git ssb

Aye

@Soggypretzels Is that an imaginary aye?

Nay, as the rule is too ambiguous and undefined.

What does blessed mean?

I really don't understand this rule as stated. Is the rule that you still need 80% of active voters, but all votes will be counted, thus if half of the active voters vote aye, and half vote nay, but an additional non-active voter votes aye, it will pass (hence the confusing reference to 40%). Or is it stating that the amendment is to the 80% rule, changing it to a majority vote and that all votes count (a slight difference).

I believe it is the former. I vote 'aye' as an inactive voter.

Wait, should I have voted on my own rule?!

Uh oh Scooby.

I'm going to call the vote. Voting ends at 21:00 UTC Aug. 16th. Cheers!

I've made an update to be a complete cycle of player's turns by @dominic's request. Anyone find fault with this or unlikely to vote in favor?

Yes, it is questionable that this rule could effect this turns scoring, although by rule 202, it could be construed that the scoring part of the turn comes after the voting/rule-change part of the turn.

If I'm not wrong, there are only 8 voters, so only one person could vote against it and allow it to pass, thus we could give the nay vote to @ktorn since he has already gone negative, as long as he waits to put in his vote at the end.

@Soggypretzels, Ah, yes I was uncertain on what number to use. Those are all good suggestion and things I had questions about. I'll modify the Pull Request.

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.

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?

nay

Aye

So, I opened up chapter 4 in Metamagical Themas where Hofstadter describes and writes about Nomic, it is interesting to me that so many of the rules were later changed for playing the game by mail or computer. Rule 210 explicitly states that players cannot conspire or consult on the making of future rules, and ends there. So originally all of this conversation would not have been allowed. Simple changes like this change the gameplay so much. I can't imagine playing this by mail, it must have taken ages.

How long do you feel players should be given from the point the debate ends and the final form of the proposal is submitted (given that this can end at any time) to when they must cast their vote?

My problem isn't so much with a 24 hour voting window, it was with the idea that wording could change or amendments could be implied during the 24 hours while players were offline. Rereading the discussion, I see that this may have already been part of the suggestion. Is there a finalized wording that you have in mind?

@kas, I'm unsure what the cost is that is incurred with quadratic voting. Would we be putting up points to vote?

In my opinion 24 hours appears to be too short of a timespan. Specially if the wording of the rule can change at the last minute while people are offline (asleep). I'm also unsure how one leave a vote in our current setup. The gameplay at this point is still a little unclear to me.