310 (Michael) (failed)

[michaelenstone]

310: New Role - King
The King has power to levy taxes in terms of points.
Taxes are not recurring and can be charged at any time
Taxes canno cause a player to have a negative points score
The King cannot make proposals
The King cannot vote on proposals
The King has veto on all new proposals
The King is selected by committee
The committee is formed of the two players who have most recently had proposals passed
Kingship cannot be renounced or abdicated
The King is always deposed in revolutions
When the King is deposed half their points are distributed amongst the revolutionaries
The King cannot incite a revolution

[Robin_C]

Interesting. I sort of like the idea. But I don't see why anyone would ever pick a king. Unless you pick someone, and then instantly revolve them. They can still take everyone else's points in the mean time though, and only half get redistributed (in a way that is not specified)

As it stands, I would vote against.

A wider principle - i think we have enough roles. I also think we have enough currencies (votes and points) as well as another form of expression, namely proposal-making. I'm in favour of a game that develops the interactions between these things.

From the top of the head: trading points for votes (and vice versa), buying votes, preventing others from proposing (i like that bit in your proposal). It's good where risk and reward are balanced, as well as cost and benefit borne proportionally. It's difficult to get people to agree to rules where this is not the case (at least before proportional representation)

Perhaps a system where people with fewer points have more votes. And the other way around? A progressive voting system...

[Neil]

I can't see a king not being deposed immediately they are 'coronated'.

I don't have a problem with more roles.  I do have a problem with too many calculations.  I think the previous proposal has added too much maths.  I don't think this role suffers from that issue.

[Neil]

You should really consider putting these ideas in an off-proposal topic dedicated to ideas.

[Robin_C]

Indeed - except that they can take everone else's points between being crowned and deposed.

If they have more than 50% of all points when elected, then they lose out; if less, then the election-deposition leaves them better off. Other players' positions will change depending on how the points are redistributed (which is not stated).

There is no balance of cost and benefit - ie what am i getting for my taxes? Or for being king for that matter?

[Robin_C]

I do have a problem with too many calculations.  I think the previous proposal has added too much maths.  I don't think this role suffers from that issue.

Agreed - i dislike it for other reasons; and sorry for the off-topic

[michaelenstone]

OK so it seems the King role as I've proposed it isn't going to fly so how about this:

310 replaces and augments 203:

Proposals can pass by a simple majority
Were a proposal is voted for unanimously the proposer can nominate another player who will be skipped when their next turn for proposing occurs.  This nomination must be made at the same time as announcing the results of the vote.  
Votes can be bought from other players.

[Robin_C]

Interesting - i wonder if it would discourage people from voting for; they already get 10 points for this as well

[michaelenstone]

They only get the 10 points if the proposal passes but they dissent. Part of the reason for making the voting anonymous was to reduce gamesmanship of this sort.

[Neil]

I love this.  Particularly the sweet sentence at the end:
"Votes can be bought from other players"
You have my +1 pending

 You could 'even' out the potential progress-inhibiting effect Robin rightly identifies with:
* The player who gets blocked receives 10 points compensation
* The unanimous-winning proposer has to pay 10 points for every player they 'skip' (and possibly allow more blocks if that's what they want)
* The unanimous-winning proposer has to allocate the extra proposal to someone else, or it goes in a bonus pot to be reclaimed at some other time (you wouldn't necessarily have to specify the mechanism of players retrieving the bonus proposal).

None of these are necessary for my support, but may address Robin's observation.

[Robin_C]

Sure; but there is still an incentive to vote against, even if you like the proposal. Your proposal adds to this incentive.

There's nothing I get in return; although I do like the purchasing of votes.

I would't vote for the first half; I would vote for the purchasing of votes bit by itself

How much longer do we have on this anyway?

[Robin_C]

Perhaps the purchasing bit needs to be outlined some more - ie is it through private messaging, and then published? Can someone vote, and then receive an offer, and then vote again? Or is all bargaining to be made public.

Could do auctions. Auctions are great. The vote-buyer can start with a low price, and see if anyone will be bought; if not, increase the price. We'd have to find a way of people still voting for without being bought.

[michaelenstone]

Rather than the first half of my proposal is it fair to say that you object to:

Were a proposal is voted for unanimously the proposer can nominate another player who will be skipped when their next turn for proposing occurs.  This nomination must be made at the same time as announcing the results of the vote.  

You seem to be making two opposing points.  In the first instance you are arguing that voting should be on the merits of the proposal alone and that the rules shouldn't make it any more or less difficult for a proposal to pass. But you say that you support the buying of votes i.e. a change that would directly influence the way people vote more so than the first part of my proposal.  

I'm not sure why you think that making it marginally more likely for someone to vote against is something that is inherently bad.  

Ultimately, I see the rule as an encouragement to get people to create proposals that will get universal approval (or to get additional votes by buying them).  

It's also worth noting that I didn't specify if votes are bought for or against.  It is perfectly possible for people to purchase votes against a proposal.

I intentionally haven't gone into the mechanics of buying votes. It would be interesting to see how this developed without a definition.

[Neil]

I agree you should avoid specifying possible vote-buying mechanisms. Embedding 'votes can be bought' here allows different mechanisms to be developed in later proposals.

A third player buying votes against the originator is fascinating.  This vote-buying would have to be public.

Robin, consider the 'ameliorations' I suggested for the first half of Mike's proposal because I think it would be good to keep the whole thing.

[Robin_C]

Ok - good points Mike, Neil.

1) I think making someone less likey to vote for something is bad because it will make proposals harder to get passed, which I think is inherently bad (I'm not in favour of the existing rule that rewards the detractors either).

2) I don't see the need for people to make proposals that are voted for unanimously, and even if I did, your proposal makes this less likely to happen (example: if i thought everyone would vote for it, i would vote against in order not to give you the power of exclusion; it's possible that others would do this as well (due to secret ballot), and your excellent proposal would not pass. See point 1)

3) I see buying votes differently because:
- it may make people more likely to vote for something
- it is an interaction between our two types of currency
- it is a bilateral transaction, which effectively creates a market (we have market participants and currency, but not yet any mechanism for transactions)
- it can go both ways - the objections above are (in part) because the effect can only be to discourage voting in favour
- the relative value of points and votes are decided by the market, rather than by legislation

4) I like buying votes in both directions; I agree that minimal legislation is a laudable goal. I would also suggest that outlining some minimum obligations would be good; suggest at least a publication of the agreement after the vote, as well as allowing a change of vote within the voting window. Consider also the publication (after the vote) of failed offers as well. More public information is good for better-functioning markets

In summary, I am not in support of

"Were a proposal is voted for unanimously the proposer can nominate another player who will be skipped when their next turn for proposing occurs. This nomination must be made at the same time as announcing the results of the vote."

I am in favour of:

"Players can buy votes, both for and against a proposal. All such proposed transaction (whether completed or failed) are to be posted after voting has closed)"

Or similar

[Robin_C]

Read Neil's response:

* The player who gets blocked receives 10 points compensation
- This is legislating a value of a proposal; I'd rather this was market-led; see next point

* The unanimous-winning proposer has to pay 10 points for every player they 'skip' (and possibly allow more blocks if that's what they want)
- This is better, and would be even better if you could negotiate the fee for not proposing (like buying a vote, only buying a proposal). This could be expanded to allow this as a general activity; an expansion of the vote-buying rule to include proposals

* The unanimous-winning proposer has to allocate the extra proposal to someone else, or it goes in a bonus pot to be reclaimed at some other time (you wouldn't necessarily have to specify the mechanism of players retrieving the bonus proposal).
- This is fun as well; not sure how it would work, as we are allowed Bills at the moment

[Robin_C]

Also, selling votes works nicely with our underdogs rule, as they have a spare one. The market has some extra supply. Like kidneys.

[michaelenstone]

How about this?

310 replaces and augments 203:

Proposals pass by a simple majority
Votes can be traded between players in exchange for points
In any single round a player may vote against a maximum of two proposals
The player that makes a proposal receiving 7/9 votes or more may vote against three proposals in that round
Players may exchange their proposals for future votes and/or points

[Robin_C]

Voting started at 07:40ish today

[Neil]

I approve moving to simple majority before the end of round 2.

Although I loved it at first, I have now remembered that having a rule which permits something not explicitly prohibited is meaningless:

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.

Of course, this doesn't do any harm.

I am happy you added the no-vote quota that Dom nearly achieved.  I prefer simply limiting no votes, so a yes vote is forced if your no votes have been used up.  'Single round' (Robin --> Dom) is slightly different to 'between their proposals'.  I don't have a strong opinion on whether that will seriously affect the game.  I think it biases 'control' towards the back of the alphabet, but control =/= points.

I like the 7/9 bonus 'no vote'.

Overall, slightly cynical collection of good ideas into one proposal.  Fine by me.

[ariich]

I like this revised rule. Moving to majority voting now also means rule 306 comes into play.

[oafcmetty]

Pretty sure this breaks rule 301 (in multiple ways). Still, I'm voting against it anyway, so let's just pretend it never happened.

[Neil]

I see you're playing the "be a proper Galloway" strategy this game...

[oafcmetty]

Haha maybe - I can be quite selective in my ire though...

[Robin_C]

Is voting over now? Time to move on...

[Sponsored content]