Subject: MN: Proposal musings

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:46:18 +0100 (BST)

>Proposal 434 - Radioactivity [other, multiple]
>
>{Comment: this is another one of those lengthy multiple proposals which started
>off as a simple idea, but ended up needing significant amendments to several
>rules in order to be sound. The 'simple' idea is this: allow players to be
>Voting or Non-Voting. I think there is a need for this because recently there
>seem to be proposals getting through with only one or two votes FOR and a
>ludicrous number of Passes, which seems silly.

I was considering this the other day - it's because I include Inactive
Players in the tallies. It doesn't really make a lot of difference either
way, since Quorum goes by the number of Players who actually Voted, and
the criteria for a Proposal passing has nothing to do with the number of
PASS Votes it has received.

>I've also included a definition of 'The
>Speaker' (strange that this hasn't been done before) and removed all the 'or
>eir nominee' bits, which should have been done long ago.}

That part of it I applaud, that we need clearer definitions of things, and
could probably do with looking at the "0.x" sections of the Ruleset and
rewording them for clarity.

>Any Active Player who does not submit a valid Vote shall be deemed to have
>abstained. If the total number of abstentions exceeds the total number of valid
>votes (FOR, AGAINST or PASS), the Proposal fails to reach Quorum.

This strikes me as a little suspect - that PASSing and abstaining is not
the same thing. Maybe it's worth ditching the concept of Voting "PASS".

Anyway. In all, some welcome rewordings and tidyings of a section of the
Ruleset we've never really gone back and changed very much - the essential
premise of the Proposal, though, seems a little questionable, particularly
since all Active Players seem to be Voting consistently, these days.

>Proposal 435 - Duel [enactment, special ruleset]

Hmm. Nice imagery, but it all seems a bit pointless - winning a Duel
doesn't actually get you anything, and aside from the curious absence
of the Drone rules, you might as well just post a mailing list message
saying "Okay, Game 9 is just going to be between me and Dunx."

I think some Rules covering the playing of two-player Games over
private email might be welcome, and it might be fun to have a
tournament, but this Proposal doesn't seem to be adding very much
except some nice atmosphere that it doesn't quite live up to.

>Proposal 436 - Burnt alive! [amendment]
>
>Remove the phrase "or if eir Move finishes at it," from the second paragraph of
>Rule 1.9.2 (Escalator Fires).

Er, well spotted, yes; Spotting a Fire at your current Location
does make you rather invulnerable, and still free to Move next
Turn. Certainly something that needs addressing, and certainly
the way to address it.

>Proposal 437 - Changing Home Stations [Other, Multiple]
>
>Action: [Changing Home to <station>] 30mins duration, post-move action,
>cost 4 Br, 1 Si, 1 Go.

Hmm. Maybe slightly suspect in the fact that you can switch your
Home Station to lobster-pot another Player or deny them access to
a Token Stack or whatever; the idea of using one's Home Station
in an offensive manner seems someone against the spirit of things,
at least to me.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Too many psychopaths, not enough cycle paths."
-- Half Man Half Biscuit, "Children of Apocalyptic Techstep"

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:36:34 +0100

>PASS Votes it has received.

The point really is that the definition of quorum is flawed -- at present it
only accounts for Players who vote For or Against. At least a third of those
votes must be 'For' in order for the proposal to pass quorum, but this means
only proposals that get fewer For than Against votes have any chance of failing
quorum, and they have faile to pass anyway, so quorum, as it stands, is utterly
irrelevant and we may as well not bother with it altogether.

However, I felt that in order to be a truly representative process, we need to
maintain some form of quorum. This proposal seeks to address the problem by
basing quorum on the number of players 'present' in a given week, which is why
I have introduced a distinction between Passing and abstaining -- if you don't
want to vote for or against a proposal (or if that proposal is your own) you
can vote 'Pass' and you will be registered as Present.

By this system, only Active Players can abstain or register a vote of Pass.
Inactive and Non-voting players are not considered to be part of the democratic
process, which upholds their right to opt out.

So, if we imagine a situation where only one player votes in a given week, and
e votes For all proposals, but all other players forget to vote, can't make
their minds up, or just don't bother, those proposals won't pass, even though
they have received more for than against votes, because they have received only
one valid vote, which is outnumbered by abstentions.

Under the current system, those proposals would pass, which seems daft to me.
By my proposed system, the ones that aren't bothered about voting can opt out
by becoming non-voting, the forgetful ones would be registered as abstentions,
and those that can't make up their mind can at least vote pass and make the
proposal quorate. 

>the same thing. Maybe it's worth ditching the concept of Voting "PASS".

Well, I hope I have sufficiently explained the reason for retaining the
separate concepts -- I think it is important

>since all Active Players seem to be Voting consistently, these days.

It's true that in practice, if everyone keeps voting, then it won't make much
difference, which is a good thing, but I still think the rule is unsatisfactory
as it stands.

Also, I would personally prefer it if there were no Non-voting players, but I
don't think it's really an ideal state of affairs that players who don't vote
are counted in the reckoning, yet strangely have no effect on the outcome.

Just applying the principal to a randomly selected week's voting results...
let's say Week 25 -- four of the seven active players failed to vote (assuming
none of them were actually inactive) so all proposals failed to reach quorum
and all failed to pass, regardless of how many for/against votes they received.

Even if, say, just William (cheers) had voted Pass on all proposals, they all
would have passed quorum. Thus is the difference.

dave

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:52:42 +0100 (BST)

>irrelevant and we may as well not bother with it altogether.

True enough, yes. Originally Quorum was introduced because most people
were PASSing on quite a lot of Proposals, for one reason or another, and
Proposals were getting through on one FOR and six PASSes. This practice
stopped when we introduced the three-Kudos bonus for Voting properly on
all Proposals each Week; I think the Quorum issue has only ever prevented
a Proposal passing once in all the months that Mornomic's been running...

>and those that can't make up their mind can at least vote pass and make the

Ah. Sound argument, yes. My only real quibble is that I don't think
there's a need for the non-Voting Player aspect, since people seem
to be Voting sufficiently these days. Maybe it's worth introducing
as an option, I suppose - it doesn't seem to be taking up that much
extra rulespace, and I'm sure there might be some people who'd want
to use it, at some point.

>separate concepts -- I think it is important

I see your angle now, yes.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"We didn't have any of these sissy 'icons' and 'windows'. All we had
were zeroes and ones. And sometimes we didn't even have ones."
-- Dilbert

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:00:01 +0100

>But it's true
>that letting everyone Vote for their own stuff increases the
>chance of Proposals getting through.

Aye, fair enough. Really I'm just playing devil's advocate to make sure we're
not guarding an archaism in the ruleset for no good reason. I more or less
agree that in this instance, while we have so few players, and since everyone
thinks it's a good idea, the Kudos penalty is fair, though I don't think
penalising people for voting for their own proposals is a good rule in
principle (it's undemocratic -- except in certain circumstances such as this),
and should be reconsidered if the number of players ever increases
significantly.

>to be Voting sufficiently these days.

I'm not entirely happy with it myself (I was against the principle when it was
first suggested) -- I sincerely hope no-one would want to be Non-voting, but
since the emphasis is increasingly shifting towards the game-playing side of
things, I thought it best to keep it as an option.

dave