Thoughts on Round 12

[Jef]

I have been working on a draft ruleset for Round 12 that I intend to submit during the convention:
http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1c-D_ytLiy3CyxqdQj5cz0fBEgJ8zJpeBW52Pjig5JVA

I wanted to address several issues and refine the system of ballot item submission that Isolgrac had been working toward. To that end, among the changes are:
- Added the definition of Ballot Item as originally proposed by Isolgrac (refined slightly) to encompass Proposals (for rule changes), Referenda, and Elections. Proposals and Referenda can be submitted at any time.

- Get rid of the interim and simply have one turn start right after the prior one ends--on Sundays at 22:00 CDT. With ballot items being able to be submitted any time, the interim seems unnecessary and a bit confusing to have a non-turn period of time.

- Tally votes at the middle and end of each turn.

I think these changes will simplify the system that Isolgrac was going for by having 2 tally periods per turn, but allowing ballot items to be submitted at any time. This will keep the more fluid flow of the game that I think Isolgrac was going for.

I have also included several other notable changes:
- Get rid of the concept of Administrator, and simply make all players responsible for administering the game. I hope Truthflux doesn't take offense, but I think this lines up better with the reality of how we have been running the game. This reduces the burden on any one person, though a person can still volunteer to maintain any specific rules (and I will continue to run the web site and thus take care of tallying ballot items and publishing the rules). This also allows flexibility in who enters points or runs specific rules if for some reason someone stops doing so or misses something. To accomplish this, I changed Rule 9 and got rid of Rule 218 Game Maintenance.

- Enhanced voting rights to ensure that player votes cannot be given different weights and never allow player votes to be taken away. Rules that allow players to vote more, veto, etc. are to me dangerous and problematic. I understand this change might be controversial... so if there are strong objections, I'll submit this change as a separate motion.

- Include all ballot items (proposals, referenda, and elections) in the same numbering counter.

- Cleaned up the use of hyphens to rule to the phrase "rule changes".... the hyphen is only appropriate when it is being used as a compound adjective such as "rule-change proposal".

There are a few other tweaks here and there.

Anyway, I wanted put this out there to give people something to think about. I'm sorry if this is a bit premature... it seems to me the round is ending one way or another within the next week.

-Jef

[Mike Carratt (Truthflux)]

I like all of this, Jef. Including the enhanced voting rights.

And of course, no offence taken about being Administrator, a role I was never really performing adequately.

Truthflux

[Isolgrac]

Jef -

Your summary above sounds good. Thanks for trying to build in some of
my ideas. I'm not keen on the voting rights changes you mention. I
think we should be able to have rules that award/remove player votes.
Yes it's dangerous, but we're all big boys here!

Some comments as I read through...

101.1 Rule Changes
Never been keen on this. I would like to change this so that all
'normal' changes were classed as strong and only spelling corrections
etc were classed as weak. Would also need further changes in related
rules.

102.1 Ballot Items
Looks like a bit of a typo: "Votes on all ballot items are Rule-change
proposals are a type of ballot item."

103.1 Voting Rights
As I said above, I think this is too restrictive.

106.1 Rule Change Adoption Requirements
Can we get rid of "Strong rule changes must be voted upon before they
may be adopted." I don't think this is required.

- Iso

On Jul 4, 8:08 pm, Jef <j...@nomicron.org> wrote:
> I have been working on a draft ruleset for Round 12 that I intend to submit

> during the convention:http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1c-D_ytLiy3CyxqdQj5cz0fBEgJ8zJ...

[Jef]

I've already been making a few tweaks, including the typo/error in Rule 102 you pointed out. I agree with you on Rule 101... I think only minor spelling corrections should be weak--I had considered getting rid of the distinction altogether, though I didn't know if that would have widespread support. Note that I also changed Rule 202 to only allow two weak rule changes in addition to one strong one per turn, and made it so that weak rule changes classified as strong are not valid... that was a loophole that I don't care for.

I'll take out my changes to 103 and make it a separate motion.

Regarding Rule 106, the point here is to make it impossible to make strong rule changes without a vote of some sort. It may not seem necessary now, but I can see the mutable rules defining proposals being changed later by a simple majority such that there would be some loophole allowing rule changes to take place without a vote. Keeping an immutable rule that makes voting necessary prevents that from happening.

Another change I should point out is to the convention rules... the current rules force us into 2 votes to start a round--one to close the floor and one to start the round after that passes. It has always seemed silly and people are usually ready to start the round when we decide to close the floor. I changed this to just one motion to start the round.


-Jef

[Isolgrac]

Can I offer up the following for comment. I'm using Jef's document as
a starting point.

