It would be useful to adapt the current ruleset to the asynchronous nature of this game; as such, the following is proposed:
- A player shall be considered active if they have voted on any of the last 3 proposals
- A player may become active again by posting on the forum or voting on any new rule. This may occur a maximum of 3 times, after which the player forfeits the game under rule 113 if they become inactive again.
- A list shall be kept on the wiki or on a stickied forum topic of all currently-active users.
- Unless otherwise specified in the proposal, votes shall last until a sufficient consensus (as defined by initial ruleset, or superseding) has been established, or until 12 hours after the proposal was submitted.
- If a user does not propose a rule within 12 hours of the beginning of their turn, they shall become inactive and forfeit their turn.
- This rule shall go into affect 12 hours from its passing
Where do we vote?
At the top, where is says Your rating: mouseover the stars, and it'll change.
How then, do we determine if a player has been active in voting?
I'll hack in a list of active/eligible players. I think voting records should be transparent too if we're following tradition.
!jim: kudos
For convention, let's say:
1 star = strong no
2 star = no
3 star = neutral
4 star = yes
5 star = strong yes
"Unanimous" == average 4.5 stars
"Majority" == average 4 stars
Or I can drop the five stars down to two stars, yes and no, with unanimous = 2 and majority = 1.5+
This will be easier once a Judge rotates in...
jay:I think that's rewriting the rules...as conventionally understood doesn't it have to go by a straight yes/no vote? Not that we couldn't vote for different (weighted) voting/counting systems later on.
I'm of the opinion that official rules need to be established regarding the meaning of the 5 star system. For now, I guess we could look at the average or something.
Ug, no. Twelve hours doesn't work at all. I'm in a much different timezone than, well, pretty much everyone and will most likely miss the twelve hour cutoff more often than not. I don't want to be getting up early to check the internet before work or staying up late or whatever but I do want to participate.
So as it stands I'll be voting no on whatever voting system has been sorted out. If it was 24 hours I'd be good. Please lets be inclusive.
As it is it's bedtime here now and I won't be back for about 20 hours (big day in the lab tomorrow), so I guess I have to just hope that my arguments get taken into account or I'll be written out of the game before it really even starts.
111. If a rule-change as proposed is...destructive of play...then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote.
I'm formally proposing that all mentions of 12 hours be replaced by 24 hours.
As it stands we are spread across too many timezones for this to be workable. Not to mention that not all players may have Internet access at enough times (work rules etc) for this to be workable.
Shelleycat - Don't worry -- under Rule 203, this rule cannot be adopted because it requires a unanimous vote. (And I voted "no"/1 star because 12 hours is too short a period IMHO.)
Also, I'm in favor of hacking the "rating stars" down to 2. Votes should be boolean until the rules specifically allow them to be otherwise.
Currently the star voting has not been adopted. Seems too confusing anyway. We'll need individual votes.
I'd suggest we discuss changes for a bit. Then vote by making a comment in this thread of the format
NAME:
PROPOSAL: 301
I HEREBY VOTE: Yay/Nay/Abstain
I'm the interest of getting some fair procedural rules passed that will make things easier. Please post what amount of time you would vote for here. For me
24 < time < 48
I vote NO, and would like to see at least 24 hours, if not more.
24 hours is fine with me, perhaps with the possibility of expansion on weekends.
Perhaps we should queue up proposals some how, so if you know what you wish to propose, you can get it in there ahead of time. Once the official 'release' time is hit (24 hours after the last item was proposed?), you can't alter or update your proposal and voting begins.
This does sound like a decent ingame proposal, so it might best wait until then, provided the system can actually deal with it.
I invoke rule 203. Chuck has voted NO. This proposal has failed. notJim is the judge for the second turn 212
Rule 206. notJim has -10 points.
This is actually good since we now have a Judge.
So how do we know who goes next now? 201 requires we know peoples' surnames. Do we need to invoke judgement to determine the next proposer?
For the next proposed rule I'd suggest to 1:
A proposal time limit - say 2 days
A discussion period - 1 day
A voting time limit - 1 day
Ability to skip inactive votes/proposers
These are intentionally long to ensure passage and help move things along
Also, isn't the turn still going? 111 says "The proponent ... decides the time to end debate and vote." Has notJim actually decided it's time to vote?
(Plus 105 says every player must participate in every vote, so we're deadlocked until every player votes, no?)
Also, isn't the turn still going? 111 says "The proponent ... decides the time to end debate and vote." Has notJim actually decided it's time to vote?
Good point guess voting is not open yet. In the interest of getting a judge I will vote NO regardless. (Sorry notJim, I'll try to make it up to you)
Rule 105 may apply, but since the outcome will always be a fail here, we can move on.
There have been a number of mistakes thus far, but hey we are all learning, right?
1. RULE 111: !Jim is the one to say when we vote. Chuck did not have the right to vote this down yet.
2. RULE 105: everyone votes. The current 301 rule was proposed and voted on within 10 hours, that is way too fast... we need at least 24 hours.
Yeah that's why it's nice to have a judge. I'm a little worried we may never get through a single round or vote. Now I know what it feels like to be a politician
(Plus 105 says every player must participate in every vote, so we're deadlocked until every player votes, no?)
