See first comment for initial thoughts.
I'm now leaning towards this language:
Unless otherwise demanded by a immutable rule, no game decision shall require more than a simple majority of players in agreement to take effect, including the adoption of rule changes and judicial overrides. This rule shall take precedence over all mutable rules.
flatluigi looks just about ready to post 309, and it looks like it probably won't go forward. I want to try ssg's suggestion and see if we can't get unanimity minus
onethree.What I'm thinking of right now is something like this:
I do not understand why I am not included on this list, gerryblog. I will obviously be voting against any proposal that attempts to exclude me from the player list.
I fully expect flatluigi will deal with the Abron Question expeditiously during my turn.
I have always had an inclusive view of this game. We weren't checking people's IDs when we started, and I see no need to get all exclusive now.
To be honest, gerryblog, I think your hidden agenda here is a desire to expel Abron. Why do you hate him so much? What have you done to him? What are you afraid of? What are your crimes?
a) it has been voted on by a supermajority of eligible voters;
I'm assuming that this should read "voted for" or is the idea to make it possible for votes to close after a supermajority (but not all) players have voted? Also, supermajority doesn't mean anything more than majority unless you specify the threshold.
I also think it would be better to say that a player can join after demonstrating to a majority of current players ..., rather than to a majority of the 15 players. What happens if 8 players quit?
ssg, it's the latter -- I want to make it possible to close votes before every last player has voted. Originally I was setting the supermajority at 2/3, and I'll probably stick with that.
As for the majority of current players, that's exactly right -- that's actually the language I used in Spork. Just had a brainfart here.
If you want this rule to have precedence over 305 (every player must vote) then you'll have to explicitly state so in the rule. However, I really doubt you'll have any luck passing a rule that lets us close the vote after 2/3 of the players have voted. Why not set a time limit for voting?
Hey AAA Abron B Abronson, I heard Aaron A Aaronson saying nasty things to AAA Aaron A. Aaronson about your mom.
Really good comments. If I got ahead with this, I'll definitely write in the 305 precedence. As for the supermajority thing, maybe a "supermajority after a certain, defined length of time" would work. In practice I think they'd amount to the same thing, but tempers are high on some of these issues.
Holy cow, I have a turn coming up. That wasn't on my calendar till Autumn.
jay, I don't know if you've seen my assholic assertions on this subject elsewhere on the site, but I have some ideas for self-invoked judgments for your turn that will make it easier for you to pass majority-rules legislation than anyone so far...So be thinking.
You just kicked my ass with the pre/post midnight moves at Spork Chess so I have strong faith in your deviousness.
I'd been saving that double move thing since the first turn of the game.
You need to define "supermajority."
But more importantly, I will vote against any change to the votes required for a proposal to be adopted which does not revert to a simple majority once the 3rd round of play begins. Just because we want to try to reduce the required number of votes to "all but 3" (or whatever) because that's the best we can do for now, that doesn't mean we should saddle ourselves forever and ever with such a high bar. (Sorry, mixed metaphor, but you get the idea.)
Uh, yeah, and we should word it that way, too, or even define a proposal number after which it reverts. The current wording could mean everyone has to get two turns before it reverts to majority. Even a new player that joined in the second cycle, extending the wait.
I can't vote for something that would exclude Abron, which I suspect may have something to do with his race.
No, it's because he used to be a woman.
Now I'm leaning towards this language:
Unless demanded by a immutable rule, no game decision shall require more than a simple majority of players in agreement to take effect, including the adoption of rule changes and judicial overrides. This rule shall take precedence over all mutable rules.
I like it.
I think it'll fail on my turn, but hopefully jay will see fit to re-propose it (or something like it)...
That's a nice piece of work.
Ditto.
Does everybody really like this? Am I the only one against opening the floodgates to full-on democracy? I am honestly and seriously concerned that minority interests are from this point forward going to be ruthlessly trampled underfoot by the masses.
I beseech you, gerryblog! We need a defender of the fantasy-based liberal faction to protect the weak and small.
no game decision shall require more than a simple majority of players in agreement, including Aaron A Aaronson
This wording will get my unflagging support. Otherwise I will be forced to veto.
Those interests are going to get trampled by the masses anyway, that's what democracy is for.
We may have no choice but to allow the current sock puppets to vote. If all currently registered accounts were allowed to vote, Aaron A Aaronson, would every account you log in as vote yes?
Otherwise this whole game focuses on what you want, every turn, and I'm going to grow tired of that.
You are making assumptions there, my good sir. Aaron A Aaronson only logs in as one registered account!
Otherwise this whole game focuses on what you want, every turn, and I'm going to grow tired of that.
Not just what I want, sir. There is a sizable minority faction here, and I am only the most vocal member. I suppose it is tiring constantly hearing from those who disagree with you, but what can be done about that? Look closely and tell me how many proposals I have been the sole dissenting voice on when it comes down to the vote? Given 204, do you really think I am the only one standing in the way of a glorious future filled with jewelry, chess, and alliteration?
