308 (Domtheseal) (rejected)

[domtheseal]

So...here's my proposed rule

"If a player votes against two proposals in succession, they will be forced to miss their next turn to propose a rule"

Aim is to encourage the passage of rules to evolve game play

[Neil]

I like this because gameplay and messing with play order.

There's a risk of less good proposals getting through because people don't want to lose their turn. That is mitifated by the 'two successive' bit.

I like the principle, hope to see some refinement.

[michaelenstone]

This needs modification to account for the underdog rule. I think two is too few, it needs to be more than two proposals. It is also worth bearing in mind that unanimous votes are only required in the first two rounds.  

I like the idea of improving the flow and likelihood of changes and once majority voting is in force this will discourage tactical voting for points. Perhaps the emphasis should be more positive i.e. each player must vote in favour of at least two/one proposals per round...

[Neil]

204 means tactical downvoting is just as valuable in majority voting.

I do quite like the idea of fixing the number of downvotes/upvotes per round (or 'between their own proposals' for improved clarity).  That way, you might get comically screwed if you've downvoted a couple of terrible ideas and are then forced to vote for something you really don't like.

[Robin_C]

we should make sure voting for your own proposal doesn't count towards the quota...

[oafcmetty]

Could it be an option to split your vote where you have multiple votes? i.e. I have two votes, I cast one for, one against?

[michaelenstone]

That was my point about the underdogs. As the proposal is currently written a player that chooses to vote for and against will have counted under this rule as having voted against the proposal when effectively they have abstained

[domtheseal]

Cheers for comments, I will tweak and re-post...!

[ariich]

I really like the basic premise, but yeah it's also too basic in its current form. Two in a row is definitely too few, and it becomes just a little too easy to manipulate.

[michaelenstone]

The last vote was concluded at 10:09pm on Monday. That means the final vote for this proposal was automatically called at 10:09 last night.

[domtheseal]

So I have missed my opportunity to tweak and repost?

[michaelenstone]

I think so but you could post the rule in the form you want and invoke judgement to see if the judge would allow it through.

[domtheseal]

Here's my refreshed rule:

"308: A player is limited to down voting no more than three proposals between their turns. That is, once a player has proposed a rule, they will be permitted to only down vote three of the subsequent proposals before their next turn. Should a player choose to down vote a proposed rule for a fourth time, they will miss their next turn. A 'down-vote' in respect of this rule is any single vote cast against a proposed rule"

If there's an opportunity to waive the time limit, then I'd like this version considered!

[oafcmetty]

Think that makes me the Judge and I say that the rules regarding timings are quite clear, therefore this rule applies: 214 - 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.

So we're voting on:

308 - "If a player votes against two proposals in succession, they will be forced to miss their next turn to propose a rule"

[Neil]

It's like a self-filibuster

[Robin_C]

When can I post my proposal?

[oafcmetty]

After voting for this one has completed.

[domtheseal]

Voting in:

Me: For
Neil: Against
Robin: For
Michaelenstone: Against
ariich: Against
Oafmetty: Against

It's a rejection...

[ariich]

Shame, it was a great idea in principle!

Robin, you're up!

[Neil]

I agree (principle).

In my reading, the rules make it clear that invoking judgement is not a mechanism for breaking the rules when they don't suit.  The judge must decide where the rules are silent or ambiguous.  They aren't with respect to the timeframes.  Obviously, we could really mess up the game by taking all the 'rules' away and only having 'guidance' which must then be interpreted every go.  That would be mental.

[Robin_C]

This episode highlights where we might choose to accept rules that are better than the status quo, but not as good as we might like.

Similarly, we have some rules that are a bit broken, but we have settled on how to interpret them, and have decided not to waste our legislative time and cognitive effort on fixing them.

I like these lessons from the game.

[michaelenstone]

I prefer to think of the judge as interpreting when and how it is appropriate to apply the rules. If bending the rules provides an advantage to the game overall then it should be within the gift of the judge to make that decision. Given there is a mechanism for challenging the decision of a judge then I don't see this as being problematic.

This is similar to real life and how judges interpret the law on Murder with respect to Euthanasia.

[oafcmetty]

I agree (principle).

In my reading, the rules make it clear that invoking judgement is not a mechanism for breaking the rules when they don't suit.  The judge must decide where the rules are silent or ambiguous.  They aren't with respect to the timeframes.  Obviously, we could really mess up the game by taking all the 'rules' away and only having 'guidance' which must then be interpreted every go.  That would be mental.

As in, you agree with my judgement? (which imo shouldn't really have been needed?)

[Neil]

I agree it was a great idea in principle.

I also agree with your judgement, also that it was not needed. It was an effective resolution though.

My reason for the second two agreements, which is why I disagree with Mike:

212 ... All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; 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.

Although I like the spirit of what Mike's saying, you can't just change the rules of a game because the change reflects a preference / higher moral good.

[Sponsored content]