That's an interesting question--does it mean "the game cannot proceed until every player votes," or does it mean "a player violates the rules by not voting, but that does not prevent the game from continuing?" Sounds like a question for a judge...
Indeed, it appears my vote was premature.
In the interest of getting things moving notJim can you re-propose, then initiate a vote? You're on the right track, just make the time limits longer. Let's try to help him. By saying whether you will vote yes prior to making the actual vote. The biggest problem we'll face is non participation. Let's lobby to make this a good first vote so we can move along without 100% participation
proposal time limit - 12 hours (shorter is ok)
A discussion period - 12 hours
A voting time limit - 12 hours
A time period to request/invoke a judgment - 12 hours
Ability to skip inactive votes/proposers
Change to majority of votes wins on mutable laws
That would initially be a 36-48 hour turn around per turn
Sounds good!
Incidentally, I believe limiting the discussion/debate period conflicts with 111. We would have to transmute 111 and amend it for that particular limit to be legal.
Per rule 202 we will need everyone to vote on every rule so that the tally of yes votes can be factored into the score of the rule submitter before any -10 for a failed vote.
We have to do something about the voting. Picking stars is insane. I think we can adapt a system, without a formal vote, whereby the proposer/proponent signals that the discussion is closed. The only comments permitted in the thread after end of debate will be official votes. These will be a simple yea or nay. Posting of anything other than votes during the voting period will result in people shouting at you.
Another nice thing about doing it this way is that we can check and see who has voted. Another consideration - this is not anonymous, but to me that's a feature, not a bug. Finally, the proponent should indicate when the voting will be closed when he/she opens the voting. Again, I do not think we need a formal vote on this. We could always codify it.
Now, WHOSE TURN IS IT?
Also, !jim - would you consider provisions for vacation, etc, to allow player to escape the "death penalty" if they are going to be out of pocket for a week? I give over the rest of my time, chairman!
There's a lot of good suggestions in this thread (vacations, how to deal with inactive players, etc.), but I think we can debate and work through them in several proposals--we don't have to create the perfect voting system in the first rule change!
As for the time limits, I'd prefer something like the following:
24 hours to propose (perhaps less if there were a means to "queue" one's proposal before it was one's turn, but perhaps that's an enhancement for a later rule change)
Discussion at the discretion of the proposer, but 24 hours as an upper limit might be good
24 hours for voting
No specific time set aside for invoking judgment--that can happen at any time
Sounds good, Chuck. I was thinking as well about keeping debate time discretionary within certain bounds. However, there should be a minimum and maximum, otherwise someone is bound to propose a midnight rule with 5 min. debate period just to stick it to the group and ram an unpalatable rule through and/or penalize players for sleeping. Not that that doesn't make for an interesting game!
Anyway, I think at minimum we need to establish a clear method of indicating that it's time to vote, and an up/down black/white voting system. We can go to more nuanced ways of voting (ie star ratings) if someone proposes it and the motion is carried! I yield my remaining time.
I agree that we can;t make it perfect on the first rule. Just that we need to ensure things move forward quickly with non-participation which is likely to happen quickly and may cause a deadlock.
So !jim should propose something similar to what he has with longer time limits. Since changing from a unanimous votes requires altering an immutable law let's attack that one later.
Here's what I think could get us moving along
1. 12 hours must elapse after a proposal is submitted for discussion before voting can begin.
2. After 12 hours the proposal in it's last state will be voted on. (last state is last submitted version by proposer
3. Votes will take place in the proposal thread.
4. Votes shall last until a sufficient consensus (as defined by the ruleset) has been established, or until 12 hours after the proposal was submitted.
5. If a user does not propose a rule within 12 hours of the beginning of their turn, they shall become inactive and forfeit their turn.
Change rule 105 mutable:
105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.
and Amend to
105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter can participate in every vote on rule-changes.
Amend rule 203 as follows:
203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.
to be:
203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the majority of players vote for adoption.
Rule 116 let's us use this thread as a voting mechanism
Also rather than changing rule 203 we could simply add
6. The next turn becomes the start of circuit three.
Making majority rules start at the next turn.
Volkspider is right about any fixed limit on discussion contradicting an immutable rule(111) and is thus void under 110. But note current rules do not explicitly allow any discussion* except that " other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote" where "a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value". *It is still of course permitted and unregulated.
Introducing a general fixed discussion time needs to be a separate rule since 111 appears to outlaw rules that "consist[s] of two or more rule-changes compounded".
Good point, Tallus.Also, the proposal on the table (301) may need to be amended significantly as it appears to consist of several related rule changes at once, which stands in violation of rule 111. We really need a judgment on this I think.
I am certain that provision 6 under 301 should require its own proposal and vote.
Here is more on the legality of 301 (6):
205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.
jeblis, your most recent suggestion will not fly, for the same reason !Jim's original sucks as well. As per tallus above: omnibus bills are explicitly prohibited.
I think it is now 1s turn, can we just move on?
Since we can't do multiple changes, I'd go for this as a first rule. Gets us to a majority of votes immediately.
301 The next turn becomes the start of circuit three.
One (1) hasn't created an account yet, how long do we wait till AAA becomes the shill?
I am trying to understand why you think it is your turn, jeblis? It seems that !Jim is done, the question now is if we wait for 1, or it becomes my turn next?