If you would prefer it, my good sir, I will keep my opinions to myself aside from voting stuff down that doesn't meet my needs. Another option would be that I instead make my votes based on your needs and wants, but that would be kind of moronic, no?
Shelleycat keeps talking about inclusion and time limits; gerryblog keeps threatening his magic judge trick; jay keeps trying to herd the cats... The interaction of the different players with their conflicting wants is what keeps the process dynamic and interesting.
(The jewelry wasn't my idea, but whaddya gonna do.)
My point is the whole game is focused on this player list and will continue to be until one side or the other accepts defeat on the sockpuppet issue. In the meantime we're an archive of Suber's original game.
This roleplay stuff is fun and all, but I signed up to play nomic.
Agreed, this is all part of the game, but I'll reiterate my opinion that we lost a lot of initial players because of this stall. Your fun comes at what expense?
Well, it seems our options are either let the majority trample minority interests now, or let the majority trample minority interests starting with the third round of play. Why wait?
I'm kind of curious as well as to how you think the unanimity thing is going to play out down the road. Nobody can force you to change your mind, but your turns are numbered, as it were. It's going to change from unanimous. If you don't like majority, I would think you would start campaigning for what you do want to replace it with.
In other news, I think I know what gerryblog has in mind.
If you don't like majority, I would think you would start campaigning for what you do want to replace it with.
I haven't been exactly quiet about it. Majority plus Aaron works for me. What can I do to sell this to you guys?
Or a revised and beefed up judge / judgment system. It's not like we are stagnant, guys, this will be an interesting and dynamic next few turns on that front.
I think jay sums it up pretty well. If we can make a few changes, or even just adopt a less than unanimity requirement for adopting new rules (even unanimity less one would be pretty good and 80% would be excellent, but majority plus any specific player is just not going to happen), we will be able to open up more possibilities and make this game a lot more fun. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is finding this game less and less interesting the longer we are unable to pass any rule changes.
While I understand that trying to play a game of attrition by promising to veto everything that isn't exactly what you want is a valid way of playing, it is, quite frankly, just not very nice.
The interaction of the different players with their conflicting wants is what keeps the process dynamic and interesting.
If drama is what you crave, can we all chip in for a Netflix account for you and get back to the game? Conflict and competition are not synonymous.
OK, if you really feel that I am "not playing right" I will offer this completely new deal:
-put a tiny gold star gif in front of my name
-on the player list, put me in a special section at the very top called "players who were given a special gold star to shut up and play right"
In exchange for this deluxe treatment, I will:
-immediately abandon my sockpuppet Abron
-never engage in further sockpuppetry
-vote "yes" on every proposal until some form of majority rule is brought in or the next 5 proposals, whichever is greater
-stop doing anything that might be interpreted as "role playing"
How does that sound?
If you'd like to add any additional conditions, I am open to suggestions.
Personally I think you deserve the gold star for playing so awesome.
I have a nasty tendency to speak for collectives, but from where I'm standing the AAA Show has been very good for the enjoyment level of the game the last few turns. Where people are wary, I think, is more the prospect of extending out this current status quo for another 40 weeks before simple majority rules comes in...
I am not joking, jay. None of what I ask is prohibited, so 116 lets us do this no problemo. I have to go, but I hope you will have that gold star in place when I log on again in about 18 hours.
I think the best thing to do is, when this current game ends, start a new one with conditions explicitly saying 'no sockpuppets' with an additional rule (perhaps) for time limits or working with unanimity.
If the rules start out just as we want them from the outset, not much point in playing is there?
That's why I say 'perhaps' for the latter part. With the first in place, any attempt at doing something that a person with enough sockpuppets doesn't want to happen won't happen.
That wins, Aaron, it truly does. I'll take you up on it if a poll shows majority support. If it doesn't I promise to shut up about existing puppets for a full month.
I fully support giving Aaron A Aaronson a gold star. I think he found a brilliant exploit for computer games that is almost impossible to control at this point, but I do find that it rather goes against the "spirit" of the game, whatever that is. In other words, cheers, well played, but I'd rather eliminate the socks.
I'd be delighted to see AAA presented with a gold star.
OK, if you really feel that I am "not playing right" I will offer this completely new deal:
On the contrary, I think you are playing right.
If you want to abandon your sockpuppets and stop "role playing" whatever that is, that's up to you. I guess trying to make you feel bad and voluntarily do something or stop doing something is a valid strategy for everyone else. I wouldn't enjoy being part of a game where a player couldn't vote the way he wanted--for any reason he wanted--though.
I object to the whole defeatist attitude that you've done something that can't be helped, and we'll just have to agree to not do that. It's simply not true. We got through this turn (so far). So the sock-puppets will be mock-unhappy, and we're going to have to figure out a way to let new players join. We can do that, possibly with some authoritarian judging and controversy.
