Nomic [Resurrected]

[xinoehp512]

4 minutes ago, Danex said:

I think that would have to be a separate amendment for maybe a different rule.

No, it's that rule that limits you to only one rule proposal per turn. For instance, it could say "may propose one or more rule changes", and that would let you propose as many rules as you like.

[danex]

11 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

No, it's that rule that limits you to only one rule proposal per turn. For instance, it could say "may propose one or more rule changes", and that would let you propose as many rules as you like.

Okay, I can change my original proposal, but only because nobody has voted on it yet. If someone had voted we’d have to wait for the amendment to either be passed or be denied before we could amend it again. Also I’m pretty sure unanimous votes are required for the first 2 rounds. 
 

Edit: decided to say up to 3 changes because the potential for like 10 proposals made is too much. Also I think someone else edited in strikethroughs? Maybe I miss clicked something idk. I’m on mobile so stuff breaks.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Danex

[MetaTerminal]

Just posting to give my blessing, say good luck, and comment that you’re a braver group than I to use the official rules rather than the much simpler (admittedly probably too simple) set... Maybe the first round of action could be to start moulding the official rule set to your own preferences.

I might do a writeup of the original game for people here if there was interest. As for joining... I’ll think about it. I probably can’t spearhead it like I did the last so if I were to play it would be to a lesser degree. Still, excited to see how this plays out!

EDIT: And I like the idea of a rules doc. That seems... in hindsight, obvious.

Edited July 15, 2020 by MetaTerminal

[+Doomstick]

39 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

Just posting to give my blessing, say good luck, and comment that you’re a braver group than I to use the official rules rather than the much simpler (admittedly probably too simple) set... Maybe the first round of action could be to start moulding the official rule set to your own preferences.

I might do a writeup of the original game for people here if there was interest. As for joining... I’ll think about it. I probably can’t spearhead it like I did the last so if I were to play it would be to a lesser degree. Still, excited to see how this plays out!

EDIT: And I like the idea of a rules doc. That seems... in hindsight, obvious.

To be honest, I think the open ended-ness of those rules (indirectly causing winning to be an impossibility) was what killed the game, if we used the official ones, rule 16 would not have happened (you know what I mean here)

 

also, I think that the original amendment would work better, as otherwise people could get upwards of 40 points on the third turn, even with three rule changes per turn

Edited July 15, 2020 by The Last Post

[MetaTerminal]

1 hour ago, The Last Post said:

To be honest, I think the open ended-ness of those rules (indirectly causing winning to be an impossibility) was what killed the game, if we used the official ones, rule 16 would not have happened (you know what I mean here)

Agreed. We have a more complicated set now but it will be better in the long run I think.

What the heck, count me in. Do we want to include a player list and ordering in the rules doc? And maybe make the doc-editing status to ‘suggestions’ so that we can add amendments while xino is away.

3 hours ago, Danex said:

Okay then, Majority Rules, the official rules will be the ruleset for this dynasty. 

For my first turn I propose rule 301: (That is how the numbering system works right?)

That rule 202 be amended as such:

One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) If the player wishes to, they may propose [up to 3] rule-change and have [them] voted on, and (2)...[rest is same]

 

Votes in favor of this rule:
1/5

I also suggest that one of the next players amend gaining points in general as the current system (rest of rule 202) is intentionally boring and meant to be changed.

I think the 3-rule thing is fine, since we’ll probably be changing the point gain method anyway, so it’s unlikely anyone will hit 200 points by the time that change is made.

I vote for 301 in its current form (which means it can’t be changed anymore, I think? I’ll withdraw my vote if we want it edited), and invite others ( @Gears @The Last Post @The_Truthwatcher @xinoehp512) to do the same. Once all three (edit: four) respond either explicitly voting for/against then Danex collects his points and then it’s Gears’ turn. And then mine!

I agree with the suggestion as well. Maybe Gears should do that.

Edited July 15, 2020 by MetaTerminal

[theTruthshaper]

I am going to play this, but everybody is probably asleep right now so we will see.

[Gears]

I approve rule 301.

[xinoehp512]

I will put my vote for rule 301.

Also, the doc has been updated to allow suggestions, and a player list has been added.

Edited July 15, 2020 by xinoehp512

[+Doomstick]

Ah why not! I vote yea!

[MetaTerminal]

That’s five! We need unanimity so @The_Truthwatcher will need to vote for six. (Or vote against, in which case it doesn’t pass.)

(We should probably also change that. Majority rules?)

Also also, I got the turn order wrong. It’s xino’s turn next.

Edited July 15, 2020 by MetaTerminal

[+Doomstick]

It’s not xino’s turn! The order is alphabetical! 

[MetaTerminal]

2 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

It’s not xino’s turn! The order is alphabetical! 

xino and Gears changed it before the game started, and the rules doc reflects that I think. It’s by user ID number now (which honestly probably works better, since names can be easily changed). So it would be xino’s turn next.

[+Doomstick]

1 minute ago, MetaTerminal said:

xino and Gears changed it before the game started, and the rules doc reflects that I think. It’s by user ID number now (which honestly probably works better, since names can be easily changed). So it would be xino’s turn next.

Oh! Where do you find the ID number?
does the ID reflect the join date?

Edited July 16, 2020 by The Last Post

[Gears]

Just now, The Last Post said:

Oh! Where do you find the ID number?
does the ID reflect the join date?

It's the number in the URL of the user's profile. Yes.

[+Doomstick]

Join date is easier to compare, let’s do that (and it’s the same)

Edited July 16, 2020 by The Last Post
Spelling

[Gears]

@The_Truthwatcher you still have not voted. 

[MetaTerminal]

4 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

Join dare is easier to compare, let’s do that (and it’s the same)

The order of play is in the rules doc with the ID number so I imagine it's functionally the same. Also, wait your turn for rule changes

Interesting problem presented by activity here. We're currently waiting on Truthwatcher just to vote, and they haven't been online for a while - then it would be xino's turn, and hopefully they're still around. But we can't skip any parts of the turn, so if Truthwatcher is a player, then we have to wait for their vote.

Potential solution: we say that Truthwatcher is not yet a player (given their future tense of 'going to play') and then move on to @xinoehp512's turn. Or we wait. I'm happy to do either.

If xino has logged off for the day then Truthwatcher will probably rejoin before xino does, so it doesn't matter functionally what we pick.

Edited July 16, 2020 by MetaTerminal

[Gears]

xino's not online either! "Last visited 44 minutes ago" If xino gets on before Truthwatcher gets back, we'll move on.

[MetaTerminal]

I agree. Then it's a race between xino and Truthwatcher... who will win? 

[theTruthshaper]

*wins*

[Gears]

1 minute ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

*wins*

Your vote, please.

[theTruthshaper]

Let's play with the official rules.

When are we starting?

[Gears]

Now. A rule was already proposed. 

[MetaTerminal]

4 minutes ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

Let's play with the official rules.

When are we starting?

TL:DR read rule 301 and vote for/against, then Danex gets his points, and then it's xino's turn. Who probably just went to bed, so hooray for more waiting!

In the meantime, if we want to do something, we could talk about what rules we want to start to implement. xino gets three suggestions.

I suggest first unanimity, and activity rules to be changed, so that we minimise the number of times we get stuck in the future. If we wait for 24 hours and someone doesn't take their turn (or vote), we should be able to move on. And point gaining should be different, though we might need to come up with ideas for that.

[theTruthshaper]

I agree with 301.

I have an idea for a couple of rule changes, but we have to wait for it, yes?