I think it is now 1s turn, can we just move on?
Nope as per 111: The proponent (!Jim) "decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on "presumably as per discussion & amendments
Since !Jim himself proposed 12 hours for voting to take place, and he has only been a member for 14 hours I think we can guess we are only just reaching the time he is going to think reasonable for discussion (and its entirely his decision).
Then we all have to vote per 105. On the reworded proposal. There might be nothing stopping people voting now, but it doesn't make their votes valid -- we don't have the final proposal.
Also we are currently only up to 28 registrations out of 32 players and Shelleycat is not back for at least another 11 hours so that makes the earliest time we will be done 4am GMT.
It's not my turn, I'm giving notJim some ideas.
Per rule 202 we will need everyone to vote on every rule
This does not seem correct. Rule 202 uses the phrase: "fraction of favorable votes it received", meaning # of Yes votes divided by # of No votes.
Introducing a general fixed discussion time needs to be a separate rule since 111 appears to outlaw rules that "consist[s] of two or more rule-changes compounded".
This is also incorrect:
Rule 111:. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote...
Rule (111) merely states that such a rule may be discussed. It does not say that such a rule is invalid. I proposed an omnibus rule to get as much of this out of the way as possible, and in a few moments will propose a similar rule.
Arggh, formatting was borked. I was quoting people when I said:
Per rule 202 we will need everyone to vote on every rule
and
Introducing a general fixed discussion time needs to be a separate rule since 111 appears to outlaw rules that "consist[s] of two or more rule-changes compounded".
Also, wasn't there a rule at some point that we would be moving in Unicode order of usernames? Was that on the wiki and didn't get copied here?
Hi Jim, I see your point on 111. However I will not be able to support your proposal if it includes language similar to section 6, above:
This rule shall go into affect 12 hours from its passing
For the reason I stated earlier.
In addition, we do need everyone to vote on every rule until certain conditions obtain. Rules can only be adopted at this stage of play if every eligible voter votes in favor of adoption:
104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.
105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.
203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.
It was apparently reverted prior to start of play... Go for it, !Jim, we are standing by to vote.
Clearly there were some issues with the time limits in the previous proposal. I am therefore re-proposing as follows:
Those unicode rules etc. were unauthorized changes from the inital ruleset
!Jim, can we just focus on time limits for action rather than inactive/active? Maybe you should just propose one part of that rather than 8. As it stands now there are ambiguities and I'd have to vote NO.
As it stands the terms inactive/active have no definition, penalty etc.
If you want to create a provision to allow votes to be binding even if some players do not participate in the vote, you must first propose and enact a rule that transmutes rule 105 (105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.) from immutable to mutable.
In addition, we do need everyone to vote on every rule until certain conditions obtain. Rules can only be adopted at this stage of play if every eligible voter votes in favor of adoption:
104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.
Rule 301 would not conflict with this.
105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.
Rule 301 shall be construed to transmute and modify 105 such that player becomes active player.
203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.
Rule 301 shall be construed to modify 203 such that unanimous among the eligible voters becomes unanimous among the eligible voters who vote during the voting period.
I've got to go for an hour or so now, if this rule looks like it still isn't going to fly, I'll return with something less sweeping.
I disagree strongly. A proposal to alter the fabric of our immutable rules can not be tucked in as an implied rider in an omnibus rule change such as you prefer.
I meant to say "propose" but prefer kinda works too.
Rule 103 as it stands defines a rule-change as " (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa."
The 'or' before 3 only allows 1 of these (hence the references in 111 and we would have to change 105 to mutable before we could do anything else (and we can do only one thing at a time).
So as it stands the proposal can't fly.
A mutable rule saying that any player who has not registered a vote after X hours shall be considered to have abstained might be ok. We don't have any rules covering abstention so it's permitted, and abstaining players might be deemed to have still voted. This wouldn't affect things much during rounds 1 or 2 since abstention means no unanimity, but it would get over the immediate problem of time limits.
I'm against multiple rule changes as well, at least until we all figure out wtf is going on.
I suggest the first thing we should do is kind of where !Jim is going - modify what happens if someone doesn't vote for an excessive amount of time. We're hung at the first turn if someone adds themself as a player and then never votes.
So the first action in that direction looks like it has to be a proposal to change Rule 105 to a mutable rule. Once that's done, it can be amended to:
105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must have the opportunity to participate in every vote on rule-changes. As such, a voting period must last for at least 24 hours from start to finish, unless every eligible voter has either voted or explicitly abstained. After this 24 hour period from the beginning of the voting period, eligible voters who have not voted shall be considered to have abstained from the vote.
Then, we can add the concept of active/inactive players and make further modifications.
Very well. I propose a transmutation of Rule 105 to a mutable rule.
No version of a bulky omnibus will fly here, !Jim, nohow, noway. Just put it to vote.
ANd is it vote time, Jim? Is that your final answer?
I express support for the proposal. When is the vote? By rule 111, you have to say when.
Voting begins now.
I vote yes.
I will vote yea to this proposal when official voting begins. If it is determined that official voting has begun, consider this post my official vote (yea on amended 301).
