Subject: Re: Socialnomic-VML Message 533ff

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@l...>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:31:58 -0000

The following seems to be an accidental double Voting. May I suggest 
that none of the other Players Accuse Doctroid for taking such 
actions as necessary to clean it up.

from Socialnomic-VML Message 533, "Proposal 96 - New Style"
535 Re: Proposal 96 - AGAINST Doctroid Fri 9/1/2000 
547 Re: Proposal 96 - FOR Gallivanting Tripper Fri 9/1/2000 
551 Re: Proposal 96 - AGAINST Doctroid Fri 9/1/2000 

-Oloros

---

From: "Doctroid " <rsholmes@m...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:35:09 -0000

I believe my confusion was due to a glitch on egroups' part. Anyway,
the extra vote has been deleted.

I am exceedingly disappointed that this repugnant and recalcitrant
proposal has received so much support, by the way. It's going to be
to the great detriment of this game.

- D

---

From: Doctroid <rsholmes@m...>
Date: 05 Sep 2000 10:40:44 -0400

There also appear to be two votes for P99 from Oloros, VML messages
558 and 567.

- D

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@l...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:19:49 -0000

How interesting. and rather embarrassing as well.
I deleted one of them.
-Oloros

---

From: "TopHeavy (A. Lawn)" <topheavy@s...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:13:35 -0000

in response to...
> 
> Oy, how recalcitrant. By this rule, if I vote FOR a proposal, you 
> and Xylen vote AGAINST, and Oloros and GT vote PASSIVE (for
> instance), then the rule can be Adopted! (or Defeated, either way, 
> depending on who gets to it first and which they'd rather do).
> Twice as many AGAINST as FOR, but it can pass anyway!

second message

> to the great detriment of this game.

I actually don't see how this prop can possibly harm the game. What 
this does is add an option for players to place a 
'I will support either side, but let's not delay things' vote.
The PASSIVE vote benefits both those who wish to Adopt and those who 
wish to Defeat. 

I defend that one of the most interesting bit of our method of voting 
is that a proposal can be eligible for Adoption (or Defeat) but not 
actually effect the game until someone takes the time to adopt it. 
The addition of the PASSIVE vote does add the possibility for a 
proposal to be eligible for Defeat or Adoption at the same time.

But how does this negatively impact the game?

In the above case, if Oloros and GT had abstained from voting (the 
only other choice at the moment) the proposal could not have been 
Adopted or Defeated. I see that situation as much more detrimental 
than the possibility that a proposal could be both Adopted or 
Defeated.

And remember that a PASSIVE vote basically counts as BOTH a FOR and 
an AGAINST vote, not as abstaining from voting. We can currently 
abstain from voting rather easily (though with a penalty, which i 
heartily dislike).

-topheavy

---

From: Doctroid <rsholmes@m...>
Date: 05 Sep 2000 13:32:28 -0400

> But how does this negatively impact the game?

Negativity is of course in the eye of the beholder. I feel negatively
about the prospect of proposals being Adopted despite having more
votes AGAINST than FOR (or Defeated despite having more votes FOR than
AGAINST). You may, of course, be entirely happy about such
situations. I'm not.

- D

---

From: Doctroid <rsholmes@m...>
Date: 05 Sep 2000 13:53:48 -0400

> than the possibility that a proposal could be both Adopted or 

As one who voted for P77 I wholeheartedly agree that having Proposals
in indefinite limbo due to abstentions is a recalcitrant thing. But
that doesn't mean any alternative is better, and I think P96 by itself
is worse. Partly because of the defect I've noted before and partly
because proposals can *still* rot in limbo if players don't vote on
them -- admittedly a lesser problem. P104 is meant to address the
latter problem, and P105 the former. 

> an AGAINST vote, 

No it doesn't; it counts as *either* a FOR or an AGAINST vote,
depending on the prejudices of the Adopter. For it to count as *both*
a FOR and an AGAINST vote you'd need language like

A Rule-change can be Adopted if it satisfies one of the following
conditions:

The number of Votes FOR plus half the number of Votes PASSIVE for
the rule-change is greater than the number of Active Players divided
by Two and the rule-change has not been Retracted.

which is, I believe, operationally equivalent to P105's

The number of Votes FOR plus the number of Votes PASSIVE for the
rule-change is greater than the number of Active Players divided by
Two; the number of Votes FOR is greater than the number of Votes
AGAINST; and the rule-change has not been Retracted.

which you voted against.

> not as abstaining from voting. We can currently 
> abstain from voting rather easily 

With, as you have noted, detrimental consequences, with or without
P96. 

- D