git ssb

Proposal for rule 302.

@ktorn

Overall reading - I like the intention

Specific feedback :

1. 301 already defines Active Player. I think you could save time by referencing this and defining Reserve (you could drop most of para 1)
2. tracking [player, reserve, qurom_state] : I think this is going to get painful. Maybe make the administration of this the a clear responsibility of the player whose turn it is as part of the 'cleanup' after voting. (perhaps in state.json)
3. player_state paragraph is unclear to me:
   • if I am a reserve and someone wipes my schmecles because of some rule, when I return to play, is the last state that I get back the one last state I had or the last state as a result of rule changes?

@mixmix I don't think anyone can wipe your schumklucks because that is created via %ssb-mutual and is outside the juristiction of %nomic but nomic points are a different matter.

@John
Great feedback, your first point deserves special attention.

Please note that the definitions of active player under 301 and player under 302 are very different. The good thing is that 301 states "An active player is a player..." and since 302 is defining player then is also impacting active player. When someone is not a player, by definition is also not an active player. This is intentional. I have examined the possible interactions between 301 and 302. Let's examine when someone votes, or not, in consecutive turns N and N+1:

Under 301 alone:

The reason why there is the implicit vote against is because 302 requires 80% of active players to pass a proposal, so a no vote from an active player basically counts against the proposal.

Under 302 alone:

Pretty basic really. No explanation required.

So far so good, now when you put the two together what happens?

I interpret that someone can only be an active player under 301 when they are also a player under 301. If someone falls under reserve, and are therefore no longer a player then it automatically removes their active player status too, even if 301 states otherwise. In other words, 302 should take precedence over 301. If this needs to be explicit in rule 302 then I shall add it.

So here's the result of 301 and 302 as I interpret it:

Someone re-joining the game will always see their vote count against the proposal, regardless of how they vote. This is because even though they are a player under 302 and explicitly count towards the quorum, they are not an 'active player' under 301 and therefore their vote is not actually counted.

Is there a case to handle this case by having 302 explicitly override 301 and count the vote?

@John, regarding your other points:

2) That's a great idea. But maybe in a separate rule? 302 is already quite verbose.

3) I definitely meant the last state as a result of changes due to game rules even while the individual is reserve. If that is not clear how do you suggest it read?

I interpret that someone can only be an active player under 301 when they are also a player under 301

bah, that second 301 should obviously read 302...

Another comment, I'd rather avoid cluttering the rule with explicit overrides, when we can later amend the rules that need amending. This means living with temporary 'bugs' that can be easily worked around.

In this case someone who wants to re-join the game but doesn't want to vote against the current proposal, can wait until almost the end of the voting period in order to ensure that their re-entry doesn't affect the voting result (i.e. that they are not a pivotal voter), unless their objective is to vote against the proposal.

You could just make a new vote type JOIN, that has no effect on the outcome but makes the person eligible to participate from then on.

@alanz in that case I could just ammend the my proposal so that the vote of the re-joining player doesn't count towards the quorum for the voting on that turn, but that would defeat my original objective of having casual players being able to simply drop-in to vote on a particular proposal.

I did think about this issue when @Soggypretzels added the active player definition towards the end of the discussion of 301, and mentioned it in the discussion, but didn't want to delay things any further.

Like @mix mentioned before, we don't need to make everything perfect from the begining. The idea is that we can change things later. If everyone agrees that players should be able to drop-in for single turn votes then we can amend 301 later, and if this rule passes then they can already do that if they are careful when doing so like I mentioned above.

@ktorn r301 passed, so it would ease maintanence if you merge that into your branch.

@dominic pretty sure I have. Is it not showing?

I'm leaving home soon. If no one comes up with a major objection, I think we can just use this PR discussion for the voting.

The voting period has opened.

According to rule 301 we now only have 24 hours to vote, so voting closes at August 13 2017, 16:00 GMT.

Aye.

Aye

Aye

Aye

:+1:

:thumbsup:

och aye :thumbsup:

nay

mix consciously doesn't vote (to try and see what happens with 301)

@mix

with @nanomonkey's nay, your explicit-implicit-nay, and 2 hours left it's likely that this proposal will be defeated. Which is obviously not what I had in mind, but which I'm happy to accept because we're playing by the game rules. For me, more important than this proposal, is that we do stick to the rules by waiting for the last vote before advancing to the next turn. Either that or we request from this turn's Judge, @Soggypretzels, to decide that @Zach! is no longer a player for the purposes of this vote (ironically doing manually what this proposed rule would do automatically in the future).

