Jump to content

Nomic [Resurrected]


Gears

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

I agree with 301.

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

Yup. Current rules are you can only put rule changes to vote when it's your turn - which I think is after xino, me, and then TLP.

If you want you could 'suggest' rules (ie they aren't up for vote) so that other players could maybe incorporate them early (especially since we can suggest up to 3 now). Discussing those might be fun while we wait for stuff to happen.

On that note: people have suggested changing how one gets points, unanimity rules, and looking how we deal with 'activity' so we don't get stuck waiting for people to take that turn if that ever becomes an issue,


That's Danex's turn! As per rule 202, he gets ((301 - 291)*(6 / 6) = 10) 10 points. (I put it on the rules doc just so we have somewhere to keep track of game state.) 301 passes by unanimous vote; now people can put up to three rule changes to a vote each turn.

It's xino's turn. I think he's now asleep, so when he wakes I'm sure there will be a flurry of activity.

Edited by MetaTerminal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay so that’s unanimous so 301 gets approved, rule 202 is amended and renamed 301, and I get.....quickmaths...... 10 points?

and I see all of that has been recorded in the rules doc already. Ok cool. 
 

Edit 1:
ah didn’t see the new page, now I’m doubly redundant. Redundantly redundant. 

Edit 2:
Couple random ideas that people can steal on their turn if they want: I think we should do away with turns completely and instead just say that you can’t post a rule-change unless there’s (1/3 * no. of players) rule changes between you and your last rule change. With this many players, there’d need to be 2 other suggested RC before you can post another one. If this is implemented we should do away with the up to 3 sugs in one post. 

Edited by Danex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Danex said:

Okay so that’s unanimous so 301 gets approved, rule 202 is amended and renamed 301, and I get.....quickmaths...... 10 points?

and I see all of that has been recorded in the rules doc already. Ok cool. 
 

ah didn’t see the new page, now I’m doubly redundant. Redundantly redundant. 

Always good to know my calculations are correct! Also, you're now technically in the lead to win. Probably not for long though. Savor it while it lasts.

I missed the small note that amended rules gain the number of their amendments. That's a cool thing and probably helpful. These base rules are actually a lot better than I gave them credit for way back when.

Edit responding to your edit: 

9 minutes ago, Danex said:

Couple random ideas that people can steal on their turn if they want: I think we should do away with turns completely and instead just say that you can’t post a rule-change unless there’s (1/3 * no. of players) rule changes between you and your last rule change. With this many players, there’d need to be 2 other suggested RC before you can post another one. If this is implemented we should do away with the up to 3 sugs in one post. 

This could work with some adjustment. Turns (ie someone having 'control' at any one time) are helpful to make sure all proposals are considered/voted on, at least to achieve majority for or against. Might also help in the future if we implement a board state or something to track time and how often people can move (even if it's as simple as 'you may move once every turn, including on other player's turns'). Maybe you can 'take' a turn after x% of other players take a turn after you, and once someone claims a turn it's their turn, and it has to be followed through to the end with other people voting and points being allocated. Prevents one person getting busy and holding everything else up, but keeps the benefits of the structure.

Edited by MetaTerminal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is now my turn!

First proposed rule change is an amendment to rule 203.

Rule 302. A rule-change is adopted if and only a majority of the eligible voters vote for it.

Second proposed rule change is an amendment to rule 204.

Rule 303. If 24 hours elapse without a post from a player on their turn, they may be skipped. If a player is skipped twice without posting, they will be considered inactive until they post again. Inactives are not considered players for the duration of their inactivity (i.e. no vote, no turn); however, any stats (e.g. points, turn order) will be restored upon reinstatement of their player status. Players that do not post within 24 hours of a vote beginning will be rendered inactive for the duration of that vote.

Final proposed rule change is an amendment to rule 206.

Rule 304. Players may propose 'contracts' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have; however, if the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

Before the vote begins, I would like to hear people's opinions on these rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like rule 302, should probably be changed to the term “simple majority” though, for consistency.

Rule 303 makes sense, but I like my proposed method for dealing with inactivity better. Also, I don’t see what this has to do with rule 204. This amendment doesn’t make any sense in the context of 204:

Quote

If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

Did you mean 104?

