Achernar, what do you think of this:
No player may have more active proposals than the active proposals of all other players combined.
It’s a quick fix, to be sure, but it at least lays down some sort of limit.
I agree. I don’t think we should have a rule that allows us to arbitrarily oust a given player for no reason.
Of course we could do that anyway. I could, for example, propose a rule that says that iampunha is no longer a player and may not reenter the game under any circumstances. To prevent this kind of thing, at some point soon we should probably pass a rule that forbids rules that mention specific players, or something like that.
In regards to some of the rule suggestions that have been made; some of these lengthy “rules” strike me as in fact being more than one rule and thus should probably be proposed and passed in smaller pieces. Of course, AFAIK there is no rule defining what a “rule” is but it seems like the common sense meaning should be used. But that’s just my opinion and I doubt that I would demand a judgement call unless it got really ridiculous.
One other thing I’ve noticed. We need to somehow allow for rule 111 which gives players the right to a reasonable amount of time to debate a proposal or suggest changes. Thus we should not be making proposals then immediately calling for a vote. No one is online 24 hours a day and they may have a suggestion or objection that should be made before voting starts.
So then Prop 303 would better read, davidm:
“When a proposal is made, every player is an eligible voter. However, if they have not voted within 48 hours of the time XXXthe proposal is madeXXX debate over the Proposal is concluded, they lose their eligibility. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.”
The XXXing being, of course, my emphasis re: it being stricken and the phrase following it replacing it.
I don’t like that for three reasons. First, there’s still no means of defeating a proposal, so if you’re up to your limit, you’re stuck for all time. Second, that doesn’t set any sort of limit on the total number of proposals, which is what I’m really worried about. Two players could take turns jacking it up and up. Third, what if there are no active proposals at all? Then nobody could make a proposal, and we’d be stuck.
This is why I’m still sweating metaphorical bullets about Prop 303. I feel the weight of the game on my shoulders:D
OK, how about this:
No player may have active more proposals than there are players in the game [yes, I realize a player could invent socks to be additional players, but that’s a bit desparate]. Should a player reach X proposals and see X players in the game, and one leave, then that player may not make further proposals until the number of that player’s proposals is fewer than the number of players in the game. Once any player has reached this maximum, one of that player’s proposals must be accepted or rejected before another can be proposed. If a player’s proposal is voted on and passes, that shall constitute an acceptance; if it does not pass, that shall constitute a rejection.
Right now we’re at 16 players, which I realize means that any one of us could have 16 proposals out this minute. But if I proposed, say, 15 proposals and then five people left the game, it wouldn’t matter how important a proposal I had to make until 5 of my proposals were accepted or rejected. I think this rule makes it so that people are less likely to proposal-spam, so to speak, although it is certainly true that we could restrict proposals further or restrict the number of total parts one could submit (so that a proposal with 15 parts would take up as much Proposal Space as three proposals with 5 parts each … which, I know, tends to make one bunch stuff together and thus write bad proposals).
Or we could go a very simple (for now) road and say that no player may have more active proposals than there have been complete turns +1.
All very confusing because at least one of us has at least 3 proposals up right now.
Who, Little Nemo? Those aren’t official proposals. I don’t think there’s any disagreement about this, because he even said, “here are my three suggested rules for addressing some of the problems that have occurred. I am hoping whomever has a turn may choose to propose them.” As far as I’m concerned, players may make as many of those as they wish. It’s the official proposals which can be voted on and adopted that I’m worried about being overloaded with.
You don’t think a player with 15-16 active proposals would be proposal-spam??!! That’s 256 active proposals possible with the current players.
I think 1-2 would be a healthy maximum. That is, IF the turn concept is eliminated and instant chaos does not result.
LESS LIKELY. If 10 people each had 10 Proposals out, then under my previous thought, any one other person could have 100. And the next could have 200, and so on.
I just want to state that for at least the first two rounds, I’m going to be voting against anything that lets more than, say, two people have proposals open at any time, just so that I don’t go insane if I happened to do something odd like leave the board for five minutes.
I can be reasoned with, because I sure there’s something I’m missing. Convince me.
Hell, we only have one person with an open proposal right now and things were still confusing in the afternoon!
[sub]Leave the board? They told me that wasn’t possible![/sub]
OK, then. Since it seems to have fallen to me to Judge the matter, I will make the following statement:
BraheSilver has a valid point about a person being able to switch his/her vote and the result being never-ending chaos. However, I would have allowed someone to switch their vote at any time up until the voting was completed. IOW, if a person sent me an email saying “YES on 301” and then a few minutes later sent another one saying they’d changed their minds or made a mistake, I would have allowed it as long as voting hadn’t been completed.
Now then, at the time that Little Nemo issued his retraction, voting was still open because we were still waiting for one vote, namely that of Soup_du_jour. So, LN’s vote retraction would have been valid. But it later turns out that we ruled Soup to be ineligible. If that’s the case, and Soup was not a valid voter at the time, then the voting was complete when LN issued his retraction. As such, I would NOT have allowed the retraction as the voting was complete.
Therefore, the Proposition 301 is DEFEATED. Proposition 302 is likewise DEFEATED since it was proposed under the idea that 301 was defeated and it, in reality, was. Since LN’s vote on 302 was the last one we were waiting for, voting for Prop 302 is completed. It is therefore iampunha’s turn to suggest Proposition 303.
Zev Steinhardt
I consent to continuing the game.
As do I. Since we need a majority to consent to continuing the game, I’ll send out an email request for votes on the matter.
Zev Steinhardt
Just to keep track, we need a total of eight consents from people other than iampunha. Six to go.
I don’t like this part of the rule.
I consent to continuing the game.
What is our current status? If I understand correctly, I was the last player to vote on BraheSilver’s proposal and it was defeated 9-7. Or did we decide his turn will be done over because Achernar’s hadn’t been completed? Or is it iampunha’s turn and we are awaiting his proposal?
The first two turns are complete. As soon as we get five more consents (provided nobody else joins the game in the meantime), it will be iampunha’s turn and he can make proposal 303.
Both of the proposals so far - 301 and 302 - were defeated, so the rules are unchanged from the Initial Rules.
I consent to continuing the game.
BTW, for those of you keeping track, please remember that PoignantSod is no longer an active player…
Zev Steinhardt
I consent to continuing.
For what it’s worth, I think eliminating the concept of turns would cause unimaginable chaos. I don’t mind the idea f moving from one proposal to the next in turn. If we DO eliminate turns, I think we should at least develop a kind of ‘point salary’ for whoever has to keep track of what’s going on. OR maybe there could be a point cost for pitching a new proposition? A kind of disincentive from purposefully making things overly complicated?
Personally, once we have a more established framework for determining the end of a vote, I don’t mind having a limited number of proposals under consideration at one time. But I think that eliminating turns altogether (especially with 15+ players) is a Very Bad Idea[sup]TM[/sup].
Zev Steinhardt