---
101.1 Rule Changes

The following actions are considered normal rule changes:
- Enactment of a new mutable rule
- Changing a rule's status, as defined in Rule 1
- Amendment of a rule's text, except for those amendments that are
specified as weak rule-changes below
- Repealing or re-enacting a rule

The following actions are considered corrective rule changes:
- An amendment that merely corrects spelling, grammar, or consistency
of wording, without altering the rule's effect in any way

Whenever the phrase "rule change" is used without specifying normal or
corrective, it shall be taken to include both types of rule change.
---

106.1 Rule Change Adoption Requirements

Rule changes performed on convention or immutable rules must be voted
upon before they may be adopted and may only be adopted if every
player who votes on the rule-change (not including explicit
abstentions) votes in favor of it. All other rule changes are adopted
if a simple majority of votes are in favor, unless other adoption
conditions are specified by the rules.
---
202.1 Rule-Change Proposals

Proposals are ballot items that propose changes to the rules. Active
players may submit proposals at any time, unless otherwise restricted.

Each active player may submit one normal rule-change proposal per game
week unless a rule specifically allows more then one normal rule-
change proposal for purposes of game play. Each active player may also
submit any number of corrective rule-change proposals.

If a player submits a normal rule-change proposal as if it were a
corrective rule change, and in so doing exceeds the number of normal
rule-change proposals that the rules permit him to submit, then that
proposal shall not be regarded as properly submitted.

A proposal to enact, amend, repeal or re-enact a mutable rule is
adopted if and only if it receives more votes in favor of it than
against it.
---
204.1 Quorum Required

All ballot items have a quorum. The rules must specify the quorum for
each ballot item. If it is not defined elsewhere in the rules, then
the quorum for each ballot item is 50%.

If, at a vote count, the number of players that have explicitly cast a
vote or explicitly abstained has not reached the quorum for that
ballot item, then that ballot item neither passes nor fails but stays
active for the next vote count, retaining all existing votes. Ballot
items rolled forward in this manner do not count as new submissions.

This rule takes precedence over any rule that explicitly governs rule-
change adoption or the passage of ballot items.
---

Summary of changes:
1. 'Weak' rule changes become 'Corrective' rule changes, and are
limited to spelling corrections etc only. Everything else is a
'Normal' rule change.
2. Change the restriction that 'Strong' rule changes must be voted on
to saying that changes to Convention/Immutable rule changes must be
voted on. Changes done to mutable rules can only happen as defined in
the rules, which currently is only via proposals, which must be voted
on.
3. Reinstated the ability for a player to submit multiple corrective
rule changes. Now that these are purely corrective, I don't think we
need to limit them
4. Re-worded the quorum rule to make it easier to define different
quorums for different ballot items. As it is there is still a 50% for
all items, but with the changed voting system I think we might need to
up the quorum in some cases.

Not included here
1. I think proposals for corrective rule changes should have a lower
quorum but higher pass mark - eg they only need 3 players to vote but
they've all got to vote yes.
2. Players should not receive a reward for corrective rule-changes.


- Iso

On Jul 4, 9:36 pm, Jef <j...@nomicron.org> wrote:
> I've already been making a few tweaks, including the typo/error in Rule 102
> you pointed out. I agree with you on Rule 101... I think only minor spelling
> corrections should be weak--I had considered getting rid of the distinction
> altogether, though I didn't know if that would have widespread support. Note
> that I also changed Rule 202 to only allow two weak rule changes in addition
> to one strong one per turn, and made it so that weak rule changes classified
> as strong are not valid... that was a loophole that I don't care for.
>
> I'll take out my changes to 103 and make it a separate motion.
>
> Regarding Rule 106, the point here is to make it impossible to make strong
> rule changes without a vote of some sort. It may not seem necessary now, but
> I can see the mutable rules defining proposals being changed later by a
> simple majority such that there would be some loophole allowing rule changes
> to take place without a vote. Keeping an immutable rule that makes voting
> necessary prevents that from happening.
>
> Another change I should point out is to the convention rules... the current
> rules force us into 2 votes to start a round--one to close the floor and one
> to start the round after that passes. It has always seemed silly and people
> are usually ready to start the round when we decide to close the floor. I
> changed this to just one motion to start the round.
>
> -Jef
>

[Goos]

A few things:

-Remove"no penalty worse then losing, in the judgement of the player
to incur it..." from rule 110. I don't think any replacement
statement is needed.

-Add Rule 305 of Round 11, "on the nature of objects and points" to
the initial set, or a at least a rule specifying more about points to
the round. Rule 109 already mentions points, so we need to clarify
that: (a) objects are countable, indivisible, and can owned by players
(b) players start with 0 points, and (c) points can't be gained unless
the rules alow, but can be given away or destroyed at will. Looking
back, I don't think Rule 305 specifies (b), so that should be added in
to it.