Quote

All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

That makes a bit more sense.

Rule 304 seems too convoluted for the time being, I think we still have to fix a lot of the basic rules before we start on stuff like that. For example, rule 301 and 111 cause a potential mild paradox, as 301 says multiple proposals are allowed while 111 says they aren’t. And 111 will be hard to change as we need to first propose it loses immutability and then we need to propose an amendment. As of right now both of those will need unanimous votes.  

Edited by Danex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

Final proposed rule change is an amendment to rule 206.

Rule 304. Players may propose 'contracts' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have; however, if the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

Before the vote begins, I would like to hear people's opinions on these rules.

Why is the third rule an amendment to 206? They have nothing in common. Also, I think we should first make sure that this game is balanced before making rules relating to the transfer of points.

I offer a replacement:

304: If the voting for a particular rule is incomplete, the next player may take their turn, but only after they have voted for all the already proposed rules.

EDIT:

 

38 minutes ago, Danex said:

Rule 304 seems too convoluted for the time being, I think we still have to fix a lot of the basic rules before we start on stuff like that. For example, rule 301 and 111 cause a potential mild paradox, as 301 says multiple proposals are allowed while 111 says they aren’t. And 111 will be hard to change as we need to first propose it loses immutability and then we need to propose an amendment. As of right now both of those will need unanimous votes.  

111 merely says that one rule change cannot consist of two or more componded rule changes. It says nothing about how many rule changes are allowed in a turn(which is what 301 changes)

Edited by The_Truthwatcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

111 merely says that one rule change cannot consist of two or more componded rule changes. It says nothing about how many rule changes are allowed in a turn(which is what 301 changes)

I think that line is a bit too blurry. 

Also, yeah I think Xino’s last 2 amendments, 303 and 304, have little to do with with laws they’re amending, 204 and 206, respectively. 
 

 

Also, may I propose a quick, meta, hot-fix, not really official style rule? Can we all just agree that we can double post instead of editing our messages? In a game like this, edits get confusing quickly. 

Edited by Danex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's like four methods of proposed turn-going here, this might get chaotic :P

And yeah, not sure why 204 and 206 are relevant. We'll want to fix that.

14 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

First proposed rule change is an amendment to rule 203.

Rule 302. A rule-change is adopted if and only a majority of the eligible voters vote for it.

I like this, agree it should be 'simple majority'.

14 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

Second proposed rule change is an amendment to rule 204.

Rule 303. If 24 hours elapse without a post from a player on their turn, they may be skipped. If a player is skipped twice without posting, they will be considered inactive until they post again. Inactives are not considered players for the duration of their inactivity (i.e. no vote, no turn); however, any stats (e.g. points, turn order) will be restored upon reinstatement of their player status. Players that do not post within 24 hours of a vote beginning will be rendered inactive for the duration of that vote.

I like this - I think distinguishing between who is active and inactive will be helpful even if we do away with turns just to help with voting (so proposals can still get passed even if, say, half the players stop playing). I built on Danex's proposal above in a way that I think is helpful (ie we don't do away with turns entirely) that can probably be an amendment to this rule if we want to enact it.

26 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

Final proposed rule change is an amendment to rule 206.

Rule 304. Players may propose 'contracts' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have; however, if the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

I like this, actually. I think we can start forming the game even as we sort out the other stuff. Three proposals per turn allows for that.

However, the maximum is set at 9E999, which is... a lot. Do we want to keep this? Seems like fun. I'd vote for it. We'd want to change the win state though, since we can currently surpass it by 997 orders of magnitude.

We'd also want to work out pretty quickly why people would want to set contracts: what benefits could one gain that would be worth losing points (and putting someone else closer to winning)? Are there items? Is there a board? Alternate currencies? Are there multiple winstates?

I'd also like to say that if we're keeping turns, we might want to set things like 'actions per turn', say: you can make a maximum of one contract per turn (including other players' turns), you have to specifically 'claim' fulfillment of a contract on a different turn than the contract was made (to prevent lots of exchanges all in one go and clear up the order of actions a bit), contracts are considered null after x turns (maybe x can be set by the contracter?). This is keeping in line with my idea of 'there should be turns, even if the turn order is malleable'.

