Nomic - A Forum Game

[+Doomstick]

sign up for riddles! I'm making a pm 

[Hemalurgic Headshot]

I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Exception. The Wandering Merchant Exception has the following clauses:

1. A player posting for the first time in the thread "Nomic - A Forum Game" [hereafter referred to as the Thread] is considered a "Wandering Merchant." After their first post, a player must not post at all in the Thread for no less than 24 hours or until two new pages have been added since that player posted previously. A player is only considered a Wandering Merchant for that singular post; any subsequent posts by that player in the Thread will remove the Wandering Merchant modifier if they do not meet the spacing requirements.
2. Wandering Merchants are exempt from punishments or restrictions exacted by rules. This prevents new players from immediately becoming invalidated. Attempts to infringe on the speech, expression, or influence of a Wandering Merchant by any player is rendered null and void.
3. Wandering Merchants have the ability to grant Side Quests to a specific player. Wandering Merchants have a limit of one Side Quest per post. Side Quests award the chosen player an amount of Eggs upon completion.

As follow-up, I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Neutrality Act. 

• Wandering Merchants are unable to call UNO or attempt to punish any other player while a Wandering Merchant.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Hemalurgic Headshot
minor clarification

[+Doomstick]

2 hours ago, Hemalurgic Headshot said:

I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Exception. The Wandering Merchant Exception has the following clauses:

1. A player posting for the first time in the thread "Nomic - A Forum Game" [hereafter referred to as the Thread] is considered a "Wandering Merchant." After their first post, a player must not post at all in the Thread for no less than 24 hours or until two new pages have been added since that player posted previously. A player is only considered a Wandering Merchant for that singular post; any subsequent posts by that player in the Thread will remove the Wandering Merchant modifier.
2. Wandering Merchants are exempt from punishments or restrictions exacted by rules. This prevents new players from immediately becoming invalidated. Attempts to infringe on the speech, expression, or influence of a Wandering Merchant by any player is rendered null and void.
3. Wandering Merchants have the ability to grant Side Quests to a specific player. Wandering Merchants have a limit of one Side Quest per post. Side Quests award the chosen player an amount of Eggs upon completion.

As follow-up, I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Neutrality Act. 

• Wandering Merchants are unable to call UNO or attempt to punish any other player while a Wandering Merchant.

 

 

I'll vote yea on those

 

superior terminology act:

what was previously called an Egg is now called an Eggs

the plural of Eggs is Eggses

12 Eggses is a carton

a player is a citizen

a rule is a law

Edited April 4, 2019 by AonDii

[Hemalurgic Headshot]

4 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

Title Rule: All rules, amendments, and the like must have names.

I would like to specifically support this rule.

[Voidus]

4 minutes ago, Hemalurgic Headshot said:

I would like to specifically support this rule.

UNO for rule 15 and Meta's clause. :3

[+Doomstick]

30 minutes ago, Voidus said:

UNO for rule 15 and Meta's clause. :3

'UNO!' this violates the UNO rule where it specifically says 'UNO!'  (not UNO)

[MacThorstenson]

36 minutes ago, Voidus said:

UNO for rule 15 and Meta's clause. :3

Actually, his profile picture is of an animal, and mine is a depiction of an animal as well.

[+Doomstick]

anyone? riddles?

 

[Voidus]

1 hour ago, AonDii said:

'UNO!' this violates the UNO rule where it specifically says 'UNO!'  (not UNO)

Simply stating UNO would still not be a UNO! able offense even were that to be the accepted interpretation. I didn't implement any changes in game state or Egg changes.

:3

[+Doomstick]

6 minutes ago, Voidus said:

Simply stating UNO would still not be a UNO! able offense even were that to be the accepted interpretation. I didn't implement any changes in game state or Egg changes.

:3

ugh

 

riddles?

[MetaTerminal]

2 hours ago, Hemalurgic Headshot said:

I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Exception. The Wandering Merchant Exception has the following clauses:

1. A player posting for the first time in the thread "Nomic - A Forum Game" [hereafter referred to as the Thread] is considered a "Wandering Merchant." After their first post, a player must not post at all in the Thread for no less than 24 hours or until two new pages have been added since that player posted previously. A player is only considered a Wandering Merchant for that singular post; any subsequent posts by that player in the Thread will remove the Wandering Merchant modifier if they do not meet the spacing requirements.
2. Wandering Merchants are exempt from punishments or restrictions exacted by rules. This prevents new players from immediately becoming invalidated. Attempts to infringe on the speech, expression, or influence of a Wandering Merchant by any player is rendered null and void.
3. Wandering Merchants have the ability to grant Side Quests to a specific player. Wandering Merchants have a limit of one Side Quest per post. Side Quests award the chosen player an amount of Eggs upon completion.

As follow-up, I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Neutrality Act. 

• Wandering Merchants are unable to call UNO or attempt to punish any other player while a Wandering Merchant.

This is an amazing rule, and I support it. That being said, you may want to change the fact that if the new player meets the spacing requirements, they technically never stop being a Wandering Merchant (and thus can break the rules as much as they want). You may want to alter it so that they stop being Wandering Merchants after this time period is up. (Though @AonDii will have to revote for it if that change is made.)

2 hours ago, AonDii said:

superior terminology act:

the plural of eggs is eggses

12 eggses is a carton

a player is a citizen

a rule is a law

I support this as well.

47 minutes ago, AonDii said:

anyone? riddles?