-In Rule 113, Freedom of Action, define 'regulated'.

Isolgrac, I like strong/weak better than normal/corrective.

I have a few objections to the new system of vote counts. From what I
gather, ballot items just gather up votes until they have enough to
pass. I think there should be a specific time put on them - at least
a week - so that players can be given enough time to vote. Even with
the current system we have enough players not voting during turns -
and currently you only have to vote once every week. Twice a week
would be, in my opinion, to much. But I do like the other aspects of
the ballot item/vote count system, so the only change I would make is
one to 205 adding one requirement for the vote on a ballot item to
end: it must, in addition to having the required amount of votes to
meet quorum, have been up for vote for at least one week. With this
change, I would be in favor of the changes.

[Isolgrac]

I understood the 'regulated' clause to mean that if a rule says "if X
is true then Y is allowed" then Y is regulated, not prohibited. By
saying that anything that is not prohibited is permitted, then Y
becomes allowed even if X is not true. With the rule as it stands it
means that Y is not allowed if X is not true, even though that is not
explicitly stated.

Does that match with other peoples understanding of the rule? I'm not
sure how to rephrase the rule to define it better.

Goos - do you mean you prefer the names or the definitions? I'm not
too fussed over the names, I just wanted to separate out the spelling
corrections. Originally I was thinking 3 types: strong, weak &
corrective. But then there didn't seem much point in having the strong/
weak distinction so I combined them as 'normal'.

With the vote counting, one of my intentions was that proposals can
pass quickly (less than a week) if there was a strong support. I guess
I'm primarily thinking of the spelling corrections again. How about we
have some sort of sliding scale - on the first vote quorum is set at
80%, comes down to 60% after a week, and after than is 40%? Without
worrying about the actual levels, what do you think of the idea? We
could also allow for different levels for different ballot items.
Thinking about it, we could also set different pass thresholds at each
vote - eg at the first count there needs to be an 80% turnout with an
80% yes vote to pass, or an 80% turnout with an 80% no vote to fail.
Anything else rolls over to the next vote. Quorum / pass mark would
decrease as the vote count went on. Obviously the pass mark could
never go below 50%!

That probably sounds complicated, but the simple idea is that
proposals that have universal support/opposition will pass/fail
quickly, whereas proposals that are more evenly split will take longer
and so will allow more time for discussion.

Maybe we could also have an 'undecided' vote (different from
abstention) that would force the proposal to roll over to the next
vote regardless?

[Jef]

I'm not sure how else you would define "regulated"... it says
"regulated by a rule", which has always been interpreted to mean that
if a rule has anything to say about the way something works, then that
is how it works.

I think I will leave out any changes to weak/strong rule changes out
of the initial ruleset motion and let others follow-up with motions of
their own if they want to change it. I want to keep the initial pass
non-controversial so we have a base to work with.

On the quorums, I think it would be confusing to have different quorum
ratios depending on the number of vote counts a ballot item has been
through. I'd have to think about how to implement that too... it would
not be straightforward. I like the idea of just requiring a full week
(or maybe something slightly shorter like 5 days??)... "a ballot item
must be active for 5 days before it is tallied". This would be easy to
implement because the code could just check the date it was submitted
when running a tally.

I don't think all players have the time to keep up with 2 weekly
votes, so allowing something pass before they even have a chance to
look at it would not be fair. I could see a scenario where a player
submits a proposal a day before a vote count and half of the players
have a chance to look at it and vote, and the other half don't get any
say in it.

-Jef

[Goos]

Isolgrac and Jef, your definition of 'regulated' satisfies me...as
long as everyone agrees with it :) The problem I saw before was: what
happens if a rule just sort of mentions something or implies it works
a certain way, but doesn't explicitly define how it works? But I'll
let that drop for now, accepting that in most if not all cases an RFJ
will be sufficient to determine this.

I've just finished reading through the entire new initial rule set,
put up against the current set. I really like what you've done with
it, Jef - I agree with almost everything :) Comments and a few
relatively minor objections and corrections below:

