Proposal: A Rule Establishing a Points System To Encourage Agenda-Setting and Deal-Making:

I
A Rule Establishing a Points System To Encourage Agenda-Setting and Deal-Making:


1.Name:
 a.This Rule may be referred to as “The Points Rule”.


2.Notice to Award Points:
 a.A notice created under this Rule is called a Notice to Award Points.
 b.Any Active Proposal may include in its text a Notice to Award Points, stating that the Proposal is similar in kind to the most recent Resolved Proposal (IRC V.4) that was proposed by that same Member.
 c.If a Proposal enacted pursuant to IRC V.5 includes in its text a Notice to Award Points, that proposal may award
   i.to the Member who proposed it, a sum of points that is (a) not less than zero and (b) not more than five; or
   ii.if the Proposal was proposed by two Members, to the pool among those Members (see 3.a.iii. of this Rule), a sum of points that is (a) not less than zero and (b) not more than five.


3.Uses of Points:1
 a.Points awarded by a Notice to Award Points—
   i.are tradable among Members;
   ii.are accumulable when held by one Member; and
   iii.are poolable when held by two Members.
 b.If a sum of points exceeding 37 is held in a pool among two Members, the pool may be converted into a vote.


4.Challenging a Notice to Award Points:
 a.Any Notice to Award Points is challengeable when—
   i.the Active Proposal that includes the Notice in its text “Passes its Vote Condition” (IRC V.5), and
   ii.a challenging Member presents a question demonstrating that the Notice’s “similar in kind” claim is unsubstantial, the “Proposition” rule at IRC IV notwithstanding.
 b.When a challenge is brought against a Notice to Award Points, Members discuss the question and vote that the Notice’s claim is either substantial (a “Yes” vote) or unsubstantial (a “No” vote).
 c.If a simple majority of Members votes Yes to Pass the Notice,—
   i.the Notice is enacted as part of the Rule;
   ii.points are awarded to the proposing Member(s); and
 d.If a simple majority of Members votes No to Fail the Notice,—
   i.the Notice fails, and
   ii.no points are awarded.


5.Restriction on Challenges:
 a.Any Member who excessively challenges Notices to Award Points, is subject to sanction by other Members up to and including the loss of all the sanctioned Member’s accumulated points.

This rule seems fun, though my inexperience in this game may be preventing me from realizing the ramifications.

I vote yes.

Now that I have read it a couple more times, I am now confused about which Member receives points under this rule.

I am concerned about the rather baroque system of appointment and appeal. Is this the most elegant system? I am very open to hear out the other side.

I had apprehensions about proposing the whole thing at once, namely that it looks a bit too big to be just one rule and is thus unattractive. I'll just blame its oversized shortcomings on work-related distractions--I wrote it at work, so there's some fat to trim. Revision tips are greatly appreciated.

We can maximize our rulemaking vigor by forming subgroups that focus on specific agendas. To that end, the rule allows us to generate and accumulate points from a string of Proposals with notable similarities, that is, those that stick to an agenda. It also creates a forum where our claims that a Proposals is similar enough to previous Proposals to justify a points award might be called into question or even refuted by other Members. On one hand, questionability acts as oversight, ensuring that we stick to the agenda we've developed; on the other hand, the possibility of losing out on expected points introduces uncertainty, which will hopefully promote a general attitude of value toward new points. The rule further aims to infuse value into the points by allowing us to trade so many points for an extra vote. The caveat is that the points used for an extra vote have to be points that two Members share in common, pooled from rules the two Members proposed jointly.

Anywho, its far from perfect, and its definitely really busy. But I thought it might be an interesting way to implement subgrouping, agendas, deals, etc. Pass or Fail, we'll eventually be forced to deal with efficiency issues stemming from the legislative nature of the Game. The smaller, focused groups that will result from this rule are certainly one way of beginning to address that problem.

I think we should either talk about this more or vote on it. One thing I like about this is that it is the most intriguing proposal we have had so far. By that I mean it seems capable of a lot of interactions with other potential new laws.

I vote Nay.

HallowedOri wrote:I think we should either talk about this more or vote on it. One thing I like about this is that it is the most intriguing proposal we have had so far. By that I mean it seems capable of a lot of interactions with other potential new laws.

I also like the idea of giving Members ways to engage the Game outside of the formal process. Its not the most elegant system, and its not the only system, that could create these types of opportunities, but elegance may not always give us a robust Game experience.

However, I am concerned by a fear with respect to the "system of appointment and appeal", because I didn't intend for this rule to create such a system. This tells me that it's not adequately written. I'd like to revisit the ideas to develop something more stable, presented in pieces that allow us to establish common understanding of one new game element at a time, rather than so many all at once.

I'm not quite ready to vote, because I've not heard criticism from Swanky+Stanky, but for these reasons, I'm leaning toward "no", with a promise of something better in the near future.

I really like 1-3, but I think the "Challenging" of the point notices is where it gets really hairy. The way I see it, if this system was voted in, we could easily not let points be awarded by not letting the proposal pass. Bam. No points are awarded bc it does not pass it's vote condition.

I REALLY like this proposal besides the "Challenge" language. I think it adds a facet to game play that we would immediately benefit from.

So... I say "Yes," and let's figure out the hairy details as we continue.

I just realized that I voted Nay outside of the SVC sanctioned voting time. We still require Geof's vote to resolve this, but it will pass 1 - 0 regardless.

I think that is how the rules work together. To pass, an AP needs a simple majority of votes with 7 days (as per the SVC), and to resolve, it also needs to be voted on by every member.

Are you sure about this? Now I know why we were thinking different things about the importance of changing this rule. It does say a simple majority, but of what set of voters? I was always reading it as a simple majority among all members. Therefore, under my interpretation, the proposal fails because it failed to garner a majority of the Members' support in time.

Well it could also be interpreted to mean a simple majority of votes, i.e. votes cast. So it would essentially make abstentions out of the votes cast and remaining-to-be-cast after the seventh day mark.

Although, the rule may also mean a simple majority of all members. This would give the rule a dimension of having to stimulate the membership within a certain time to pass, which makes for a much more interesting rule.

I guess one thing that we can agree on is that this proposal is resolved. Correct? Maybe we should save this case for the Castro Court?

If we still need my vote, I vote "yes" to avoid a tie. Also, that "1" after the colon in para 3 is a typo, but since it doesn't have a meaningful interpretation, I suppose it doesn't matter.

The final vote is 3 - 1, but within the SVC at the time this was proposed, it failed to reach a majority.

FAILS

3 - 1