306 (Rich) (passed)

[ariich]

This proposed rule change amends Rule 207. For the first two proposal rounds, this will only actually affect bills, as individual rules require unanimous votes. After two rounds it will affect all proposals.

"306. To support the British love of the underdog, underperforming players will be entitled to an extra vote. In any proposal there are 6 voters, for whom there will be a total of 9 votes available. The 3 voters with the highest scores will have 1 vote, while the 3 lowest scoring at the time of the vote will have 2 votes. Where players are tied so as to prevent a clean split, for example where those in third and fourth place have the same number of points, they will be treated as in the top half and not be entitled to the extra vote."

===================================================

Revised proposal for voting on:

"306. To support the British love of the underdog, underperforming players will be entitled to extra votes. In any proposal there are 6 players/voters, for whom there will be a maximum of 9 votes available in total. At the time of the vote, the bottom placed player will have 3 votes, the player in fifth place will have 2 votes, and the remaining players will each have 1 vote.

Where players are tied so as to prevent a clean split, they will both be treated as in the higher position. Therefore, where those in fourth and fifth place have the same number of points, they will be treated as both in fourth place and have 1 vote each. Where fifth and sixth place are tied, they will be treated as both in fifth place and have 2 votes each.

This rule amends and therefore replaces rule 207."

[Robin_C]

To clarify the (small-ish) effect of the above:
- For unanimous voting, this changes nothing
- For majority vote, this proposal allows two specific situations where 3 rather than 4 players collude to pass a vote
1) where all three Underdogs collude against the Overdogs (6 v 3)
2) two of the Underdogs collude with an Overdog (5 v 4)

So it changes the balance a little

[ariich]

Well, rule 210 says no conspiring, but otherwise you are correct. Of course, rule 210 could be scrapped or amended.

The reasoning behind this is that games like this get very boring if one or two people pull miles away from the others. Which is why I've never seen through a full season of fantasy football! So something small to rebalance the voting and help the underdogs would keep it more open and fun.

Also, as it's my proposal and I missed the revolution, I am designating myself craftsman.

[Neil]

I quite like it.  Do the players have to cast both votes the same?

To make it a fit proposal, best to propose it as replacing 207 in its entirety (cf. 108 ) As in, add to your proposal the bits of 207 which aren't already covered above and propose that as a replacement.

Timing-wise, 304/305 passed at 14:51 on Tuesday, 48 hours would take you to the same today, but because there was a revolution, you get a 24-hour extension.  You lucky scamp.  Unless anyone wants to invoke judgement on my interpretation/Rich starting his go now?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craftsman eh?
There's nothing in 304 about whether people gain & lose points for their roles at the beginning / vote / conclusion of each proposal.  That's a gap.

I think it may be necessary to invoke judgement on whether Rich gets 3 points for being a craftsman on this proposal.  I'm inclined to give it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This also raises a general idea of non-point-earning amendments to rules.  It's worth making that rule a bit snappier, but I wouldn't support a proposal doing so as it wouldn't be worth giving away points.  Not sure the best way to tackle that.

[ariich]

Do the players have to cast both votes the same?

Not in its current wording, but there isn't any incentive for people to do otherwise as it would be pointless. I'm happy to reword it to make that the case though, if people think it's worth it.

To make it a fit proposal, best to propose it as replacing 207 in its entirety (cf. 108 ) As in, add to your proposal the bits of 207 which aren't already covered above and propose that as a replacement.

Yep, the new rule will be 306, and I suppose under 207 we just include a note to say that it's been superceded. Or delete it entirely? Not sure what the protocol is.

Timing-wise, 304/305 passed at 14:51 on Tuesday, 48 hours would take you to the same today, but because there was a revolution, you get a 24-hour extension.  You lucky scamp.  Unless anyone wants to invoke judgement on my interpretation/Rich starting his go now?

That is rather fortunate! So I need to call the vote no later than 14:51 tomorrow, otherwise it will automatically go ahead on the most recently posted version - is that right? (rule 214)

Craftsman eh?
There's nothing in 304 about whether people gain & lose points for their roles at the beginning / vote / conclusion of each proposal.  That's a gap.

I think it may be necessary to invoke judgement on whether Rich gets 3 points for being a craftsman on this proposal.  I'm inclined to give it.

The wording in 304 states that we may choose "at each player's proposal". My understanding is that the proposal is only in draft form until a vote is called on a final version, so I would say people can change their role up until that point. As you say, 304 does not specify.

[michaelenstone]

Rich,

Like the rule.  I agree with Neil that this rule supersedes rule 207.  The proposal needs to make that clear.  

While Neil's rule is not explicit, the implication is that points are awarded once a role has been confirmed i.e. at the end of a revolution or at the point of declaration as part of the proposal process.  