I vote yes
yes. Thx !jim
Are we voting in thread? You guys should change your star-votes, too.
comments are fine until we get a new voting system
I think we have to vote in-thread, so we know who hasn't voted yet if the total doesn't add up to a unanimous win? I don't know how the star tally thing works. I voted with stars, also.
I vote YES on !Jim's proposal of 3/25/2008 16:06 -0400.
My vote of YES should not be taken to imply that I accept the interpretation that "Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes" necessarily implies that the game cannot proceed until every eligible voter has voted, but I do recognize the ambiguity in such a statement and would support an amendment to clarify the issue.
My vote of YES should not be taken to imply that I accept the interpretation that "Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes" necessarily implies that the game cannot proceed until every eligible voter has voted, but I do recognize the ambiguity in such a statement and would support an amendment to clarify the issue.
Why would it do that? This proposal only (only) transmutes 105.
I would support a future amendment to 105 to clarify the issue. I am aware the current proposal does not do that.
I vote no on 301.
Yea.
My main reason for voting no, by the way, is that this part of 301:
discussion may continue until either the original proposer calls for a vote, or until 12 hours have elapsed since the most recent comment
Conflicts with 111 (by limiting potentially ending debate regardless of the proposer's wishes), which puts it in violation of 109 which states:
Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.
And 301 does not explicitly state that it transmutes anything. There may be other problems, but this one is sufficient for me to vote no. I wish we'd been able to discuss this more before voting.
EDIT: Strike the first instance of "limiting" in my previous comment.
Well, then, I guess by Rule 109, the proposal fails. The question is, does every player have to vote anyway, or can we move on to the next turn?
Just out of curiosity, volkspider, why did you vote no? (not that there's any requirement to say why, or to even have a reason)
Arh. Should have previewed. (to see your reason)
Yeah, uh, the way we're currently tracking proposals kind of sucks for now. Rule 103 text isn't what's at the top of the thread. The complete rule 103 we're voting on is:
"a transmutation of Rule 105 to a mutable rule."
Clarification: The amended 301 was very limited in scope, and simply transmuted rule 105 from immutable to mutable. Since voting is not closed, and no rule forbids it, I do not see any problem with changing vote to Yea, if you should so desire, volkspider.
301, I meant.
No argument with changing a vote before voting closes.
Mister_A: The amended 301 was very limited in scope, and simply transmuted rule 105
I am confused -- the amended 301 that I see (posted today at 11:46 PDT) does not state anywhere that it transmutes any rule. Under 109, transmutations of rules must be stated explicitly.
Ah, I see now -- I missed notJim's 13:06 PDT post. (Can we make proposal amendments stick out more? It would be much easier if the proposer could edit the original rule proposal.)
I'm changing my vote -- I vote yes on 301.
I am confused -- the amended 301 that I see (posted today at 11:46 PDT) does not state anywhere that it transmutes any rule. Under 109, transmutations of rules must be stated explicitly.
The proposal as it stands is in this comment
It's in the comment thread (posted at 1306 by notJim).
There's no way for the original proposal statement to be edited by the proposer (I don't think). I'm not sure that would be desirable anyway (in the discussion thread), because then all the comments would make no sense.
Probably the best way is to have a separate wiki page for the official current text and voting, with discussion separate. We don't have that yet, though.
I vote yes
To free this thread up for actual voting, here is a new Discussion Thread for Proposal 301 in its own forum category. Future proposals should start there as forum threads (comments are discussion) and cross-link with their corresponding immutable Rule Proposal (comments are votes).
I vote Yes.
Hey everyone, I'm glad we're talking about all this so carefully, but the game will be very confusing (even more so than necessary) unless we follow the procedures described in the current rules.
202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.
We're sketchy on this rule, but I think we're technically in the limits, as notJim had never called the vote to order, Chuck jumped the gun.
207. Each player always has exactly one vote.
Does this mean no changing votes?
202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.
In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, 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.)
To me this implies that notJim can end the vote without waiting for everyone to have voted, as soon as one person has voted "no." (As is the case currently.) He could simply post his "score" and play would move to the next person.
203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.
Given that 301 has a "no" vote, we can continue voting, but I think notJim's turn can end whenever he decides it's over.
And I vote yes.
gerryblog: To me this implies that notJim can end the vote without waiting for everyone to have voted, as soon as one person has voted "no." (As is the case currently.)
I'm not seeing anything that suggests the proposer decides when voting ends. "Having it voted on" doesn't confer that power on the proposer. Also, I don't think the proposer can exclude any player from voting (even if their vote wouldn't matter because a unanimity has become impossible) per 105.
Re: Does this mean no changing votes?
I think we'll need to invoke judgement for that. A clarification in the form of a rule might be nice later on. For now, since it's not actually forbidden, I think changing is legit.
But we have no judge.
116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.
Changing votes isn't expressly forbidden, so it should be permitted.
Yeah, we're kind of boned for this first turn. Let's just hope everyone votes or else we'll need to reboot the game (or somehow interpret 105 differently without an official system for deciding how to... urg).
I think xorry is the judge. Playing order is a loop, not a line. I further propose that xorry decide whether or not he is the judge. (All law is founded with an act of violence, let this be ours.)
Also, I don't think the proposer can exclude any player from voting (even if their vote wouldn't matter because a unanimity has become impossible) per 105
105 says "participate," not "vote." Not doing anything is a type of participation. Again, I turn to xorry's wisdom.
