Talk:337

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 00:14, 4 December 2006

Proposer's summary and declarations

Proposer's summary Ok here is the reason for the proposal:

• Players that are declared inactive do not count as registered voters.
  • This is work with 326 in regards to "it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted"
• A player who is currently declared inactive, and therefore an unregistered voter, shall not recieve a vote until they propose a proposal.
  • This is to propose a real penalty since 1/2 isn't really anything as pointed out. I thought about making it no vote except on your proposal(s) until you pass a proposal.
• When a player is declared inactive he or she loses 10 points (Gains 10 negative points). This point lose cannot allow the player to have any more points less than 0 points than the player may already have.
  • This is to help prevent player that would end up -10 for going inactive from leaving and then immediately rejoining to have 0 points. If you have less then 0 points i.e. -20 then having -30 won't stop you from restarting either.
• When a player is declared inactive the census page shall be edited to account for the change in status.
  • Standard house keeping here.
• Inactive players are allowed to make one (1) rule proposal.
  • To fix the loophole of infinite proposals for inactive players.

The major point of the proposal is to fix the loophole of inactive players being allowed to make infinite proposals. Since only active players are limited to 3. Also has fixed some other issues that have arisen. --Dayd 22:44, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Debate

Add comments I would like to see instead an amendment to 314 limiting inactive players to 1 proposal, with the proviso that making a proposal does NOT remove a player from the inactive list. That way, if they make a proposal, while they're inactive, they still have to suck up their 1/2 vote, whether it's their proposal or not. That way the game can restart if everyone goes inactive. Applejuicefool 00:23, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Couldn't we do away with the 1/2 vote thing since an inactive player is losing points for inactivity. What if a player could resume active status by proposing a new amendment. --Tucana25 02:25, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Then inactive would be no change in status, except for the loss of 10 points. Applejuicefool 07:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)

The change of status would be that an inactive player could not vote at all until making a proposal.--Tucana25 09:05, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Oh, you mean that making a proposal would be the ONLY way back from inactivity. I don't think that's a good idea...if you start forcing people to make proposals, you end up with trash proposals ("The name of the game is now no longer Nomicapolis, but 'Bob.' All proposals must begin with the phrase 'Hail, Bob!'") Applejuicefool 09:28, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Assuming no one else will vote for the amendment you mentioned, they will then have to lose another 10 points. Of course they may already be at zero. Something i just thought of, having a 1/2 vote is not going to be a punishment unless two inactive players vote on the same proposal (one for, one against), a 1/2 vote is just as good as a full vote. Anyway...not saying i will necessarily vote against it, just offering alternatives. --Tucana25 21:41, 29 November 2006 (EST)

I don't really see the point of the proposal. Acording to the definition of inactivity (314) a player can become active by voting on a proposal. So not being able to propose something is a very small pentalty, since you can vote once and then the penalty is gone.--Shivan 00:19, 30 November 2006 (EST)

I don't know if the wording is any better now. Declaring inactive users unregistered suggests they shouldn't have the chance to cast a half vote. Also, i realized today that there is no rule preventing active players from having a score in the negative numbers (AJF does right now). So, perhaps that could be left out and the negative issue can be decided later. I still don't like the 1/2 vote thing because the likely result is that that result would count as a full vote (3.5-3 is just as good as 4-3 in a vote). The only time a 1/2 vote would have any impact would be if 2 inactive players both voted for or against a proposal. That seems extremely unlikely. The more i think about it, the more i'm sure i don't like this proposal. --Tucana25 20:06, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Improper Proposal

326 states that a player making a proposal must set a debate limit for that proposal. The limit of "a later date and time" does not meet the requirements of 326. --TomFoolery 08:09, 2 December 2006 (EST)

If this is considered a proper proposal of a rule, then the pope DOES poop in the woods. --Tucana25 19:14, 2 December 2006 (EST)

OK...i just realized this is not improper...i missed my window to change my vote though, i didn't check the dates and thought we were talking about proposal 339, which is proposed in the same spirit, but copies rule 326 verbatim instead of giving a date. Considering the ruling already given by the Judge,as well as the vote already being up for proposal, i won't bother going through this again. By the way, does the pope poop in the woods? --Tucana25 19:49, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Per Rule 306.2.D: When a claim of improper proposal passes or fails, the claimant and voters in the claim action gain or lose half as many points as they would have had the claim been a proposal vote with a number equal to the proposal number of the proposal in question. Given rule 333, does anyone have any opinion on how points should be distributed? --Tucana25 18:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Vote on Improper Proposal

For (the proposal IS improper)

Add IMPROPER vote

1. --Tucana25 19:06, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Against (the proposal IS NOT improper)

Add NOT IMPROPER vote

1. Applejuicefool 14:15, 2 December 2006 (EST); (See my reasoning in my ruling on the Decisions of the Judge page).
2. --Simulacrum 14:30, 2 December 2006 (EST)
3. --Dayd 16:37, 2 December 2006 (EST)
4. --TomFoolery 19:41, 2 December 2006 (EST) (I find Applejuicefool's judgment to be correct.)

Vote

Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Dayd 18:06, 3 December 2006 (EST)

For

Add FOR vote

1. --Dayd 18:06, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

1. --Tucana25 18:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)
2. --TomFoolery 19:14, 3 December 2006 (EST)