314 (Alex) (passed)

[oafcmetty]

Revisiting my old thread, we have an issue with 214:

"214. For timely progression of the game:
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. 24 hours after the proposer has called a vote on their proposal, any player who has not submitted a valid vote is deemed to have voted in favour of the proposal."

Given votes are by PM, and hence not visible, this rule is broken. I suggest an amendment something like:

"214. For timely progression of the game:
The period of discussion and amendment of any proposal shall not exceed 48 hours from the posting of the result of the previous amendment, or 72 hours after the previous proposal vote was called if no result is posted. 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. 24 hours after the proposer has called a vote on their proposal, any player who has not submitted a valid vote is deemed to have voted in favour of the proposal."

I also want to add in an absence thing here. So:

"214. For timely progression of the game:
The period of discussion and amendment of any proposal shall not exceed 48 hours from the posting of the result of the previous amendment, or 72 hours after the previous proposal vote was called if no result is posted. 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. The proposer may choose to skip their turn, either when their turn arrives, or by specifying in advance - in both cases by creating a proposal thread specifying the proposal number, the proposer name, and the suffix "(skipped)". If the proposer has made no proposal at all, and not skipped their turn by the deadline, the proposer shall be deemed to have proposed a null amendment - which automatically receives negative votes from all players, including the proposer. 24 hours after the proposer has called a vote on their proposal, any player who has not submitted a valid vote is deemed to have voted in favour of the proposal."

Thoughts?

[michaelenstone]

I think it should be clear that the skipped proposal incurs no penalty to the proposer but that the scoring for the purposes of roles is carried out as normal.

[Neil]

I think you're right that the rule is broken.

I think that has not caused a material problem to the game (yet).

Whilst the bureaucratic correction is potentially useful, it's not worth as many points as you would get for me to vote for.

I think skip proposals is 1/4 of the more general proposal Mike put forward in 302.  If you want to accommodate skipping proposals and absence (fine) I would ask for:
1. Include the other useful components in 302 or alternative versions.  These are:
1.1. Not waiting for known 'null votes' (either by proxy or by 'auto-for')
1.2. AWOL after no submitted proposal/vote - also removing 'dead waits'
2. Justify why this is now a good idea given you voted against 302...

[oafcmetty]

1.1 and 1.2 I can incorporate

2 - I'm going on holiday after the end of next week

[michaelenstone]

I also think we need to add a mechanism for allowing longer debate if required. There have been a couple of instances where a meaningful debate couldn't be concluded because the allotted time elapsed. This is most noticeable at the weekends when we don't have work to be slacking off....

[oafcmetty]

How's this?

"214. For timely progression of the game:
i) The period of discussion and amendment of any proposal shall not exceed 48 hours from the posting of the result of the previous amendment, or 72 hours after the previous proposal vote was called if no result is posted.
ii) 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.
iii) The proposer may choose to skip their turn, either when their turn arrives, or by specifying in advance - in both cases by creating a proposal thread specifying the proposal number, the proposer name, and the suffix "(skipped)". Once a proposal is marked as skipped it cannot be brought back into play.
iv) Skipping a turn carries no penalty, however other scoring related calculations will be processed as usual.
v) If the proposer has made no proposal at all, and not skipped their turn by the deadline, the proposer shall be deemed to have proposed a null amendment - which automatically receives negative votes from all players, including the proposer.
vi) 24 hours after the proposer has called a vote on their proposal, any player who has not submitted a valid vote is deemed to have voted in favour of the proposal.
vii) Proposers who have posted a "skipped" proposal are deemed as away from the game until they post to indicate they're back. Similarly any player who submits a default yes vote as a result of sub-clause vi is deemed to be away (and their proposals will be auto-skipped) until they post to indicate they are back."

[oafcmetty]

Neil's votes were in Monday night 1105pm I think.

Rich's proposal should have been done Wednesday night same time.

So think my version posted at 846pm last night is the version up for vote? And voting ends tonight 1105pm - is that correct?

[oafcmetty]

Voting results:
Cooper: for (although maybe past the deadline, no matter)
Metcalfe: for
Enstone: for
Jones: abstain (for)
Holton: abstain (for)
Probyn: abstain (for)

Vote passes

I will amend the score and rules.

Dom - you're up

[oafcmetty]

Also interesting to note that we have a few contradictions:

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

The bolded bit clashed with 214 (314 as it is now).

201. Players shall alternate in alphabetical order by surname, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points.

The bolded bit clashes with 314.

[Neil]

Neither Holton nor Cooper votes count as we are both in jail.

[Sponsored content]