If I'm pushing this, it's because this game will die a very early death if we have to wait around for 30+ people to all vote on 60 rules before we switch to majority rules.
I'm sorry, is "~" a player. In which case ~ is the judge, and I appeal to ~'s wisdom in the previous two comments regarding ~'s status as judge and whether there's such a thing as passive participation.
i second gerryblog
gerryblog: Not doing anything is a type of participation.
I have to disagree. (E.g. I didn't "do anything" in WWII, yet by your definition I participated in it.)
gerryblog: Playing order is a loop, not a line.
Interesting interpretation... I like that. I agree with gerryblog -- we do have a potential judge. Re: gerryblog's invocation of judgment: I think the judge should be asked a specific question, not just asked to "make a decision about the issues we're talking about." (Implied by 212; "the player ... is to be the Judge and decide the question").
Asked the wrong question, Judge ~ could rule that without 100% voter participation on 301 we are at an endgame.
I vote yes
I'd like to bring up the issue of "eligible voters". According to the ruleset, this proposal "may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters" [203]. Elsewhere, the ruleset defines "eligible voters" as "every player" [105]. It also mandates that "every eligible voter (i.e. every player) must participate in every vote on rule-changes" [105].
The terms "eligible voters" and "every player" are not further defined. I contend that these terms could be reasonably taken to mean "every player that has created an account on this forum," since no player could possibly vote without having an account here (how better to define eligibility than the physical power to vote?). The stated user list on this website is not the same as the list of users that has created an account. I suggest that this list be amended to reflect actual registered users, and that this list then be the role that the number of votes are compared to in order to ensure that every eligible voter participates in this vote.
I vote no.
301 is an attempt to modify 105 but does not actually do so, as by 110, 105 would always take precedence in any case where one might attempt to apply 301. It also attempts to modify 201, but does not do so, as by 211, 201 would also take precedence in any case where an attempt was made to apply 301. Also, and this is by itself sufficient grounds for a no vote, the last clause contains 'affect' for 'effect', which is horrible, and arguably renders even that clause meaningless.
As such, no part of proposal 301 would actually take effect until subsequent modifications of 105, 110, 201, 211 and quite possibly the English language itself. I cannot see the point of voting for a proposal that does not in itself contain the required modifications to the existing ruleset for it to have any effect whatsoever.
I believe this is a correct and up to date list of actual registered users, as well as their votes on Proposal 301 as voiced in this thread.
!Jim - propsed, has not voted
Aaron A Aaronson - hasn't voted
anomie - hasn't voted
backseatpilot - hasn't voted
bonobo - hasn't voted
Chuck - yes
cortex - hasn't voted
ctmf - yes
Dave - hasn't voted
ErWenn - hasn't voted
flabdablet - hasn't voted
flatluigi - hasn't voted
gerryblog - yes
gnfti - hasn't voted
jay - yes
jeblis - yes
Mister_A - yea
mosessis - yea
motty - no
Resrever - hasn't voted
robocop is bleeding - hasn't voted
shelleycat - hasn't voted
Taksi Putra - hasn't voted
tallus - yes
turaho - yes
volkspider - no, then yes
wendell - hasn't voted
xorry - yes
motty,
Please reconsider. The actual proposal we are voting on is just to make 105 Mutable (able to be changed by a subsequent rule)
Motty, see the amended proposal, the one currently being voted on, here:
Very well. I propose a transmutation of Rule 105 to a mutable rule.
Submitted by notJim on Tue, 03/25/2008 - 14:06.#
I vote yes.
Right. My apologies. I see now that I voted on a proposal entirely different from the one I thought I was voting on owing to an insufficiently close reading of the thread. This is because I am stupid and cannot read.
(Though it is no excuse, it simply did not occur to me that the proposal as worded at the top would possibly be entirely unrelated to the proposal as voted on by the time voting began lower down in the thread, and I would suggest as a matter of convenience that in future surely some way can be found to ensure that votes take place in a thread where the proposal at the top is the one being voted on.)
As for the proposal as it now stands - if I finally understand it correctly - being to make 105 mutable, my vote remains no.
I am at least for now in favour of full participation in this game of Nomic by all players and of the development of an infrastructure - such as emails to all players when voting is called etc - that ensures that this takes place. It might appear to 'slow things down' but I absolutely do not see that in itself as a problem. Nomic is not a quick game. I see no value in having it speeded up.
Arbitrarily allowing the game to progress - from the outset - without the participation of all players seems not merely unfair but strikes me as a slippery slope that could lead to the hijacking of the ruleset by a subset of the overall player community. I agree with mosessis's point about 'players' meaning 'people who have signed up on this site', but I still see no value in changing rule 105.
As said above, 'participation' need not mean voting. It could mean 'receiving notification of a vote and then choosing not to respond'. I would - at least initially - rather see something devised where all players receive notification of all called votes than change the ruleset to allow votes to take place without some players being aware or them or having the chance to be aware of them.
I vote yes
well I would vote yes if I could figure out how to vote yes
Ok Motty, that effectively ends turn 1. The reason for transmuting rule 105 was to modify it on a subsequent turn so that we can continue if someone goes missing.
Points? How do we total or do we still have to wait for all votes?
