311/312 (Neil) (Rejected)

[Neil]

The Broken Britain Bill (because our society isn't working very well):

I think 309 (Robin) has these failings:
* Scoring is complicated to the point of boring
* Too many time-critical bits

I think 304/305 and 309 both fail on:
* Not enough incentive to be an artist

I think 309 has these strengths:
* Playing with votes

I moot:
* Remove 309
* Put the good bits from 309 in 304 (I await your responses)

I recognise this is one idea which would have to affect to rules (and therefore is two proposals).  To balance this: I am willing to buy all votes at a cost of 2 points per vote but only if the proposal is accepted.

[michaelenstone]

As far as I can see this is a statement of principal rather than a proper proposal. I think you need to post the reworded version of 304.

I think that the modification of the Artist role for 309 was an interesting approach although in effect it made the Artist the banker, in that they would make a proposal for how the bank's funds would be redistributed. Perhaps the Artist role should be replaced entirely.

How about creating the role of a bureaucrat who can edit rules to improve clarity etc. All the changes would need to be recorded in the rules forum and a change can be challenged and vetoed by any player....This would help with a previous point you made about clarification not being worth the effort\waste of a proposal.

[Robin_C]

Interested in the details of your proposal

[oafcmetty]

Concur that scoring is boring. Could it be a possibility to find something to replace the whole points based reward scheme?

[Robin_C]

Woo! I like replacing scores. Except that I have most scores. Hmm...

[Neil]

Given it's currently my proposal... I am a policeman.

[Neil]

So, in order:

By "I await your responses" I mean "tell me what you think is worth salvaging from 309"

I would liek to allow the beauracracy, but I don't want to make a role for it (as the beauracrat could not be another role).  If I incentivise the beauracracy in any way, it could spiral into the EU (please fill in the gaps of this analogy).

I don't like 'scoring'.  It is useful in that it 'forces' the game forward if we don't win by other means.  I don't want to risk making a winnerless game as I think it would be dull soon.

[Neil]

Now I'm a thief.

BANK ROBBERY!

[Neil]

My bill:

311. Revoke 309
312. During each player's proposal (from the start of their proposal thread until the call of vote on their proposal), that player may select a role until their next proposal. The roles have characteristics below, calculated in this order and applied immediately after the completion of each vote and applied by the scorer of the proposal:
• Thief. Gains one point from each player with positive points balance.
• Craftsman. Earns two points.
• Policeman. Takes half of all thieves' takings.
• Artist. Loses 1 point per turn but has one extra vote in all proposals.
Users select their role by posting in their proposal thread but the selection is only valid if the role is also put the location field.

312 replaces 304
For this bill, I will pay 2 points per positive vote if the bill passes
Happy to incorporate any amends which add something
Made the craftsman less lucrative
Gave the artist a better upside
I think the artist role will come in to its own later with this adjustment

[Robin_C]

I like (some of) the extra interactions in 309. I understand it's too much admin; you could keep the bank robbery / stop police bits. This doesn't happen each turn. And I think a bank which holds points is a good mechanism - we can work out how to distribute etc later.

Feels like we would be going backwards a bit with your proposal. Still, I'm in jail with zero votes!

[oafcmetty]

STOP POLICE!

[Neil]

Hmm. Me too.

[Robin_C]

Oddly, you still get to continue with your proposal, but lose your next one. I didn't think of thievery during your own turn.

On the upside, you have a bonus vote should you return to the policeman role (but not whilst imprisoned), and Alex has one as well.

I like that we can still buy votes from in prison - it's like the crime lord running his empire from inside. Although that would go under your proposal

[Robin_C]

c. 2hrs until the vote

[Robin_C]

Voting closes in 4 hrs...

[oafcmetty]

All gone quiet...

[Neil]

Votes are in.  Rejected.  Alex, again...  48 hours for Rich.

[Neil]

Hang on a minute...

301.  The maximum number of rules a player is allowed to propose in their turn shall be 4. Where a player introduces more than one rule in a turn this shall be known as a bill, and the player must make it clear that he is proposing a bill.

Rules in a bill must be related by a theme declared at the time of proposal.

Individual rules in a bill are numbered and scored in accordance with the rules for individual proposals.

Bills require majority vote to pass.

Where a bill is defeated the player loses as if each rule in the bill fails and is scored in accordance with the rules for individual proposals.

This was a bill (the Broken Britain Bill).
This means it passes, as bills require a majority to pass.
Para 3 only instructs on numbering and scoring (not passing).
The final paragraph only applies if a bill is defeated.

I belive that means a few things:
311 & 312 are enacted
I score positively for the proposals, but have to pay for votes as committed
Alex gains 20 points (rule 204)
All the scoring afterwards updates (but simpler)

I will redo the scoring as I have also realised that I haven't included points for the revolution, so the tables need to be updated anyway.

[oafcmetty]

Disagree. 203 is still in force calling for unanimity, no?

[Neil]

It is, but as I understand it, bills present a different vehicle for rule changes, with different voting requirements - i.e. majority.  301 is definitely not ambiguous on this...

Are you invoking judgement?

[oafcmetty]

I don't think it matters:

"203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority."

It doesn't care if the rule change is a bill or a single proposal, it has to be a unanimous vote at this point in time.

I'm not invoking judgement as I don't think it's needed - it looks pretty clear to me. You can if you want - seems futile though...

[Neil]

No, on reflection, I'd reject it.  Shame though, it was a good bill.

[Sponsored content]