I for one refuse to be part of a deal under those terms. I'm not against a "you give me this, and I'll do this" bribery bargain; I'm against the portrayal of it that we have no choice, that somehow you've won the game but will hobble yourself to keep it going for everyone else's sake.
As for your demands - put any flashing blinky gifs you want, as far as I'm concerned. As long as it doesn't affect the playing order or anything else that should take a rule change, it doesn't bother me any. What the hell, gold stars for everyone, I say.
I for one refuse to be part of a deal under those terms. I'm not against a "you give me this, and I'll do this" bribery bargain; I'm against the portrayal of it that we have no choice, that somehow you've won the game but will hobble yourself to keep it going for everyone else's sake.
I guess you can see it that way, but I don't think AAA giving up his sockpuppets indicates that we have no way of dealing with sockpuppets. I don't see any reason to believe that AAA has won the game in any way at all. All he will have is a gold star. I don't see any admission of defeat in that.
I don't even think the sockpuppet issue is all that important. I joined a game about changing the rules, but we haven't managed a single rule change yet. Let's change the rules, instead of just invoking judgement and hearing one particular player's interpretation of the static rules. Since the players all have veto power right now, we need to convince everyone to get on board for at least one change. If AAA wants to volunteer not to veto proposals, that's great - we are one vote closer.
Everyone except for a couple could quit the game long enough for the few remaining to cycle through the turn list real quick, then rejoin after Rule 203 reverts to simple majority. The danger is not being able to rejoin by then.
It looks like 309 failed. I'm going to wait until tomorrow morning to post 310 officially, but it looks like this will be the basic text of it:
If the gold-star-bribe actually works to get AAA on board, this could pass. Or it may quickly go down in flames. We'll see.
What the hell, gold stars for everyone, I say.
Ah, I see I was not clear and need to slightly modify my proposal. This needs to be exclusive, only for me. And please don't think this is defeatist or that it means I have "won", or that it is a forced thing, ctmf. It is an offer, pure and simple. By my reckoning we have 4 votes for approval so far, I hope my new rider doesn't change that.
And this offer will be void if not put into place before 310 voting starts.
Did you count me? I'm not down with losing the role-playing or the tricky-dickery, but I'd like to see 310 pass.
gerryblog: not trying to be difficult here - are you firmly set on simple majority? No way you could be talked into 60%, 2/3, or something of that nature?
Look to Spork for an example of the zany crap that a simple majority will approve of! :)
I'm with AAA here: I don't think we need to rush straight to a simple majority. Two-thirds sounds much better to me, at least for now. Also, I don't think it would be good for the game at all to have judgements overturned by a simple majority.
ssg: is that a "I have reservations," or an "I'll vote no."
What do other people think about 2/3 as a compromise?
I like 2/3 more than I like simple majority. Rounded up.
I will only vote for 2/3 if it reverts to a simple majority once the third round of play begins (or sooner).
Of course, it does not escape my notice that if at least 2/3 of the players want a 2/3 majority, you could say "2/3 then simple majority when the third round of play begins on this turn, then vote in a permanent 2/3 requirement on a subsequent turn.
I would vote yes to the proposal as written, but only because any change at all is better than the status quo. I don't think it makes a good rule. I think it would be best to wait a little bit and try to get some sort of comment for shellycat. She has indicated the she would vote against this sort of change many times before and it might be best to see if a higher threshold is more acceptable to her. Unless she has a had a change of heart, the proposal as written is quite likely to fail.
A higher threshold is more acceptable. Simple majority is not very many people. I quite liked teh unanimity minus one things actually, although then it just takes two covert sockpuppets to still break the game.
But this whole mess that we've run into makes it very clear that anyone willing to twist the rules can do whatever they like, and no one actually has any control over the game any longer. So it doesn't matter what we do, without addressing the real issues here (removing players, sockpuppets, judges stepping outside the rules, new players, whatever) the game is pretty stuffed.
Sockpuppets aren't the only basic issue people are going to have differences about. We've had stalemated debates about time limits and other things too. Two votes is too few to prevent perpetual deadlock, I think.
shelleycat, would you be willing to be more explicit about what you will or won't vote for?
I'm inclined to make the switch to a 2/3 majority rounded up, which in our context (14 players) would be 10. I'll think it over and post 310 in the morning, so more comments would be helpful in getting ready for that.
I'm real busy right now, have intermittent computer access and am having trouble keeping up. Two thirds would be OK I think. Higher would definitely be OK.
Actually, I'm a lot less likely to vote no for anything right now because I don't want to torpedo a rule when I don't have time to read and understand the reasoning behind it. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
10 out of 14 sounds reasonable, I like the rounding up part.
I prefer two-thirds but would be willing to vote for simple with the current language.