-I approve of using the same numbering counter for all ballot items,
as long as everything continues to be separated into the same groups
as before in the database - I like the current format and organization
of the rules and book pages.
-In Rule 202 I notice that the ability to submit strong proposals as
if they were weak has been removed...I think this will work; it will
undoubtedly raise a few RFJs during the round, though, deciding
whether or not certain changes were weak.
-A small correction: in Rule 202, it says: "...may submit one strong
rule-change proposal per turn unless a rule specifically allows more
then one rule-change proposal..." This should be "allows more than
one STRONG rule-change proposal".
I'm assuming that the original Rule 203, Rule-change adoption, was
removed because Rule 106, Rule Change Adoption Requirements, implies
it?
-Rule 205: "Votes on all other ballot items are tallied and voting for
the ballot item is closed." I think this should be "voting for THESE
BALLOT ITEMS is closed".
-Another small error: Rule 207 mentions the administrator at the
beginning of the second paragraph.
-In Rule 209, I feel that "without merit' should be a ruling along
with true or false: "A legal ruling is one of TRUE, FALSE, or WITHOUT
MERIT...". One reason why it should be this way is to prevent
submitting paradoxical statements: "This Statement is False" could not
be ruled true or false without creating a contradiction that in turn
would guide game play - whatever that means, possibly a victory by
inconsistency. Also, the way 'without merit' currently works on the
website (i.e., a separate dropdown from the ruling) is confusing. If
this is changed, Rule 210 should also be changed - delete the phrase
"of TRUE or FALSE" (from Rule 210).
-I notice you've completely removed Rule 218, Game Maintenance from
the initial set...most of it was about the Administrator, but some
parts need to be kept (most importantly, the concept of a 'blue law'
and the idea that enforcement is necessary for a rule to take full
effect). I think this rule needs to come back, simply specifying that
players are responsible for enforcing the rules, and rules that are
not enforced are termed 'blue laws' and have no effect unless a player
decides to enforce them.

Also, I would like to put the following possible additions to the
initial set up for discussion; I don't think they should go into the
set right now, but I intend to make motions to add them later.

-I still think "On the nature of Objects and Points" should be added,
along with a sentence specifying that all players initially 0 of all
objects.

-I think "Lights, Camera..." should be added to the initial set, and
maybe "Timing is Everything" should be as well.

-I would prefer a 1-week limit on motions to a five-day one, but five
days is good enough so if people don't agree that's fine.

One last question: how does titling the round work? Do we just make a
motion to name the round?

-Goos

[Isolgrac]

Goos, for what it's worth, in my view if an action (for example,
counting votes) is mentioned or even just implied by the rules, then
that action is a valid game action. If there are no rules specifying
requirements for performing that action, then the action is not
regulated and so it can be performed by any player at any time. Just
my opinion, I'm not a lawyer!

- Iso

[Jef]

Regarding Goos' feedback:

> -I approve of using the same numbering counter for all ballot items,
> as long as everything continues to be separated into the same groups
> as before in the database - I like the current format and organization
> of the rules and book pages.

Yes--the books and pages would still be separated from rules as they
are now, and I will also separate the Proposals from the Referenda on
the main page for voting.

> -In Rule 202 I notice that the ability to submit strong proposals as
> if they were weak has been removed...I think this will work; it will
> undoubtedly raise a few RFJs during the round, though, deciding
> whether or not certain changes were weak.

Yep--an RFJ is the right way to handle any dispute on this.

> -A small correction: in Rule 202, it says: "...may submit one strong
> rule-change proposal per turn unless a rule specifically allows more
> then one rule-change proposal..."  This should be "allows more than
> one STRONG rule-change proposal".

Corrected.

> I'm assuming that the original Rule 203, Rule-change adoption, was
> removed because Rule 106, Rule Change Adoption Requirements, implies
> it?

Actually, I moved the entire wording exactly as it was to Rule 202.

> -Rule 205: "Votes on all other ballot items are tallied and voting for
> the ballot item is closed." I think this should be "voting for THESE
> BALLOT ITEMS is closed".

Corrected.

> -Another small error: Rule 207 mentions the administrator at the
> beginning of the second paragraph.

Reworded it.

> -In Rule 209, I feel that "without merit' should be a ruling along
> with true or false: "A legal ruling is one of TRUE, FALSE, or WITHOUT
> MERIT...".  One reason why it should be this way is to prevent
> submitting paradoxical statements: "This Statement is False" could not
> be ruled true or false without creating a contradiction that in turn
> would guide game play - whatever that means, possibly a victory by
> inconsistency.  Also, the way 'without merit' currently works on the
> website (i.e., a separate dropdown from the ruling) is confusing.  If
> this is changed, Rule 210 should also be changed - delete the phrase
> "of TRUE or FALSE" (from Rule 210).

Agreed... changed this.

> -I notice you've completely removed Rule 218, Game Maintenance from
> the initial set...most of it was about the Administrator, but some
> parts need to be kept (most importantly, the concept of a 'blue law'
> and the idea that enforcement is necessary for a rule to take full
> effect).  I think this rule needs to come back, simply specifying that
> players are responsible for enforcing the rules, and rules that are
> not enforced are termed 'blue laws' and have no effect unless a player
> decides to enforce them.

You're right... I'm adding it back with revised wording

-Jef