DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) No Taxation Without Representation
On 2/15/24 12:41, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: No Taxation Without Representation
> Adoption Index: 2.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s):
>
> [Currently, democratic proposals can pass even if the quorum is much lower
> than the number of active players. This means that democratic proposals
> have the potential to not represent a representative amount of them.
> Democratic proposals should not only meet a high adoption index, but should
> also meet that adoption index with representation.]
>
> Amend Rule 2606 ("Proposal Classes") by appending "The quorum of a
> democratic proposal is 2/3 of the active players, rounded down."
> }
>
We almost never have 2/3 of active players actually voting on proposals.
This would almost certainly come close to locking us out of changes to
Power 3+ rules (but with no ossification risk, since ossification
assumes all players are acting).
Interestingly, BlogNomic tried something almost identical to this
recently, then got rid of it because it was causing problems.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) No Taxation Without Representation
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 2/15/24 12:41, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> > {
> > Title: No Taxation Without Representation
> > Adoption Index: 2.0
> > Author: 4st
> > Co-author(s):
> >
> > [Currently, democratic proposals can pass even if the quorum is much
> lower
> > than the number of active players. This means that democratic proposals
> > have the potential to not represent a representative amount of them.
> > Democratic proposals should not only meet a high adoption index, but
> should
> > also meet that adoption index with representation.]
> >
> > Amend Rule 2606 ("Proposal Classes") by appending "The quorum of a
> > democratic proposal is 2/3 of the active players, rounded down."
> > }
> >
>
> We almost never have 2/3 of active players actually voting on proposals.
> This would almost certainly come close to locking us out of changes to
> Power 3+ rules (but with no ossification risk, since ossification
> assumes all players are acting).
>
> Interestingly, BlogNomic tried something almost identical to this
> recently, then got rid of it because it was causing problems.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
I understand we don't have much data on this... but my theory on that has
to do with new players.
I just think that we have players who don't say or vote much on Bus, but
insist they are active (EG Gaelan, Kate, Aris), and democratic changes
should value the input of players who are saying that those players do in
fact exist.
I do hear what you are saying about new players who seemed to... drop off.
Perhaps I could amend this to address that particular concern?
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) No Taxation Without Representation
On 2/15/24 12:54, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/24 12:41, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>> {
>>> Title: No Taxation Without Representation
>>> Adoption Index: 2.0
>>> Author: 4st
>>> Co-author(s):
>>>
>>> [Currently, democratic proposals can pass even if the quorum is much
>> lower
>>> than the number of active players. This means that democratic proposals
>>> have the potential to not represent a representative amount of them.
>>> Democratic proposals should not only meet a high adoption index, but
>> should
>>> also meet that adoption index with representation.]
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 2606 ("Proposal Classes") by appending "The quorum of a
>>> democratic proposal is 2/3 of the active players, rounded down."
>>> }
>>>
>> We almost never have 2/3 of active players actually voting on proposals.
>> This would almost certainly come close to locking us out of changes to
>> Power 3+ rules (but with no ossification risk, since ossification
>> assumes all players are acting).
>>
>> Interestingly, BlogNomic tried something almost identical to this
>> recently, then got rid of it because it was causing problems.
>>
>> --
>> Janet Cobb
>>
>> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>>
>>
> I understand we don't have much data on this... but my theory on that has
> to do with new players.
>
> I just think that we have players who don't say or vote much on Bus, but
> insist they are active (EG Gaelan, Kate, Aris), and democratic changes
> should value the input of players who are saying that those players do in
> fact exist.
>
> I do hear what you are saying about new players who seemed to... drop off.
> Perhaps I could amend this to address that particular concern?
>
Players may choose to stay legally active for several reasons even if
they aren't actively participating, and our current economic rules can
impose harsh penalties for being inactive. They shouldn't be discouraged
from doing so by their presence making it harder for the rest of us to
make necessary rule changes.
So, I don't think basing quorum on Activity is a good idea at all, and
there's no obvious change (to me) that would avoid these problems.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) No Taxation Without Representation
Janet wrote: So, I don't think basing quorum on Activity is a good idea at all, and there's no obvious change (to me) that would avoid these problems. Whereas quorum is currently based on a specific type of activity (voting on other recent decisions), which seems a lot more appropriate.
