Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Historian Debate

From: Matthew Keppel <mattkeppel@y...>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 05:50:37 -0800 (PST)

Greetings all! Here's some additional thoughts on our
current propositions...

First of all, it concerns me that four of our
propositions (304, 307 - 309) are intertwined and
dependent on the assumption that they will all pass. 
If 304 were to fail, that would make 307 and 308 moot,
regardless if they were to pass or fail. If 308
becomes moot or fails, so does 309. In retrospect,
Jen, I think you and I should have worked together and
jointly submitted a proposal encompassing 304, 307,
and the first sentence of 308. It would have more
clearly defined the Historian/Speaker relationship
right off the bat. Maybe next time :)

Second, I'm not entirely sold on these prestige
points. This point system was designed to measure
participation, but it has flaws. Let's say that on
any given month we have 10 propositions to vote on. 
If player A submits one proposition and votes on two,
e gains the maximum 20 PP allowed for that month. If
player B submits 1 or more propositions and votes on
all 10 propositions, e is considered to be on equal
ground with player A. This point system also doesn't
account for participation on the discussion list. 
PP's seem unnecessary to me since their only purpose
is to decide on a future Historian, which brings me to
my next set of thoughts...

When and if Chuck ever decides he no longer wants to
maintain the web site, he should just offer it to
whoever wants the job. If more than one of us wants
it, we'll put it to a vote. I think we're overlooking
one very important detail: whoever takes over these
duties must have certain qualifications, most notably
the time and ability to update and maintain a web
site!! The task shouldn't go to whoever participates
the most, but rather to the one who will dedicate the
necessary time to the site.

Finally, I think we need to reform our point system. 
It bothers me that:

1) A Voter who votes for a proposal receives the same
amount of points as one who abstains or doesn't vote
(a great big 0 pts!)

2) You score the most points by voting against a
proposition.

3) If one of your propositions fail you lose 10 pts
but if it passes, you can possibly get only 1 pt.

4) The only way to lose points is by submitting a
proposal.

The purpose of this game is to change the rules, but
the point system is stacked against those who try. If
you want to win easily, all you have to do is never
submit a proposal and vote against any propositions
that come up. 10 passes laws and you win! It seems
to me that points should be awarded to everyone who
votes, regardless of how they vote, proposers should
stand to earn more points than voters, and we either
raise the amount of points needed to win or decrease
the value of points given out (not so many 10's) Any
thoughts?

Your humble Nomic servant,
Matt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

---

From: "Chuck Henry (HGA)" <windrant@n...>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:04:57 -0500

Hi,

Well to answer some of the things Matt said:

>becomes moot or fails, so does 309. 

So far we don't have a precedent of anything failing! I can't see where it
would make much of a difference. Besides if a part failed while the rest
did not then the part which failed would have to "patched" and resubmitted.
Perhaps that would leave some interesting loopholes!

[SNIP] This point system was designed to measure
>my next set of thoughts...

Well, I think you miss interpreted Jen's intention and writing. If I may
try to explain my wife's thinking...(usually dangerous BTW)
The 20 PPs max was intented to limit what the Speaker could grant to
people. Not what people could earn. Nobody whats a Speaker that could
instantly grant a player 2000000000000 PPs instantly! Why would that
reflect particpation? I also think that this system is meant to fix some
of the difficulties or frustrations you might have about the point system
as well. I'll skip to your thoughts about the point system.

>amount of points as one who abstains or doesn't vote

Again it is expected that everyone votes but it is just game custom... not
law. If you really want everyone to vote then points are a motivator. I
was hoping the PPs system could help to serve as motivation. That system
could show you to be a good and loyal citizen more than just someone who
can vote.

>2) You score the most points by voting against a

It's called a dissenter's vote. You can find theorical examples of this in
a lot of games. (IE Prisoner's Dillema) It was placed in this game to
insure a certain amount of backstabbing. In this game it is to the benefit
of everyone to vote positively for everything. If there's incentive to tell
a proponent you're going to vote one way and then vote another... you might
consider it. It keeps things random. I can guess (and did BTW) which way
everybody was going to vote. Geez. Where's the fun in that?

With this rule you always run a thin line. Too many people want that
dissenter's points and the prop. fails! Too many people vote for it and
the dissenter wins the game. Keeps things interesting. The point of this
game is NOT to propose as many things as so you can win because of it! The
point is to "wheel and deal" your way to victory!

>but if it passes, you can possibly get only 1 pt.

This is in place to keep people from putting crap up for vote. If you want
it to pass talk people into voting for it. If you are unsure it'll vote
write people and get them to vote for in exchange for support elsewhere. 

>4) The only way to lose points is by submitting a

Yup! If you put a stupid one up! The responibility for the passing of a
prop. is yours. You want it to pass--- talk it out!

>necessary time to the site.

Here's my 2 cents worth. I prefer some of the stuff Jen said. The
Historian position should take the "maintain" duties from the Speaker's
position. I also like her statement that the Speaker chooses his
successor, with the aid of the PPs. If I have 2 people with
like-capabilities (in this case, Matt and Devon are equally qualified to
take the Historian role... both have web experience) then I would like to
have another qualification to help my decision. PPs would help to tell me
how active a member of the nomic the canididates are. I wouldn't use game
points in this case becuase as stated before, people who just vote against
things and not particpate can large point totals.

OK I guess the end result of my rant is: I do not want the game point
system to change. And as far as the Historian position, I don't think any
proposal regarding it is adequate at this time.

But hey! You don't have to listen to me!
-C
-----------------------------------------------
Chuck Henry - windrant@n...
-----------------------------------------------