Do you agree to the following amendments to the rules:

Current 4.3:


Quote:
4.3 - Fairness Pledge

Every team must agree to the fairness pledge before the game starts:

“I pledge to compete fairly and within the rules of the game. I pledge to adhere not only to the written rules, but also to the unwritten, spirit of the rules. I understand that failure to live up to this pledge may result in penalties for me and my team.”




Proposed amendment (changes are in bold and italic):

Quote:
“I pledge to compete fairly and within the rules of the game. I pledge to not tamper with the game itself, to not unfairly gain access to secret information from other teams, and to follow these rules to the best of my ability. I understand that failure to live up to this pledge may result in penalties for me and my team.”

You can vote with multiple choices.

Option 1 - Yes, my team supports this amendment.

Option 2 - No, my team does not support this amendment.

Option 3 - Abstain

Option 4 - Yes if an amendment includes "spirit of the game".

I like the idea of the rule but would prefer it to include spirit of the game. So my answer is NO without "spirit of the game" but "yes" with "spirit of the game" included. Confused yet?

I voted for the amended version

I vote Yes but I do recognize the value of SotG. I think our honourable Major Idiot recently has shown what that should be about, but also that the phrase is so loose that it can be referred to by a trickster as well. Both Donsig and Strider has explicitly stated that conning other, by any means, is an integral part of the game, i.e. "in the spirit of the game".

I voted for the "spirit of the game" option, since I think thats quite important, and you can't play well without the spirit anyways. IT's something abstract that glues everything together.


Tomasz

I voted for a spirit of the game ammendment. The purpose of this is to have fun. And while I don't object to the detailed changes they are porposing, I think a 'spirit of the game' ammendment gives the admins the authority and flexibility to bounce someone if they need to.

The problem with eliminating it is that getting rid of someone might require such a high degree of proof that it is impractical/impossible.

I've been impressed with the admins so far and have no problem giving them some operational flexibility with a spirit of the game ammendment.

I voted Yes. I think "spirit of the rules" is good enough. It also doesn't let people like donsig and Strider the ability to get away with trickery, which is not in the "spirit of the rules", but could be argued to be in the "spirit of the game".

Oh, and...why do the percentages add up to 110%? :confused:


Yes 2 20.00%
No 1 10.00%
Abstain 0 0%
Make an amendment with "spirit of the game" included 8 80.00%

I voted Yes. I think "spirit of the rules" is good enough. It also doesn't let people like donsig and Strider the ability to get away with trickery, which is not in the "spirit of the rules", but could be argued to be in the "spirit of the game".

Oh, and...why do the percentages add up to 110%? :confused:

It is what % of all people voted for stuff in that poll. 8/10 = 80%, 2/10 = 20%, 1/10 = 10%.

A 3 option poll could add up to 300% if all people voted for all options.

Ah, that's right. It's a Multiple Choice Poll. :crazyeye: :lol: Thanks, GA.

I messed this up good.

If you want the amendment as is without "Spirit of the Game" it's YES.
If not it's NO.
Our amended version which everyone voted for adds "Spirit of the game" to the new one and then we'd vote YES.

Ginger Ale should we post our amended version before the final vote or after the final vote?

I voted for adding "spirit of the game" meaning, if that phrase is not included, I would vote no. With it added, then yes.

In the usual (and painful, sorry but they are) propositions/amendments formal comitee discussion I've been in, it's typical to vote against first with the consideration made clear (so that people see where you're going and why you vote no and why you think they should too) and, after, propose a different amendment to see if it gets support. If it doesn't, someone else puts forth a third amendment, etc.

Bede votes "yes" as written.

Given the choice I will always avoid abstractions like "SotG". There is a certain element that will always "sea lawyer" those abstractions into something you don't like and wouldn't agree to.

The vote is going towards yes 4-1 and Bede has made a very good point.
Can these people give me a yes or no and I will vote in the UN.
-Tomasz-, Beorn-eL-Feared, Butterball, gmaharriet, Kickbooti, Nikodemus, Pentium, Tubby Rower

We can always make a separate spirit of the game ruling based on the admins interpretations or just leave it out.

Bede always makes good points, and I suppose a "certain element" would start redefining "spirit". :rolleyes: Ok, you've got a yes from me.

yes :) . .

I still like Spirit of the Game. But push comes to shove - yes

I will answer in the presence of my lawyer :ar15:

Need Spirit amendment.

Without the sotg, definitely no.

As far as I can see, the chance that the admins interpret the sotg as something too unpleasant is simply negligible compared to the chance that the "certain elements" start using any loophole they can find in the rules without any fear of punishment.

ok I have 7-2 for yes and a request for representation from an attorney. I will vote this tomorrow so vote or forever hold you peace.

I think we should add another amendment that goes something like this.

Spirit of the Game Amendment --This rule that is solely controlled by the administrators. The rule gives the adminstrators operational flexibility to punish a team or player for what is construed as the "unfun" or "unnecessary". Violation of this rule is a warning and then at the administrators discretion, authority and flexibility to get rid of "unfun elements" of the MTDG.

Would that be a completely separate addition to the rules? I think it's a terrific idea!!!

Let the admins decide when action needs to be taken to quell the rioting of the 2 or 3 teams who are feeling mis-treated and not given enough luxes to keep them happy. :mischief: