Nomic 5 - Proposal 301

[connect4]

Change made. Anyone else have any comments, or should we open voting?

[Pagane]

I like Crunkus' suggestion. I'm for putting it to a vote.

[super_dipsy]

Am I too late? Sorry not to join in earlier, been slaving over my last functional upgrade for a bit

If I haven't missed it (looks like I haven't because voting hasn't started yet) can someone update me on the deadline timings for this run of Nomic?

[connect4]

Welcome dipsy!

214. Any player who does not cast a legal vote within 72 hours of start of the vote is no longer an active player. Any judge who does not make a ruling within 24 hours is no longer an active player. Any player who does not post a new rule-change proposal within 24 hours of the start of his turn is no longer an active player.

This appears to be the only relevant rule regarding timing at present (this proposal also fixes the timing issues contained therein). So at present you're welcome to join voting.

Speaking of which, I am making an edit to specify that my length for start-of-turn, as suggested by Crunkus, overrides that of 214, as technically 214 would currently take precedence.

[super_dipsy]

C4, my only comments are:
1. It seems to me there is scope for confusion in allowing votes in the Proposal phase. At the moment the proposal clearly specifies what you have to do to vote but does so under the auspices of the Voting phase. However 2b seems to allow people to vote in the Proposal phase. I think either you need to state somewhere in the proposal phase that the same requirements are in place for a valid vote as in the Voting phase, or you have to say that voting only happens in the voting phase.

2. I think we need to tighten up the wording of what constitutes a valid vote. For example, take the post from Crunkus
:

I'll vote AYE if the original poster is given 48 hours instead of 24 before being defined as inactive and forfeiting the turn.

Since you are at the moment allowing votes in the Proposal phase, and your specification says the word AYE must be used then IF Crunkus had made that post with a RED AYE in it rather than a black one, would that have counted as a vote? Or would it have counted as a vote if and only if the conditional rider was satisfied (which it was)?

3. In terms of posting the results, is there any penalty for deliberately miscounting the result? I realize everyone can count, but people (like me) who are lazy might just assume the count is correct whatever is posted.

[connect4]

Sorry on my phone rocking a one year old, so formatting of this post won't be best.

1). I'm more than fine with making votes during voting phase only. There was push back last game (hence the reason that clause appeared)
2). Should it be specified that the vote must appear on its own line? Would that work?
3). Currently no such penalty. If there was a score dispute typically that would go to judgement and last game the judge could assign a penalty thanks to a different rule). I'm not opposed to such a rule, but at the same time concerned about scope (as it gets harder as the game goes on to score, and fewer players are willing to keep score once you get to that point - see last game when at one point the conversation was:
"So is the round over?"
"Yes, we're just waiting for c4 to score it"
)

[super_dipsy]

I'm not too sweaty about 3, I just mentioned it for completeness.

I think saying the vote should be the single word in red and of the size you said on its own line would definitely sort it and make it crystal.

I don't have a problem allowing votes in the proposal phase other than it may actually be that the vote is cast on a version of he proposal that then changes. I suppose you could argue that is a case of Voter Beware thoguh. If you want to leave it on in the Proposal phase though, you probably want to put a little element in the description of the allowable voting format to say that applies to BOTH phases.

[connect4]

Now that my daughter is down, the vote on its own line is addressed. Voting is now limited to the voting phase to keep the language of the proposal simple. No penalty yet for admin screwups (although again I am open to such a thing in its own bill).

[Crunkus_old]

C4... how hard would it be to line up vote recognition with the tabulator recognition protocols...so that it could be used for convenience without being potentially deceptive?

[connect4]

Test post:

AYE