Neil,

In your point about amending rules, do you think that it isn't worth the points to amend your rule or it's not worth the point to introduce a proposal for non-point-scoring amendments.  

While the rules make it clear that an amendment needs a vote the power of the law is in its application. If you want to reword a rule to make them clearer the worst that can happen is that someone invokes judgement and the rule is returned to its original state (the rules do not have provision for judges to punish).  If you make a change that no one objects to then there is no issue.

[ariich]

I agree with Neil that this rule supersedes rule 207.  The proposal needs to make that clear.  

I see what you mean, ok I'll add mention of the fact that it replaces 207.

What about the other question of not having to cast both votes to the same option? I'm inclined to leave it open as it currently is, because if future rule changes mean voting on more than a simple yes/no, it could make it more interesting.

[oafcmetty]

Interesting. I think it may work better if you impose a minimum gap between leaders and dogs before the rule is active.

[michaelenstone]

Having the ability to cast each vote differently is interesting.  Currently abstention is assumed to be a positive vote but this creates the ability to abstain from votes.  That way if you are trailing you can effectively exclude your votes from being counted in the scoring and gain additional points for you vote against.

[ariich]

Interesting. I think it may work better if you impose a minimum gap between leaders and dogs before the rule is active.

I thought about that, and I think I would have gone with that had the impact of the rule being more extreme. As it is, someone in 4th place could get a brief advantage by having an extra vote, but once they get into 3rd place they no longer have that advantage. Personally I think it's simpler to go with a basic split. Happy to discuss though (before 2:51pm tomorrow of course!).

[oafcmetty]

My only concern is that you'll just see a lot of leapfrogging whilst scores are close - is it fair to describe someone as an underdog when they're, say, only one point behind an overdog?

[Neil]

Mike:
Not worth voting for the amendment to 304. May be worth voting for a proposal for quick & easy amendments without points.  I think 116 means I can't do what you suggest.

Rich & Alex:
I'm not sure leapfrogging would necessarily happen, proposals have not, so far, been as directly helpful/not as to produce such immediate effects.  This may change when we move into majority voting.

Some unstructured ideas on a more interesting dynamic:
* Underdog gets 3 votes, next guy gets 2.  All else flat?  (+ accommodate ties).
* Maybe make it a more deliberate social commentary on political power: underdog gets 2 votes (vocal minority angle), everyone in the middle gets 1, leader gets 4.  Or you could even roll a dice to choose the journalistic flavour of the month, then give extra votes to one of the bottom three players at random, reflecting the disproportionate political representation of minority pressure groups.
* We are mixing voting with points position.  The more accurate (not necessarily better) mechanism for underdogs would be to propose an amendment to 304 which includes a balancing tax after all roles have taken effect (this also use the opportunity to improve the timing clarity I hadn't included).  I prefer vote-loading as a more interesting mechanism though.

Whether you take or leave these, make sure you re-moot your proposal so you don't miss the window, I'd vote against the current mooted version.

[ariich]

I like your first suggestion Neil, bottom placed gets 3 votes, second bottom gets 2, everyone else gets 1. Although I like the idea of your second one, I think giving the leader 4 votes would actually make the game less fun and defeat the point of this rule. I shall get a revised version up before the deadline.

And yeah regarding the leapfrogging, I'm not sure what the negative impact would be even if it does happen. I would be surprised if proposals led to two people battling it out over one position, but even if it happened, I think that would be quite a fun mini-competition. Plus, with Neil's suggested change, I think this wouldn't be much of an issue now as only the bottom two players will get extra votes.

Unless anyone has any other comments, I'll get a revised version up shortly.

[ariich]

Right, I'm calling the vote on the following revised proposal:

306. To support the British love of the underdog, underperforming players will be entitled to extra votes. In any proposal there are 6 players/voters, for whom there will be a maximum of 9 votes available in total. At the time of the vote, the bottom placed player will have 3 votes, the player in fifth place will have 2 votes, and the remaining players will each have 1 vote.

Where players are tied so as to prevent a clean split, they will both be treated as in the higher position. Therefore, where those in fourth and fifth place have the same number of points, they will be treated as both in fourth place and have 1 vote each. Where fifth and sixth place are tied, they will be treated as both in fifth place and have 2 votes each.

This rule amends and therefore replaces rule 207.

[Robin_C]

I added a goblin picture, principally to emphasise my point in the other forum. I'm thinking of a goblins-based proposal for my next turn, only in part to irk Neil.

[ariich]

I'm out and about, but just to confirm that all votes were received, and all were for the proposal.

[oafcmetty]

The rules need this one adding

[Sponsored content]