GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
10,469 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
13 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Nomic» Forums » Play By Forum

Subject: Proposed Rule Change 316 - clarifying secret ballot rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would like to propose a rule change to amend 311 2.1 part c to read:
c. A combination of a. and b. is an approved voting mechanism. If everyone aside from the proposer votes via this mechanism, the vote qualifies as a form of "secret ballot".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

For reference: Link to 311.

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this amendment. 311 already provides that the proposer cannot gain points for voting no. So, what would this change do?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It would prevent the situation where the forum is also a valid voting method and enough players vote in the forum to pass a proposal so one or more players secretly vote no just to get points.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems like a good change.

We don't have to make this change for the other methods since the vote would be invalid, right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Final form:
Quote:
Rule 311 2.1 part c shall be amended to read:
c. A combination of a. and b. is an approved voting mechanism. If everyone aside from the proposer votes via this mechanism, the vote qualifies as a form of "secret ballot".


Please vote in this forum.
I vote yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vaughan
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mb
I vote Yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
Rule 311 2.1 part c shall be amended to read:
c. A combination of a. and b. is an approved voting mechanism. If everyone aside from the proposer votes via this mechanism, the vote qualifies as a form of "secret ballot".


Yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I abstain.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
It would prevent the situation where the forum is also a valid voting method and enough players vote in the forum to pass a proposal so one or more players secretly vote no just to get points.


I vote NO.

Sorry -- maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see the point of this. Voting by forum has nothing to do with part a, b, or c of 311.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kayl
United States
Seal Beach
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rubric wrote:
Malachi wrote:
It would prevent the situation where the forum is also a valid voting method and enough players vote in the forum to pass a proposal so one or more players secretly vote no just to get points.


I vote NO.

Sorry -- maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see the point of this. Voting by forum has nothing to do with part a, b, or c of 311.


Hmm...after a careful re-read, I agree with Rubric and change my vote to "No".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The point of my proposal is to prevent what happened before where one player secretly voted no after it was clear by the public voting that the proposal would pass simply to gain points. I do not believe a vote where only one or two votes are secret should count as a secret ballot.

In retrospect I probably should have also proposed changing sections a and b. Sorry you guys don't understand what I'm trying to do here. I'm just glad you all made all of your objections clear during the two weeks we had to discuss the proposal.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought I understood it and agreed with it.

I was wrong!

Your goal is good - implementation doesn't work. The reason it was broken before is that some people were voting via forum and some via BGG mail. That can't happen anymore.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What prevents it from happening. Can't someone declare that people can vote on their proposal via bgg mail or in the forum?

I agree I botched the implementation, and I would like to withdraw my proposal.

Not that I think it will matter much in any event. It feels like the concurrent turns change is going to kill this game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
Not that I think it will matter much in any event. It feels like the concurrent turns change is going to kill this game.


I'm not sure that's the whole reason for the decline, but probably a large part of it. I know my own level of interest has waned -- I've been planning to make the Declaration of Results on my thread for, I don't know, over a week it seems. But I just haven't really felt like writing it up, nor editing the wiki to add the rule.

In hindsight, we should have put an escape clause on the Simultaneous Turns rule in case it didn't work out. Could we keep the game alive long enough to repeal that? Or, in the alternative, could we just agree to a reset, and go back to kayl's turn and pretend it never happened?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kayl
United States
Seal Beach
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Or simply repeal it next round of turns.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kayl wrote:
Or simply repeal it next round of turns.


Well, that was my first suggestion. It puts us back to the original problem, being that the game was way too slow.

Could we get 2 turns going at a time, instead of 7? The turns wouldn't necessarily have to be on the same deadline. It could just be whenever one turn ends, the person who is next in the play order gets to go. That would result (probably) in some shuffling of the turn order over time, but I don't see that as a big problem.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
The point of my proposal is to prevent what happened before where one player secretly voted no after it was clear by the public voting that the proposal would pass simply to gain points.


And by the way, it was NOT clear that the proposal would pass. There were only 2 or 3 public votes if I recall correctly.

Quote:
I do not believe a vote where only one or two votes are secret should count as a secret ballot.


Under the current rules, either the public votes wouldn't count, or the secret ones wouldn't count, depending on how the proposer called the vote.

Quote:
In retrospect I probably should have also proposed changing sections a and b. Sorry you guys don't understand what I'm trying to do here. I'm just glad you all made all of your objections clear during the two weeks we had to discuss the proposal.


Sorry -- I don't know why there wasn't more discussion. We had 4 proposals open, but overall less discussion combined, than on any previous turn. I think people are getting tired, maybe.

I thought my objection was clear enough though.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I want to get to a rule where I can start shooting my self-designed laser cannon at Banyan.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
What prevents it from happening. Can't someone declare that people can vote on their proposal via bgg mail or in the forum?


Yes, but but both. One or the other.

311 itself fixed the loophole Rubric exploited.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kieron wrote:
I want to get to a rule where I can start shooting my self-designed laser cannon at Banyan.


I do too. I was hoping simultaneous turns would help that situation come around sooner.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rubric wrote:
kieron wrote:
I want to get to a rule where I can start shooting my self-designed laser cannon at Banyan.


I do too. I was hoping simultaneous turns would help that situation come around sooner.


You have at least one more round of simultaneous voting to propose it.ninja





But you'll have to catch me first!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Off topic, but...

Gunz:

1. You can fire a weapon at any player.

2. For each action point you "load" into your weapon, the target player's score is reduced by one point, and your action points are reduced by one point.

3. When you fire your weapon, you describe the weapon and it's imaginary effect on the player. Other players may then "vote" on how good your description was (or how deserving the other player was of being shot).

If a majority minus two "vote" in favor, then their action points are reduced by one, and the target player's score is reduced by 1.5x the number of players voting in favor. The description of the gun and it's effect is appended to this rule and can be used in the future without further vote necessary.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vaughan
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mb
I like the Gunz.
Also off topic, but is anyone interested in bringing back Nomic Chess?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ChippyYYZ wrote:
I like the Gunz.
Also off topic, but is anyone interested in bringing back Nomic Chess?


Absolutely. I think for this game to survive it needs something like that. I was going to provide rules for gaining land and go that route, but maybe something simpler like Nomic Chess would be better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.