upon their request.
The "Game action" phrase expands the time limit to include things like making a proposal and calculating score, too. (optional)
That would mean, in effect, a vote lasts 48 hours. If you haven't voted by then, you're not a player and the vote ends anyway. Satisfies rule 105.
jeblis - the tech exists to auto-close a vote. Right now the rules don't permit it.
Ideally, I'd actually like to avoid scattering hard-coded constants throughout the rules, and just say something like "a reasonable time" in this one, with a "definitions" rule that said a reasonable time, if mentioned in a rule, is defined as 48 hours. That way we could adjust game speed all in one fell swoop by editing the definition rule.
You'd have to start with the definition rule first, though. So for now I think we should leave that for later.
Actually, if you left it as "a reasonable time", judgement could be used to remove players from the game. That would require a human touch, which might avoid some of the pitfalls of an actual time.
I like this proposal -- I would vote yes on this.
ctmf, I agree with the intent of your draft but I'd like "game action required of them" to be explicitly defined (does calculating your score count? what about presenting a judgment decision?).
That part was just an idea. In my opinion, sure, all of those things. And I agree, game action would have to be defined, but I'm picturing that left for the giant (but built incrementally) "definitions" rule. Until then, you could call a judgement if there was a disagreement - I think we can all agree for the time being that, if everyone is waiting on you to do something for the game to continue, then that thing would be a "game action".
Maybe not, though. We are a pretty argumentative lot.
How are you planning to track user activity? What is a 'required activity'?
Some more clarity is needed here.
offby1
This is just a way to make sure voting only lasts 48 hours. It's a bit of a back door to ensure it coincides with the other rules. There's essentially no penalty for missing a vote, you can jump right in on the next one.
The only tracking we'd have to do is to close the the after 48 hours.
I'd prefer to word this as
Any player who does not vote within 48 hours of the vote beginning is considered to have abstained.
Any player who does not make a proposal within 48 hours of their turn beginning is considered to have passed on their turn
I think It's clearer in it's intent and does the same thing, but some hall monitor will point out that technically the rules say every player must participate in every vote. I think some people miss the point in that we should make the rules as we want them, even if they are in violation of other rules. If you have a real problem with a proposal obviously don't vote for it, but "because rule xxx says differently" should not be your only reason to vote no or invoke judgment..
So Aaron is getting around this by saying you're not a player after 48 hours.
I like jeblis' text a lot.
I wouldn't vote against jeblis' text. I'd just rather see something that would take effect now.
If jeblis' text passed, it would have no effect until we changed Rule 105. (Rule 110). I think it's apparent that expecting Rule 105 to be amended is a bit too optimistic.
jeblis - for that matter, the clearest, most up-front way to say what we want would be to tack that first line onto the end of rule 105. Which needs to be mutable first. And then we're back at 301.
Which I would still vote for, by the way
I will be voting "no" out of spite. (See previous discussion.)
That being said, this thing needs to fail because the way you wrote it it means that anyone who voted on ANY proposal within 48 hours would be a player, which basically would change anything.
I think you meant "anyone who has voted on the most recently posted resolution" yadda yadda.
*basically WOULDN'T change anything
I will be voting "no" out of spite. (See previous discussion.)
Remember the 'hostage' hypothetical scenario? Votes on 302 can still be changed, folks.
We tried to make 105 mutable. After we get the spite votes out of the way...can we get the original
"make 105 mutable" passed? Or, if we can hold off the spite votes, that could be this vote. Then the next person could propose something similar to what I have.
The only reason I think that failed was confusion over what we were voting on (otherwise voting no on that was a pretty dickish move)
I like this proposal as currently stated.
Re: jeblis' alternative wording: Ditto ctmf. That potentially conflicts with 105 ("Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes").
Ditto flatluigi's sentiment -- I like AAA's original proposal draft. I'm also amenable to the "reasonable time" wording.
These "spite votes" are petty and stupid.
That being said, this thing needs to fail because the way you wrote it it means that anyone who voted on ANY proposal within 48 hours would be a player
And right now anyone can become a player by just registering. So what's your point? It's just a provision to reinstate players who've had their status revoked.
So what's your point?
If I voted on 301 within 48 hours, I'm a player forever (it says 'a proposal,' not the most recent proposal). It may have been more clear before the first edit, but I didn't get to see the original so I could be wrong.
Yeah, it needs to specify which resolution, I assume as the most recent one. As it stands voting on any resolution ever keeps you as a player which I don't think is what Aaron is gong for.
Assuming that is clarified, I don't mind this proposal. I would like to be able to sign up for an email or other notification so I know when the 48 hour period starts. This might also be good for enticing players back each time and encourage us not to go awol. Is there an RSS feed for this yet? (I guess I should go look?). So yeah, I think I'd vote yes.
I'm not so keen on spreading this to other stuff yet like making a proposal or whatever. Right now actual voting is the only thing that holds us up so lets deal with that and see how everything else pans out. I'd rather wait an extra few hours for a well considered proposal than have something put up hastily because the person didn't want to miss their turn. May not be an issue but we're really not far enough through to know this yet.
Also if we're dropping lots of players at each vote then we may need to accept that things take longer than 48 hours and extend the time limit, particularly if doing so keeps more players in the game (e.g. if a few people regularly take three days then we should accommodate that). But we don't have enough experience yet to know if this is the case.
Spite votes strike me as an effort to strong arm people into doing what you want, just like glaring and grumping at people who vote against you. I find it distasteful. However I've spent enough time in the world to know that many people work this way so whatever.