Since there are no specific rules defining what a player is, I suppose rule 116 would allow us to reasonably interpret a player as someone with an account here.
I vote yes.
Can I request that people stop randomly declaring voting to be over whenever they please? We have not established what determines the end of voting, and since points are given out based on votes, it is important to get this right.
The idea wasn't so much to speed up the game, as it was to prevent it from becoming unplayable if someone drops out. Since every eligible voter is required to vote, if someone simply doesn't vote, the game comes to a halt, as nothing can be passed.
I think article 105 requires everyone to vote, even though the proposal is already lost. Article 202 implies it as well, since those votes still affect the scorekeeping.
notJim. It's not over until everyone votes (I guess). Even if it fails we still need the vote count for points. Err what ctmf said.
I'm not in a hurry to speed things up. I'd just like to see us have some provisions so that people who go awol don;t cause a halt to play.
I think there are better ways to start working on what happens if someone drops out. Setting up proper procedures and time limits and notifications would be my first port of call rather than jumping straight to changing rule, um, whichever one it is we're now voting on (105). So I vote no for similar reasons as motty. I'd vote yes to this later when things are more sorted and we get a feel for participation levels etc
As a record for the future I'll also vote no on anything that imposes any time limit of less than 24 hours, at least to start with, even if it's part of a longer sequence of events. We need a full go around the sun for any phase to allow every timezone a chance to notice what's happening. I do like the idea of limits though, it's very easy to lose track of people in an online environment like this where you can't physically see who's here or track what everyone else is doing. Twenty four to forty eight hours should be long enough for any particular game phase and this can be tweaked later on. So I'd probably vote yes to some of the ideas put forward here about how to structure the event sequence and add time limits.
We also need to sort out the information sharing aspects somewhat. Trying to see if we're voting and what on is difficult right now. It would be good if I could come by each day and see a notification on the front page telling me what phase we're in, who's proposing, are we discussing, are we voting, what do I need to get done that day (now: vote!). Reading the discussions is fun too but wading through it all isn't always an option. This is all web design stuff really, not changing how we do things just clarifying where the information goes. It's already getting better, just not there yet.
Maybe we can have two threads per proposal, one with the original proposal and comments discussing etc (like this one), followed by a fresh one with the 'official' proposal, link back to discussion and only voting comments (or thumbs or whatever) in that thread. It might be easier to follow who has voted if it's by our names rather than using a star system or whatever.
I hereby vote no on Proposal 301.
--Beatrice
This, as an idea, is okay, but I do think we need to enact these rules quickly, because as it sounds now, the game is hosed as soon as someone fails to show up.
argh, "as it *stands* now"
I'm surprised at the no votes. All the change does is make it possible for the next person to propose a change to 105.
Totally agree about enacting quickly. Right now this is all a bit obtuse and disorganised and it's hard to see a way in. We're still at the point of scaring people off, once we stop doing that then hopefully participation problems won't be an issue. And we'll be in a stronger position to deal with them if they do.
Nothing in the rules requires unanimity.
202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) ... In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, 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.)
Nowhere in this language does it say that every player must vote so we can count the points, or anything like that. That's an interpretation that is being brought into this discussion by other players, but the rules are perfectly consistent with notJim calling for a vote, the first person voting no, the vote coming to an end at that moment and notJim receiving zero points.
Likewise, I've already pointed out that the language of 105 says "participate," not "vote."
My point in all this is that nothing in the rules requires us to sit here and wait for everyone who signed up to vote -- we're doing that to ourselves.
I think it's time to go to the Judge for the round, ~, and ask whether or not unanimity is really required to proceed.
Earlier in the thread someone asked why a player under my interpretation would have the power to end their own turn. I take that from the language of "in this order: 1) making a proposal and having it voted on 2) throwing a die." If we agree as I think we should that unanimity is not required, then at any moment after the proposal has been voted on (which can be only a single vote) the player can throw the die and get their points.
In our situation, a mail or computer game, the act of subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the proposal and multiplying by the fraction of "yes" votes can take likewise take place at any time after the proposal has been voted on. The state of "having been voted on", in my opinion, does not logically imply that voting is complete.
This gives us a partial workaround to the flaky players scenario, so we should hang onto it.
To the folks voting no on 301 because they think we should deal with maintaining game flow differently: This is the first step in doing that in the most unambiguous way (i.e. with the least amount of arguing and confusion). Amending 105 (which isn't possible until it's mutable) will allow us to revoke the "player" status of users that don't participate.
gerryblog - how can someone who's been at sea on a submarine with no internet for the last 3 days be considered to have "participated" in a vote that was proposed 2 days ago, discussed, and then voted on today? (hypothetical example, not real life) (that I know of) How do we know that's not the case for those who haven't voted yet?
I agree that in principle, participating need not consist of actually casting a vote. I also agree that we shouldn't have to wait until infinity for someone who has no intention of ever coming back. However, I think the rules must be designed so that everyone gets the opportunity to vote if they want to, within a reasonable amount of time. For whatever definitions of "opportunity" and "reasonable" we can all agree on.
Also, Rule 203 requires unanimous consent for rule changes (currently).
I invoke judgment: Does the second sentence of 105 require that we wait for all players to vote before moving on?