7 minutes ago, Danex said:

For example, rule 301 and 111 cause a potential mild paradox, as 301 says multiple proposals are allowed while 111 says they aren’t. And 111 will be hard to change as we need to first propose it loses immutability and then we need to propose an amendment. As of right now both of those will need unanimous votes.  

This initially caused me alarm, but actually I do think we're in the clear: 111 is specifically talking about if one of the rule-changes is arguably two changes rolled into one, not prohibiting multiple rule-changes per turn. If it did contradict though then xino would still only be able to suggest one per turn since 111 takes precedence. 

See: "If a rule-change as proposed...arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded...then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." Emphasis mine. It's specifically talking about individual rule changes acting as 'double-ups', not prohibiting people suggesting more than one individually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Danex said:

Also, may I propose a quick, meta, hot-fix, not really official style rule? Can we all just agree that we can double post instead of editing our messages? In a game like this, edits get confusing quickly. 

+1. I'm happy to start doubleposting; this is particularly if other people are viewing the thread. If nobody is, it's probably fine to edit.

30 minutes ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

304: If the voting for a particular rule is incomplete, the next player may take their turn, but only after they have voted for all the already proposed rules.

EDIT:

I vote for 302.

In accordance with 111, I don't know if voting has started yet, and we'd want to fix the 'amendment' bit anyway first. Could you... withdraw your vote? Is that a thing?

I think your version of 304 (which isn't actually 304) will get chaotic and rules will get left behind. But that's my opinion and maybe the logistics will work out.

1 minute ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

There is a problem.

P303 must amend 105:

This will require atleast 2 rule changes. (3 if we want to make it immutable once again)

Hey, you're right. The interesting thing is, if we make it mutable, and then next turn I amend it and then make it immutable with two rule proposals, what's the ordering for those actions to be enacted? Simultaneously is something I suppose could work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I edited my post to withdraw(?) my vote. At the time, I had not realized that 302 would have problems.

3 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

I think your version of 304 (which isn't actually 304) will get chaotic and rules will get left behind. But that's my opinion and maybe the logistics will work out.

Good point. I think a better way might be to dispense with the turn order completely instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, here’s an interesting thing. 303 doesn’t contradict 105 at all. So there’s no issue.

105 says that all players are eligible voters and must participate in every vote. 303 gets around this by saying inactive people aren’t players, and therefore aren’t obligated to vote. Tricky, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update!

42 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

Rule 302. A rule-change is adopted if and only a majority of the eligible voters vote for it.

Rule 302. A rule-change is adopted if and only a simple majority of the eligible voters vote for it.

This rule is now open for voting. I vote for. Current votes: 1/6.

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

Rule 304. Players may propose 'contracts' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have; however, if the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

Rule 304. At any time, players may propose a 'contract' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have; however, if the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

1 hour ago, Danex said:

Couple random ideas that people can steal on their turn if they want: I think we should do away with turns completely and instead just say that you can’t post a rule-change unless there’s (1/3 * no. of players) rule changes between you and your last rule change. With this many players, there’d need to be 2 other suggested RC before you can post another one. If this is implemented we should do away with the up to 3 sugs in one post. 

1 hour ago, MetaTerminal said:

This could work with some adjustment. Turns (ie someone having 'control' at any one time) are helpful to make sure all proposals are considered/voted on, at least to achieve majority for or against. Might also help in the future if we implement a board state or something to track time and how often people can move (even if it's as simple as 'you may move once every turn, including on other player's turns'). Maybe you can 'take' a turn after x% of other players take a turn after you, and once someone claims a turn it's their turn, and it has to be followed through to the end with other people voting and points being allocated. Prevents one person getting busy and holding everything else up, but keeps the benefits of the structure.

I was actually thinking on similar lines. Turns have kind of grown on me, actually, but I'd be down for a change like Meta suggests. That would require an amendment to 201, though, so I won't be doing it this turn.

40 minutes ago, Danex said:

Did you mean 104?

No, as 104 is immutable and cannot be amended.

43 minutes ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

Why is the third rule an amendment to 206? They have nothing in common.

