303 (Neil) (Passed)

[Neil]

Proposal:
Proposals require a simple majority to pass.

(replaces 203)

Simpler game theory - there's less incentive to arbitrarily block someone's proposal in order to reduce their points.

[Robin_C]

vote against

[michaelenstone]

vote against as rule 203 reverts to this after two rounds.

[michaelenstone]

In line with my own rule the vote needs to be called rather than us just arbitrarily voting. As such Robin's vote is null as is mine.

I would vote against this rule on the basis that 203 reverts to simple majority after two rounds of play.

Neil, you now have the opportunity to amend your proposal.

[Neil]

It will happen anyway later doesn't make it wrong to happen earlier. This proposal will make one round more effective.

[Robin_C]

So... Due to Mike's rule, you need to call the vote on it

[Neil]

Mike's rule neither forces nor induces me to call for a vote.

The situation is: the rules incentivise voting against proposals, and punish the proposer of failed proposals; I would be an idiot to bring to vote the proposal you've both said you would reject.

On further thought, I realise that even with the early amendment of 203, 204 still encourages killing proposals.

There appear obvious reasons for not wanting too many rules, but we're not going to get into a flowing / interesting game with the status quo. Perhaps a way of achieving a more flowing game without rule bloat could be as follows:
When a proposed rule change is defeated, the players who proposed it and the player(s) who rejected it will lose 10 points.
(replaces 206)
Or, perhaps further tweaking to encourage amendment of addition, where a rule replaces another it is better incentivised for all to progress it than a completely new rule...?

[Robin_C]

I don't think you'd be an idiot to call the vote, even in purely game theory terms.

The only way you can win is for the game to procede - therefore you need to make the game procede. Your logic makes the mistake of the Greedy Algorith.

That aside, I'm ok with shooting down proposals early on - if you can't come up with something that everybody values more than your loss of 10 points, then that's your problem.

And that constraint goes away later anyway.

You're right that you don't have to call the vote, but we can't procede without it.

[Robin_C]

If you refuse to call the vote (which I think you're entitled to do), then I think someone else can Envoke Judgement (see rule 212). A quick reading shows that the game can become tricky with only three people if the judge's ruling is questioned...

Still, let's press on: Neil - are you refusing to call the vote?

[michaelenstone]

My rule explicitly states that either the proposer or the judge may call the vote. The period of debate is to allow the proposer to amend his rule to achieve majority or consensus votes depending on the round. Evidently Neil is reluctant to amend his rule.

As the Judge I am going to call the vote. My vote is against.

[Robin_C]

Technically, you're not the Judge unless someone (including you) Invokes Judgement. So do that first. Then you get to Judge.

I wonder what happens if Neil then refuses to vote? The vote requires everyone to vote before it's completed...

A second scenario is:

"When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players."

Do we think that this goes away once the question is answered, or still requires Neil and I to agree that it's my turn once done?

[Neil]

On Greedy algorithm:
I think your assertion is only true if the option is only proceed/not proceed. Given Mike's rule allows amend/revise, which could feasibly achieve both goals, that's the route I chose.

On Mike's invoking judgement:
My last post explicitly included a possible revision in order to achieve the intent of my original proposal in a more acceptable way.

[Neil]

I don' t think the bureaucratic obstacle exists on Mike imposing judgement. I just don't think it's a great game if there's introduction of a rule to amend and revise proposals which is promptly trashed by its originator.

[Robin_C]

So i think this is where we are:
- Mike: no-one has Invoked Judgement, so you're not the Judge just yet
- Neil: you can revise the wording and call a vote as you see fit, unless someone Invokes Judgement first. If that happens, Mike can move things on; alternatively we can overturn Mike's judgement however via unanimous vote if we feel he's abusing the power

It doesn't matter if you don't like people using the rules in ways you didn't forsee - in some ways, that's the point of the game

[michaelenstone]

Having re-read your post I can see now that you did offer an amendment. However, I didn't read your post as having included an amendment. The only reason I imposed judgement was that I didn't understand you had proposed an amendment.

I think that imposing a penalty on those who vote against a defeated proposal could allow the acceptance of marginal and even wholly detrimental rules on the basis that people would not feel inclined to lose points.

[Robin_C]

So - time for Neil to give us the final wording to vote on?

[Neil]

It doesn't matter if you don't like people using the rules in ways you didn't forsee - in some ways, that's the point of the game

I don't agree, the game is about debating and agreeing rules and amendments - pointing out inconsistency is reasonable rhetoric in pursuit of that end. Anyway, it's a moot point, Mike pursued premature judgement because he didn't spot my proposed amendment. If my earlier post hadn't included an amendment, it would have seemed particularly frustrating.

So I'm trying to find a way of making the game more playable, I fear we aren't going to make progress towards that this round, which raises a risk that the game becomes tedious. I'll try one more angle to encourage play...

How about:
The period of discussion and amendment of any proposal shall not exceed 48 hours from the posting of the last vote which decided the previous amendment. If the proposer has not specified a definitive proposed version, the last mooted version (as presented by the proposer) shall be eligible for the vote. If the proposer has made no proposal at all, the proposer shall be deemed to have proposed a null amendment - which automatically receives negative votes from all players, including the proposer.

Helps prevent dead-ends which come up more often under Mike's proposal, and pushes gameplay through. I haven't specified additional penalties for failed proposals, as the null proposal (as it stands) carries its own penalty. I haven't been able to address the time taken to vote, but you can't propose an amendment addressing more than one rule at once.

If you have a proposed tweak to improve this, go ahead, otherwise I'll propose as it stands.

[Robin_C]

Excellent - are you calling a vote

[Neil]

Yes.

[michaelenstone]

I vote for this rule.

For the purposes of scoring I would suggest that this is rule 303 but that it should be codified as an annex to rule 302. Establishing this principle will make for simpler reading of the rules as we go along.

[Robin_C]

I vote in favour

I would suggest that we (Neil) update the Rules page with new rules, remove old ones, and update amended ones. Alternatively, you could keep the original rules page, and have a 'live' rules page with the above changes?

[Neil]

Good. I vote +. Passes. Robin's turn (you have 48 hours). I will score.

I think 108 mandates some details around numbering, where it does, obviously need to follow that (unless it's changed).

Of what's left. Relevant information, in order of relevance (in my opinion):
Current, unpolluted rules.
Revision history.
Original rules.

First post in rules forum should be 1.
Revision history can be gleaned from the proposals forum, but it's not very easy to see. I suggest the revisions only (i.e. excluding failed proposals) are added as sequential posts under the rules thread. The rules themselves are 'sticky' in that forum so will always be at the top.
Original rules are linked to from the rules forum, so not sure we need to recreate, but can do.

I'll do what I've outlined and you can let me know if it works for you.

[Sponsored content]