The 24 hour voting window has expired and, since fewer than 80% of active players have voted in favor of the rule change, the proposal is defeated.

I invoke the Judge for this turn, @Soggypretzels, and ask that @zach! be temporarily removed as a player so that this turn can complete.

As soon as this turn is complete, and since I invoked judgement, I give my consent in advance for the next player to start his turn.

@ktorn Thank you for the @mention, I have begun my deliberations. Does anyone have a reason that players who have not yet voted on rule proposal 302 should be removed as players until the start of the next turn?

Is @mix's vote really a nay, or it a non-vote? It appears that by rule 301, there were 8 voters, 7 ayes and 1 nay which means that the vote passed (7/8 > .8). @mix and @Zach! are now now inactive players and won't be able to vote in the next round.

Any objections to this?

@soggypretzels

My reading is that @zach! and @mixmix are active players under R301 because they voted in the previous round. Fewer than 80% of active voters voted in favor, so the rule-change is defeated.

It's a shame, because I think it was a well drafted proposal, but I also sense that it was due to people experimenting with the game mechanics. In common law, you don't really know what a law means until it is "tested" that is, there is a case about it. This Nomic game doesn't have binding precident, but what will be tested is our mutual interpretation of the rules, and I think that is effected by precident.

Ahem, also I think rule 204 encouraged @nanomonkey to vote against.

@mix and @Zach! voted in the previous turn within 24 hours, therefore they are an active player. If an active player doesn't vote for a proposal 'in the proper way', it necessarily counts against that proposal as per rule 301 (by design). Currently the rules don't have a way for allowing the game to proceeded forward if players don't vote save for the intervention of a Judge.

It is my view that the second clause of rule 105 can be read as a requirement of the player, and not of the system.

Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

Therefore any player who does not participate in every vote on rule-changes is in violation of the rules. As the rules do not specify a punishment for this offence I, as Judge, proclaim that all players in violation of this rule are to be stripped of their status as "player" until the beginning of next turn.

Unless by a unanimous vote of the other players to overrule, play continues with the defeat of the proposed rule 302 and the beginning of @nanomonkey's turn. Upon the start of that turn @mix and @Zach! will become players again, but as they did not vote within the proper time on the proposed rule 302, they are not active players. They will be able to vote on the forthcoming rule 303, however their vote will have no effect on the outcome. They will need to at least vote "present" for their votes to have weight again according to rule 301.

According to rule 212 we now need a majority of the other players (players who are not @nanomonkey) to consent to the continue of play. With those 5 votes, @nanomonkey may begin their turn.

aye

aye

@soggypretzels you are really getting into the swing of things!

aye

Ahem, also I think rule 204 encouraged @nanomonkey to vote against.

Yes, I gambled that this early in the game everyone would vote and that a few of us were waiting to vote against it after it had passed. I didn't really count on anyone not voting. It's too bad, it was a good rule.

:+1: :heart:

aye

btw, if anyone wants to pick up this draft and propose it again I will support it.

@nanomonkey, you're up. If you do want to re-propose 302 I think it could use some revisions before you submit it to a vote, otherwise I'd be interested to hear what you have up your sleeve that we haven't yet heard about!

@soggypretzels so if @mixmix is not currently an active player what happens after @nanomonkey's turn, because mix is due to propose rule 304.

@dominic

@soggypretzels judgement (excellent btw) only momentarily removed @mix and @Zach! as players as a temporary work around for 105, so that my turn could complete, but immediately reinstated them back as players after that.

My interpretation of rule 301 is that a non-active player is still a player, so aside from their vote not counting, there are no restrictions to their ability to start their turn. This would not be the case under 302. Until 302 or similar is introduced, players who go really missing will require more permanent removals by a Judge. Perhaps this manual process may suffice and we don't actually need a 302-style rule to do it automatically.

@dominic btw, I think we should close this and calculate my points. I suppose in this case I can do it myself.

Rule 202 is not clear on how to handle non-votes, but since technically all 10 players counted towards the quorum of the voting, I think they should also count towards the calculation of the score (i.e. non-votes were implicit unfavourable votes)

Therefore: (302-291)*(7/10) - 10 = -2.3

If we ever create a book of records may it please reflect the fact that I was the first player to achieve a negative score! ;)

@ktorn r202

In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer.

Which is only -2 = round((302-291)*(7/10))

@dominic you're right, I had actually done it right first, and later forgot about the rounding when I posted. Thanks for the correction.