36 minutes ago, Danex said:

Also, yeah I think Xino’s last 2 amendments, 303 and 304, have little to do with with laws they’re amending, 204 and 206, respectively. 

16 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

And yeah, not sure why 204 and 206 are relevant. We'll want to fix that.

Technically speaking, there's nothing that says that amendment can't completely change a rule. I don't like rule 204- I feel that the game should be more cooperative than competitive (at least, in the early stages). I see no reason why we shouldn't kill two birds with one stone, in order to progress as quickly as possible out of the 'groundwork' stage.

Rule 206 is getting amended because it could cause negative points, which I don't want to mix with the debt system. I also dislike it because losing a vote already means you get less points, which should be punishment enough.

30 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

However, the maximum is set at 9E999, which is... a lot. Do we want to keep this?

Why not? :P

1 hour ago, Danex said:

For example, rule 301 and 111 cause a potential mild paradox, as 301 says multiple proposals are allowed while 111 says they aren’t. And 111 will be hard to change as we need to first propose it loses immutability and then we need to propose an amendment. As of right now both of those will need unanimous votes.  

1 hour ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

111 merely says that one rule change cannot consist of two or more componded rule changes. It says nothing about how many rule changes are allowed in a turn(which is what 301 changes)

34 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

This initially caused me alarm, but actually I do think we're in the clear: 111 is specifically talking about if one of the rule-changes is arguably two changes rolled into one, not prohibiting multiple rule-changes per turn. If it did contradict though then xino would still only be able to suggest one per turn since 111 takes precedence. 

See: "If a rule-change as proposed...arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded...then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." Emphasis mine. It's specifically talking about individual rule changes acting as 'double-ups', not prohibiting people suggesting more than one individually.

Actually, I don't think rule 111 is the cause of the prohibition- that would go to rule 103 and 104, I think:

Quote

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

So rule changes can't be adopted except as individual things.

1 hour ago, Danex said:

Also, may I propose a quick, meta, hot-fix, not really official style rule? Can we all just agree that we can double post instead of editing our messages? In a game like this, edits get confusing quickly. 

I'm down. Double-posting is fine in this subforum anyways.

40 minutes ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

There is a problem.

P303 must amend 105:

This will require atleast 2 rule changes. (3 if we want to make it immutable once again)

16 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

Oh, here’s an interesting thing. 303 doesn’t contradict 105 at all. So there’s no issue.

105 says that all players are eligible voters and must participate in every vote. 303 gets around this by saying inactive people aren’t players, and therefore aren’t obligated to vote. Tricky, eh?

Aha, you spotted it. :D Yes, that is exactly why I specified that.

37 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

Hey, you're right. The interesting thing is, if we make it mutable, and then next turn I amend it and then make it immutable with two rule proposals, what's the ordering for those actions to be enacted? Simultaneously is something I suppose could work.

I think that it would make sense for them to happen one after another- after all, it wouldn't make much sense if the vote to amend it passed but the vote to make it mutable didn't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote 302 (Meta rule: I propose we use green to indicate for and blue to indicate against). Edited to reduce confusion

16 hours ago, xinoehp512 said:

Aha, you spotted it. :D Yes, that is exactly why I specified that.

Clever!

But your P303 and P304 now run afoul of 111, i.e. they consist of two compounded rule changes. 

 

Also, 301 is an amendment of 202. Do we want that to reflect in the Doc?

Edited by The_Truthwatcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

Rule 302. A rule-change is adopted if and only a simple majority of the eligible voters vote for it.

I vote for. Current votes: 3/6. @Gears@The Last Post@Danex are remaining.

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

Rule 304. At any time, players may propose a 'contract' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have; however, if the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

I'd be interested to see if we wanted this tied to turns but I don't really have strong opinions one way or the other. I'd probably vote for. Let's get some game mechanics in here!

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

I was actually thinking on similar lines. Turns have kind of grown on me, actually, but I'd be down for a change like Meta suggests. That would require an amendment to 201, though, so I won't be doing it this turn.