So it would be better to do what exactly? Just wait and do nothing for a few days? I don't understand how we'll be in a strong position to deal with non-participation later on if we don't enact rules to deal with it now. How are we supposed to progress by doing nothing?
Reread the rules. Rule 109 applies to 301:
Furthermore, rule 203 currently requires all rule-changes to be unanimous:
ctmf, those things are important, I definitely agree. But I'm certain we already have more than one player who is never coming back -- that's just the nature of how these things work.
The mere recognition that there's no such thing as unanimity doesn't get us there, either, as eventually it'll be an absent player's turn and we'll have an even bigger mess on our hands. What we need to do is recognize the power of the Judge to get us out of this bind by providing friendly definitions of "eligible" and "participate" that don't require us to do this 60 times before we switch to majority rules.
I'd be happy enough with a definition of "unanimous" that allowed for the possibility of abstention: "no no votes" as opposed to "every player voting yes."
At least temporarily, until we can emend the rules so that the game is actually playable with the inevitable absent players. As I said, even the most rational system of laws is predicated on a founding act of irrational violence, the declaration of the law itself; we need to embrace that reality or the game will never get started.
Seconding invocation of judgement.
I agree, FWIW, that judgement may a good temporary way to solve the problem. Of course, if the judge is absent....
notJim, I was talking about whether or not we need every player to vote to move on to a new turn. I shouldn't have said unanimity, because that invites confusion -- I should have said "a vote from every player."
To change a rule, yes, the rules explicitly require unanimity right now.
To move onto the next turn, though, I'm not convinced they do. I think a proposal can fail with a single no vote, and even arguably if it has all yes votes but not every player has voted.
What I don't want is for us to sit here waiting around for the final player, unable to move because of a commitment to an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the rules. I think that's exactly what's going to happen unless we take actual and decide as a collective of participating players not to let the game die so quickly.
A good activist Judge is the perfect tool for this.
Originally I was thinking something along the lines of:
It would require a change to Rule 105, though, which got (is getting) voted down. Yes, I'm having too much fun with this game already.
We could also just make everyone re-declare themselves as players at least once per week or something, and scrub the player list of those who don't. It's not prohibited or regulated by any rules, therefore Rule 116 allows it.
Not that I think that's a good idea. In fact I think that's a bad idea. It's a possible solution, though.
Hey now! This thread is for discussion of 301. Place your derails elsewhere!
I'd also like to point out before we move forward that it has been less than 12 hours since the final 301 was proposed. In the interest of not alienating other players, I would suggest we wait at least 24 hours before closing the voting. (on the hand, maybe it doesn't really matter, since we already have several no votes. Still would be nice for everyone to get to weigh in though.)
How about we wait until everyone has had a chance to sign up before we start kicking people out? Does everyone even know we've started and that there's voting? It certainly hasn't been a full day since the amended proposal went up and voting started, and I'm sure not everyone is on board yet.
We also need to sort out our procedures, like how to actually vote, where to list the proposals so it makes sense (right now the in thread amendment is confusing), how to notify everyone when voting begins (note on the front page?). Rules changes can work on the timelines, how long to discuss something, when to open voting and when to close it again, when to invoke judgment, how long that needs to take. We can worry about players not responding when we have some kind of timeline as to when they should respond, otherwise how do we know if someone is just asleep or has actually given up?
Right now this all feels rushed. Give everyone a chance to actually get started and realise that we're not all on the same schedule. I've been known to sleep for 12 hours at a time (am making the most of being a student), letting things take a few days shouldn't be an issue.
I totally agree about not closing voting too early. Despite the no votes already lets give everyone a chance to catch up and get sucked in.
Maybe we need to chase up any stragglers too? Try to get everyone signed up and involved by the end of this voting round so we know where we stand for future ones? That would at least let us know if we have a significant no show problem.
I vote yes; sorry for not stating so in the thread.
I vote yes.
301: No.
I think voting no on 301 is a huge mistake, one that will for all intents and purposes kill the game. We are not going to have consistent 100% participation in votes, and that should be the first thing we address. Transmuting 105 is the first step; the second step is redefining "player", "voter", or "participate" so that we have provisions for moving on if we have a quorum, for instance.
I don't want to be a crazy cuckoo radical nancy or nothing, but can I put out the idea of a more free-form, informal pre-game brainstorming session to put together an altered ruleset that will be at the very least basically amenable to this style of play, and then recommence at turn one when that's reasonably agreed on? Alter the time constraints and the requirements and mechanics of voting to accommodate to fit this style of play and this size of playerbase, by fiat, ahead of time instead of us tearing our hair out trying to decide if we can even potentially fix the ruleset to make that game anything other than broken from the start, is what I'm thinking.
30+ people is a very, very large game. Keeping 30+ people *in* the game every turn, in an active sense, is madness. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se, but if that's not what the people wanting to actually play have signed up expecting, you're likely to end up with a lot of people fed up in one way or another with how things are going before things actually *get* anywhere.
I say this with enthusiasm and love for the game in general and for the idea of us pulling this off specifically.
Voting no is not going to kill the game -- we don't have any definitions of who is a player or who is eligible so we can make rules that will enable us to deal with non participation by ruling on who is a player. (There is also rule 113). The problem is that this becomes the nuclear option: either you are a player or you are out of the game. Making 105 immutable does allow for a scenario where you can have temporary non-participation without having to forfeit player status.