See, does the reworded one from jeblis really disagree with 105? If we declare abstention as one possibility for participation, how is this contradictory? 105 says nothing about players' requirements to actually vote...
105 says nothing about players' requirements to actually vote...
Um. "Every ... voter must participate in every vote". Thus players are required to participate. (Even if a rule can somehow abstain for them, it does not qualify as their own participation. A rule/rule's effects are not a player/eligible voter.)
Re: So what's your point?: Ahh, gotcha. Alright, I agree -- 303 should refer to the latest proposal vote.
They have to participate, sure, but since when does "participate" necessarily equal "vote"? There are plenty of ways to participate in things...
Yeah, but we'd have to invoke judgement on the definition of participation on a pretty regular basis. 'sides, the problem is specifically with people not participating.
AAA, if you amend it to specify the most recent proposal then you'll have my vote (if 1 doesn't scuttle it out of spite. 1, PLEASE don't do that!)
I intend to vote no on 303.
notJim: If I elect to vote no as promised, it won't be because of a grudge, but to prove a point.
notJim: I intend to vote no on 303.
So what point is this supposed to be proving, exactly?
The word "participate" could of course, at some point, be defined as well...
I realize however that we're starting to need several votes to get this far, and we seem entirely unable to get a single one off the ground.
That people may as well have voted for 302, since nothing is going to get unanimity in the first round of voting, and then we'll hit the next round and be where we would have been if we had just passed 302 in the first place.
On the other hand, I am sympathetic to tallus' concerns:
I don't think a simple majority is the best option for this reason, but if we had passed 302, it would be much easier to fix it. I guess I frankly don't entirely know where I stand on the issue of the best way to pass laws. I do think that unanimity is simply impractical. I am, FWIW, glad that 301 didn't pass in its original form, as the time limits would have been too short, even for me.
And even aside from that, I'm not even convinced this law is necessary anymore.
OK, notJim, let's have something more constructive than "no" from you - what could turn you over to "yes"?
I would probably vote No on this too.
Future rules are going to want to treat players as long-lasting entities regardless of their voting patterns during vacation. Throwing them out of player status completely is too broad a stroke.
Thus I still like jeblis' version better (though jeblis won't get a turn till after the havoc I alphabetically wreak first.) But I hope some of the spirit of that rephrase makes it into the final 303.
Spite votes strike me as an effort to strong arm people into doing what you want
Also entirely legal. Amusingly enough, the proposal 1 is trying to bully you (all) into voting for would prevent that tactic from working ever again.
Which is, of course, his point.
Again, I'd be for something similar to 302, although I would actually prefer something more like 70%.
...unanimity provides protection for minority interests.
I suppose making it essentially all-but-impossible to change any rule protects the minority interest - as long as the minority doesn't want things. As soon as the minority starts wanting things, well, they're going to see the flaw in the plan.
My biggest issue is that in about 25 turns, we will be at the majority vote thing anyway, unless something else is passed, which is almost guaranteed not to happen.
simple majority that should read.
...in about 25 turns...
Make that about 55-60. We have to go through the player list twice before the auto-change.
There is no way in hell this game will still be alive after 55-60 turns of nothing whatsoever happenning.
Heh, surely that's more like 55-60 turns of bickering. It's not entirely productive but it's not nothing either :P
I'm far enough down the player list to hope things get sorted out so that the game stays alive.
Hello?? **brushes aside cobwebs**
This sucks, let's get a little momentum going people.
Still here. Waiting for cortex and Taksi.
I sure hope anomie has some sort of plan for getting us out of this waiting mess.
I'm waiting, too. Can we get another judgment on this or does the first one continue to stand?
We did have a plan for getting out of this waiting mess, but certain parties wanted to be cute and appoint a non-existent player judge, way back when...
The separate vote to continue got 16 Yea's so 303 is cleared to submit for vote.
(still a fan of jeblis' verbiage)
I don't want to vote on 303 until the actual proposal is put in there (on the voting page itself) so I can be sure of what I'm voting on. A few wording changes have been suggested, particularly the one about voting on the current proposal rather than just any proposal, and I want to see the final form.
Yeah, I'm nitpicky.
Ditto. AAA, in case you didn't see jay's comment, could you post the last revision in the 303 vote thread?
volk, shelly: by your command, done.
Thanks. Sorry some asshats voted no; looks like this game is doomed.
It wasn't just asshats that voted No, proposal 303 had problems. Trusting everyone to "do the right thing" later with a flawed rule is just asking for trouble, given that this is a game intended to be won through dastardly manipulation of logic.
And the game isn't doomed, this is all part of the experiment.
I agree that the game is not doomed. The point of the game, after all, is to propose and vote on rules. It's supposed to be complicated and messy. That's the fun part. I think it will speed up as we go along. But in order to get there, we have to hash out stuff in the early stages.
I'm one of those asshats, and if you read the comments, you'll see why we voted no. It was a poorly written proposal that will likely lead to problems.
Thanks for putting the proposal in the thread. I don't see how voting can be considered to have opened until that was done, I for one was not able to vote until I knew what I was voting on.
I do like how the vote list ended up ebing all just YES or NO, much easier to read than the previous votes.
Sorry, "asshat" was definitely overstrong. I do think it's counterproductive though. How many people will be left by the time we can actually pass something (i.e. post-2nd circuit)?
volkspider, I hear you. This has been my concern all along. But I think we've made some progress in terms of shifting rule interpretation to a better place, and I think we'll get something passed soon.