Oh oh oh. On that note, 303 probably has to be an amendment of 201 anyway (or must specifically overrule it, which 211 allows - otherwise 201 takes precedence) since 201 states that no turns may be skipped. If we're going to open that to a vote, you'll want to make that change.Abolition of turn order is an interesting concept: I've also become fine with it, so maybe it's an idea to bring up at a late date once we sort out the immediately pressing stuff.

Also:  "Players that do not post within 24 hours of a vote beginning will be rendered inactive for the duration of that vote" creates a specific edge case: someone not posting in the first 24 hours of a vote, then returning just after, means they are unable to undertake any actions until that vote is resolved. That includes voting for other, unrelated proposals, and anything else that requires you to be a player. Is that undesirable?

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

Technically speaking, there's nothing that says that amendment can't completely change a rule. I don't like rule 204- I feel that the game should be more cooperative than competitive (at least, in the early stages). I see no reason why we shouldn't kill two birds with one stone, in order to progress as quickly as possible out of the 'groundwork' stage.

Rule 206 is getting amended because it could cause negative points, which I don't want to mix with the debt system. I also dislike it because losing a vote already means you get less points, which should be punishment enough.

1 hour ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

Clever!

But your P303 and P304 now run afoul of 111, i.e. they consist of two compounded rule changes. 

111 allows for debate when a rule "arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded" (which we're already doing anyway) but ultimately doesn't prohibit a two-in-one rule being passed. So xino is correct.

It is ultimately up to you. However, I would just say that someone might potentially like your new rules, but also want to keep 204 or 206, which means that they might want to vote against it and wait for a version to be proposed that didn't replace their wanted rules. (This is what I would argue constitutes as two rule-changes; the repealing of the original rule and the implementation of the new one - someone might want one but not the other).

Personally: I'm fine with 204 either standing or going. I don't think it creates too much of an issue. If you vote against a proposal, and then it doesn't pass, you don't get any points - and also people get mad at you :P I think it adds a bit of strategy. You only vote against a proposal if you're pretty sure everyone else will vote for it. (But I can also envision weird loopholes in conjunction with a separate 303, so... maybe a bad idea.)

As for 206: it does serve a purpose, which is making sure that people create sound proposals and listen to others before they go ahead, but 301 already does that with the 'multiply by fraction of favourable votes' element, so I'm fine with this going. Or, if you're worried about debt, being superseded by 303: you could say something like players can't have less than 0 points... maybe the debt is incurred to a non-player character, who is a kind of 'enforcer', and can't win the game. Future rules can decide how these points are doled out. Like free parking!

TL;DR I'm fine with keeping these as amending 204 and 206, but if other people have problems let's make them separate. It's not forbidden, just explicitly has to be discussed beforehand.

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

Why not? :P

2 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

Seems like fun. I'd vote for it. We'd want to change the win state though, since we can currently surpass it by 997 orders of magnitude.

We agree! And see my previous comments about implementing reasons to enact contracts.

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

So rule changes can't be adopted except as individual things.

I don't see the contradiction here: none of these rules says anything about how many rule-changes there can be per turn, which 301 now purely handles.

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

Aha, you spotted it. :D Yes, that is exactly why I specified that.

Had a feeling it was intentional. Nice work.

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

I think that it would make sense for them to happen one after another- after all, it wouldn't make much sense if the vote to amend it passed but the vote to make it mutable didn't.

Mmm. We might need to invoke Judgement if this case happens, since the rules are silent. And then make a rule explicitly listing what happens in accordance (or disagreement, maybe) with that decision.

1 hour ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

I vote 302 (Meta rule: I propose we use red to indicate for and blue to indicate against)

Meta rule? Oh, nevermind.

Wouldn't green as for and red as against make a lot more sense? Then blue can be "I pressed the wrong button on the color picker and didn't notice".

1 hour ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

Also, 301 is an amendment of 202. Do we want that to reflect in the Doc?

I believe it is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

Wouldn't green as for and red as against make a lot more sense? Then blue can be "I pressed the wrong button on the color picker and didn't notice".

Green and Red are too similar and cause a lot of confusion(to me at least, but I think that green-red colorblindness is fairly common). I choose red as for because xinoeph was already using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xino has been using red as additions to rule changes/amendments or emphasis, but he's used green to vote 'for' twice now (for both 301 and 302). 

