Subject: MN: Re: Year 3 Week 25 Voting Results

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:26:06 +1000

On Wednesday, October 27, 1999 5:24 AM, MN Speaker [SMTP:speaker@d...]
wrote:
> 911 Higgins' Retroactive Token Declarat 1 1 2 3 Fails
> 912 Baker Street as played on ... 1 1 2 3 Fails

*sigh* Though we make communication easier, by allowing it in the voting
and by making voting easier, we seem to have progressed little in the
direction of telling proposers why their proposals are not liked. As I'm
assuming that no-one wants a proposal that makes it mandatory for a Player
voting 'Against' to supply a reason[1], I'm appealing to the public to find
out what was wrong with the two proposals I thought - from all the
conversation in the last week here - were not badly received.

[1] However, if people want to I'll propose it.

Paul Wayper -- DPI IS&S ITO Computer Systems Officer
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
Report all bugs to the author. SigClean is FreeWare. (c) 1998-9 PJW

---

From: kevan@s...
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:18:26 -0700

> I'm appealing to the public to find

The Retroactive thing seemed alright to me, although it would have been
nice if it had clarified the ambiguity of what happened in normal
circumstances. The Baker Street amendment struck me as a little flawed
in the fact that most of the gainable Tokens couldn't be spent, as I
said.

I think only having three Active Voters is probably denting things
unfairly, really.

>[1] However, if people want to I'll propose [compulsory commenting for
> AGAINST Votes]

Might be a good idea, actually, even if people just say "I agree with
Player X's comments on the mailing list" or whatever. In a Nomic where
the only motive to shoot down a proposal is its being Bad For The Game,
this can't hurt, and could well be helpful.

Although I'm not sure how you'd word it to catch AGAINST Votes which
carelessly lacked a comment - should they be ignored, or should the
Voter merely lose Kudos?

Kevan

--
kevan@s...
http://www.stormloader.com/kevan

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:22:03 +0200

Paul wrote:
: As I'm
: assuming that no-one wants a proposal that makes it mandatory for a Player
: voting 'Against' to supply a reason[1], I'm appealing to the public to
find
: out what was wrong with the two proposals I thought - from all the
: conversation in the last week here - were not badly received.

I voted against Higgins because of the Post-part. I would have liked it much
more if the action had been Pre.
And as to not saying so... it was lucky that I found the time to vote at
all.

Ole

---

From: "Snow" <snow@s...>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:59:08 +0100

> direction of telling proposers why their proposals are not liked.

I voted against the Baker Street Prop because of Kevan's comments (that the gained tokens were
unuseable). I just didn't like the retroactive one, even if I'd thought the Post-move thing wasn't a
problem.

> As I'm
> voting 'Against' to supply a reason[1],

I can't say I would vote with such a Proposal.

Snow
-Probably the only person that gets claustrophobic about the entire universe.