Note. I'm for unanimity & full participation but you can't force people to participate -- you have to create an atmosphere where they want to. So that means allowing them to slack, reasonable timelines etc. The rules, as are, are only very lightly adjusted for on line play. Off line we would all be in the same room, non participation could register as abstention and this would be a non issue.
In real life, in non game scenarios, this type of issue can cause real problems. I once had to sit through two months of useless meetings every fortnight as we couldn't make quoracy, and had no scenario for dealing with it other than to wait around until we could officially expel enough non participating members so we became quorate again*. And all this so we could release money to repair people's houses. So its not like we have it really bad here.
Its also worth pointing out moving to majority voting change anything -- its a quoracy not a majority issue,
*after that we introduced rules for when quoracy failed.
On Preview:
I think cortex has a point.
See my post in the 301 discussion thread. I think we have a faulty definition of "player." A rule defining who is and who is not a "player" need not conflict with 105, and would serve as clarification to 105 (ya cuckoo radical nancy)
On lack of preview: what tallus said much better.
1 votes "No" on 301.
Actually, I believe that the concept of who is and who is not a player was established in the earlier wiki: http://mssv.net/wiki/index.php/Talk:MeFi_Nomic
Anyway, yes it is a pain in the ass getting this to work with 29 players, BUT that's the challenge. Our first great hurdle is going to be getting everyone to agree to amend the rules to allow for a more flexible and workable definition of the concept of "player" or "participation". such that if 2/3 of the eligible voters (for instance) cast a vote, that vote is official. This could be done in 2 steps --->1. transmute 105
2. Amend 105 such that (for instance) only 2/3 of eligible voters need vote in order for the vote to be "legally" binding.
What I'm getting at is that the difficulties we're encountering here are not a bug - they are the very essence of the game, and arguing in favor of the prooposed rule change is also the essence of the game, as is arguing against it. If my pro-301 argument proves to be more cromulent than your anti-301ist pablum, than 301 will carry the day. If not, we will have a protracted battle over the opening turn, which is part of the game! And which I have no problem with.
I second this. The No vote on 301 demonstrates how mired down round one is going to be.
I started a mulligan thread.
INVOCATION of JUDGEMENT
If this guy's name is "notJim", then why is he getting the first move? If ~ would show up, I would like a ruling on this.
Aaron his official handle is !jim. Drupal didn't allow that as a username ( He posted it as !jim on the wiki, which was (is?) at the start of the game the official list)
I would like to hear the opinion of a more judgish person than my most esteemed colleague jeblis. Where's ~ at?
That's part of the problem Aaron. He seems to be missing. However nothing in the rules prevents us from electing a judge.
When Taski kicked this off the ruleset/player list/order was on the wiki. Seems that those were the initial conditions. As it stands I think the quickest (and fair) way to get moving is to elect a judge (only lasts until notJim's turn is over)
Here's my full argument
This prompted Mister_A to nominate jeblis as judge in a new different thread. I don't know if this will work, but I encourage everyone to lend an opinion there.
Jeblis: your argument is very flawed. The rules have no idea of a time limit. This "sprit of the rules" thing is totally against the sprit of nomic.
This "sprit of the rules" thing is totally against the sprit of nomic.
From rule 212:
but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.
1) The rules are unclear about who is judge.
2) Rule 116 allows us to hold an election since there is no rule preventing that in the absence of an acting judge.
Also if there is a way for notJim to declare his turn over. The rules unambiguously declare him the acting judge.
The rules are not unclear about who the judge is -- it is the preceding player. You can't elect a judge who is not the preceding player. I think you're interpreting rule 116 far too broadly.
volkspider - maybe let's put it to a vote. I just want the Judge to be an someone who will actually make a judgment.
The problem is that no one has the power to make a call on the interpretation of a rule. A fair way would be to have a vote. That way anyone who cares can have a say.
Maybe the vote should read as:
Is preceding judge on the first turn the last player in the player list?
Of course it would be good to see if ~ is around. Otherwise we'd need another vote to pass it on to xorry.
It may be fair, but I don't think it's legal. If we can't get ahold of ~, I'm beginning to think a mulligan might be the only solution. Taking 116 to mean we can do *anything* not explicitly forbidden by 101-213 can lead to major chaos. (Like, what prevents me from giving myself 200 points and immediately winning?)
re: notJim as judge
jeblis said: "Also if there is a way for notJim to declare his turn over. The rules unambiguously declare him the acting judge."
I've been pushing for this upthread. If we accept that "having a proposal voted on" is not the same thing as "having a complete vote on the proposal," then the player is free to declare their turn over at any time after a single vote has been cast.
A proposal can't pass this way, but it can *fail* this way.
So another solution, other than finding xorry or ~, would be for notJim to do this, and then for the next player to post proposal 302. notJim would then be the judge to decide whether or not the turn regarding 301 had really ended, which presumably he would rule "yes it had."
gerryblog, I think that may be the best suggestion.
If no one invokes judgement of whether or not notJim can declare his turn over before the next proposal. We don't have to worry about who is the current judge.
Also anyone who has invoked judgment already needs to withdraw their invocations.