The red-green colourblind thing is a great point, though. Green as for, blue as against, red as (optionally) suggested changes to rules? That seems to be in line with what xino has been doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for 302

I do not vote for 303 or 304

Also, I think 302 might cause a problem with turning immutable rules mutable. I think that should still be a unanimous decision but 302 could be interpreted as only needed a majority to transmute a rule. I still vote for it though. I wonder if we should mess with non-simple majorities in the future. Like we say you need a 2/3s majority for “X”.

Also, I had some ideas for how to make the rules doc a little better, but I gtg so I’ll type them out later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that amendments should be classified as alterations to the original rules that relate to the original rule. You can propose these as new rules, or negate a previous rule and propose these as new rules, but as those rules stand, they are 2 rule changes [a negation and a new rule] in one and are thus invalid. Also, I think that each rule should be voted for in sequence [rule 302, then rule 303, then rule 304] rather than people voting for them all at once. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

But your P303 and P304 now run afoul of 111, i.e. they consist of two compounded rule changes. 

2 minutes ago, Gears said:

As those rules stand, they are 2 rule changes [a negation and a new rule] in one and are thus invalid.

6 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

This is what I would argue constitutes as two rule-changes; the repealing of the original rule and the implementation of the new one - someone might want one but not the other

To quote the rules:

Quote

A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

"Amendment" is not defined specifically anywhere but can be implicitly assumed to mean a change to an existing rule.

I can update the amendments in question to make them hopefully less questionable:

Rule 303. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

The preceding paragraph does not apply to games by mail or computer.

If 24 hours elapse without a post from a player on their turn, they may be skipped. If a player is skipped twice without posting, they will be considered inactive until they post again. Inactives are not considered players for the duration of their inactivity (i.e. no vote, no turn); however, any stats (e.g. points, turn order) will be restored upon reinstatement of their player status. Players that do not post within 24 hours of a vote beginning will be rendered inactive for the duration of that vote.

 

Rule 304. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

The preceding paragraph does not apply to games by mail or computer.

At any time, players may propose a 'contract' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have; however, if the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

As the proposed rule changes now solely add content to the rules in question, I feel that they clearly fall within the definition of a single rule-change. The question is not whether it can be done; the question is whether it should be done.

27 minutes ago, Gears said:

I think that amendments should be classified as alterations to the original rules that relate to the original rule.

The issue with this is that this is a subjective distinction, which is a problem with something that's likely going to be happening on a regular basis.

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

It is ultimately up to you. However, I would just say that someone might potentially like your new rules, but also want to keep 204 or 206, which means that they might want to vote against it and wait for a version to be proposed that didn't replace their wanted rules. (This is what I would argue constitutes as two rule-changes; the repealing of the original rule and the implementation of the new one - someone might want one but not the other).

Does anybody want to argue for keeping rule 204 or 206?

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

Personally: I'm fine with 204 either standing or going. I don't think it creates too much of an issue. If you vote against a proposal, and then it doesn't pass, you don't get any points - and also people get mad at you :P I think it adds a bit of strategy. You only vote against a proposal if you're pretty sure everyone else will vote for it.

While I agree with this, I don't want to deal with that right now :P. It also encourages people to not openly state how they plan to vote before the vote begins, which is bad for discussion and amendment. Either that or people would wait to see how everyone else votes before casting their own, which would add unnecessary delay. Overall, I think it would harm the game, at least in the early stages.

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

Oh oh oh. On that note, 303 probably has to be an amendment of 201 anyway (or must specifically overrule it, which 211 allows - otherwise 201 takes precedence) since 201 states that no turns may be skipped. If we're going to open that to a vote, you'll want to make that change.Abolition of turn order is an interesting concept: I've also become fine with it, so maybe it's an idea to bring up at a late date once we sort out the immediately pressing stuff.

Hmm. Good point. Luckily, Danex's rule change makes turns optional.

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

Also:  "Players that do not post within 24 hours of a vote beginning will be rendered inactive for the duration of that vote" creates a specific edge case: someone not posting in the first 24 hours of a vote, then returning just after, means they are unable to undertake any actions until that vote is resolved. That includes voting for other, unrelated proposals, and anything else that requires you to be a player. Is that undesirable?

Inactivity is intended to end as soon as a player wishes to rejoin. Since player joining is unregulated, I didn't bother to state that unilaterally. However, I will clarify it to exclude that situation.

Rule 303. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

The preceding paragraph does not apply to games by mail or computer.

If 24 hours elapse without a post from a player on their turn, (and a vote is not currently in progress) their turn may be declared over. If a player goes two turns (of their own) without posting, they will be considered inactive until they post again. Inactives are not considered players for the duration of their inactivity (i.e. no vote, no turn); however, any stats (e.g. points, turn order) will be restored upon reinstatement of their player status. Players that do not post within 24 hours of a vote beginning will be rendered inactive for the duration of that vote, or until they post.

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

As for 206: it does serve a purpose, which is making sure that people create sound proposals and listen to others before they go ahead, but 301 already does that with the 'multiply by fraction of favourable votes' element, so I'm fine with this going. Or, if you're worried about debt, being superseded by 303: you could say something like players can't have less than 0 points... maybe the debt is incurred to a non-player character, who is a kind of 'enforcer', and can't win the game. Future rules can decide how these points are doled out. Like free parking!

The rule is also intended to prevent negative points being incurred. But I'll double it up to make sure.

Rule 304. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

The preceding paragraph does not apply to games by mail or computer.

At any time, players may propose a 'contract' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have. This rule supersedes all rules that contradict the preceding sentence. If the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

We agree! And see my previous comments about implementing reasons to enact contracts.

Well to start with, we can bribe each other to vote for our proposals. :P 

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I don't see the contradiction here: none of these rules says anything about how many rule-changes there can be per turn, which 301 now purely handles.

It stops a rule change from including something like "this rule revokes rule x," as that would be a separate rule change.

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

Mmm. We might need to invoke Judgement if this case happens, since the rules are silent. And then make a rule explicitly listing what happens in accordance (or disagreement, maybe) with that decision.

I mean, it's up to the player to decide in what order the votes would take place. I would imagine it would make sense to do them one after another, as if the first fails then the other two are void, and they'd have wasted their turn.

1 hour ago, Danex said:

I do not vote for 303 or 304

Well, the votes for those proposals have yet to begin. But care to explain why you plan to vote against them?

@Danex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Danex said:

Also, I think 302 might cause a problem with turning immutable rules mutable. I think that should still be a unanimous decision but 302 could be interpreted as only needed a majority to transmute a rule. I still vote for it though. I wonder if we should mess with non-simple majorities in the future. Like we say you need a 2/3s majority for “X”.

Quote

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

This rule supersedes all rules that contradict the preceding sentence. 

Quote

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

As immutable rules supersede mutable rules, you may wish to add the word "mutable" between "all" and "rules", as without this, your rule would be in conflict with an immutable rule and be rendered void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Gears said:

As immutable rules supersede mutable rules, you may wish to add the word "mutable" between "all" and "rules", as without this, your rule would be in conflict with an immutable rule and be rendered void.

Fair, although to be honest that rule does seem a bit extreme. We might want to change that.

37 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

Rule 304. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

The preceding paragraph does not apply to games by mail or computer.

At any time, players may propose a 'contract' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have. This rule supersedes all rules that contradict the preceding sentence. If the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

Rule 304. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

The preceding paragraph does not apply to games by mail or computer.

At any time, players may propose a 'contract' composed of two parts, a condition and a reward (in a number of points). The number of points in the reward must be able to be represented by no more than five of the characters '0123456789.E' (where E represents *10^) If a player satisfies the condition, the number of points in the reward will be transferred from the contract maker to the contract fulfiller. Players may not lose points that they do not have. This rule supersedes all mutable rules that contradict the preceding sentence. If the full amount of a contract cannot be paid, debt will instead be incurred. Points awarded to a player in debt to a second player will instead be awarded to that second player until the full amount of the debt is repaid. If a player incurs multiple debts, they will be repaid in the order that they were incurred.

17 minutes ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

I think we should keep 204 and 206. There is no reason to remove them and they probably help in game balancing.

If I may ask, what do you think of mine and Meta's arguments in favor of removing them?

@The_Truthwatcher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...