This. I don’t want to retag anyone, so if nobody explicitly signs up we may just add everyone to the PM and assume an opt-out (instead of an opt-in) policy.

A propose a rule to fulfil my Clause: the Rule of Invalidation: that following this rule is expressly forbidden. I then withdraw the rule from consideration.

[Snipexe]

I support wandering merchant.

[+Doomstick]

Just now, Snipexe said:

I support wandering merchant.

'UNO!'

meta's clause

[Voidus]

I'm not a fan of riddles when played via the internet, too easy for people to just google the answers to any well-known riddles and personally made riddles usually have too many perfectly valid answers which are still, nontheless, not what the riddle poser intended and so are ruled as wrong.
:3
 

2 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

A propose a rule to fulfil my Clause: the Rule of Invalidation: that following this rule is expressly forbidden. I then withdraw the rule from consideration.

I'm glad that caught on.

2 hours ago, AonDii said:

the plural of eggs is eggses

Do you mean the plural of Eggs?
(Given that there is an ammendment to change Eggs to eggs I assume that we're insisting that the capitalization is relevant) But even so, Eggs is already plural so do you mean the plural of the singular form of Eggs should be eggses? Or that if the plural is itself pluralized that it should be eggses?

[+Doomstick]

2 minutes ago, Voidus said:

Do you mean the plural of Eggs?
(Given that there is an ammendment to change Eggs to eggs I assume that we're insisting that the capitalization is relevant) But even so, Eggs is already plural so do you mean the plural of the singular form of Eggs should be eggses? Or that if the plural is itself pluralized that it should be eggses?

fixed

one point is one Eggs

[MetaTerminal]

6 minutes ago, Voidus said:

I'm not a fan of riddles when played via the internet

If a riddle is unfair, or has multiple possible answers, you may invoke Gollum’s Complaint (as informally outlined in the Hobbit) and it will be taken into account. Presumably people will want to draft their own. And if nobody wants to play, then challenge people to another game - I just started that one because I know some good, non-Internet solvable riddles and we needed to get the game moving again.

9 minutes ago, Snipexe said:

I support wandering merchant.

This is UNO... but the upside is that if Wandering Merchant is passed, new (though you’re not new... ignore me) players won’t get jumped by UNO again.

:3

Edited April 4, 2019 by MetaTerminal

[Voidus]

1 minute ago, AonDii said:

fixed

one point is one Eggs

Not currently it's not, and if it were then you using the word point would be a UNO!
Even if we were to take it as implied that Dappers First rule also applies to the singular case, you'd have to apply the same logic to both the word point and Egg or you're being logically inconsistent and I would argue violating the Rules Lawyering Rule.
:3

1 minute ago, MetaTerminal said:

If a riddle is unfair, or has multiple possible answers, you may invoke Gollum’s Complaint (as informally outlined in the Hobbit) and it will be taken into account. Presumably people will want to draft their own. And if nobody wants to play, then challenge people to another game - I just started that one because I know some good, non-Internet solvable riddles and we needed to get the game moving again.

Rock paper scissors?
If more people want to play I'll happily join the PM and I guess see how things go, I'm just not that optimistic about its outcome. I do love me some riddles though.

[+Doomstick]

6 minutes ago, Voidus said:

Not currently it's not, and if it were then you using the word point would be a UNO!
Even if we were to take it as implied that Dappers First rule also applies to the singular case, you'd have to apply the same logic to both the word point and Egg or you're being logically inconsistent and I would argue violating the Rules Lawyering Rule.

fixed 

@MetaTerminal please revote

[MetaTerminal]

1 minute ago, AonDii said:

please revote

I resupport the amendment, and re-propose and uninvoke the Rule of Invalidation.

I suppose it’s time for a rule repost, even though no new rules have been passed, so hang tight for that.

16 minutes ago, Voidus said:

If more people want to play I'll happily join the PM and I guess see how things go, I'm just not that optimistic about its outcome. I do love me some riddles though.

Shall I add you to the PM? We might make it opt-out instead.

We could also allow old-school chestnuts alongside riddles to widen the playing space. And there’s nothing wrong with having a few riddles with multiple answers or easily googlable ones, as long as it’s accounted for when deciding the winner.

:3

[Voidus]

4 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

I resupport the amendment, and re-propose and uninvoke the Rule of Invalidation.

I suppose it’s time for a rule repost, even though no new rules have been passed, so hang tight for that.

Shall I add you to the PM? We might make it opt-out instead.

We could also allow old-school chestnuts alongside riddles to widen the playing space. And there’s nothing wrong with having a few riddles with multiple answers or easily googlable ones, as long as it’s accounted for when deciding the winner.

:3

I just enjoy telling riddles and I know a bunch off the top of my head but I also know that you could probably google most of those and it wouldn't be that much fun for me if I told a riddle and someone instantly answered it because they just used a search engine. Kind of ruins it for me.
But I'm in it now so will see how things go.

[Vogelsang]

5 hours ago, Hemalurgic Headshot said:

I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Exception. The Wandering Merchant Exception has the following clauses:

1. A player posting for the first time in the thread "Nomic - A Forum Game" [hereafter referred to as the Thread] is considered a "Wandering Merchant." After their first post, a player must not post at all in the Thread for no less than 24 hours or until two new pages have been added since that player posted previously. A player is only considered a Wandering Merchant for that singular post; any subsequent posts by that player in the Thread will remove the Wandering Merchant modifier if they do not meet the spacing requirements.
2. Wandering Merchants are exempt from punishments or restrictions exacted by rules. This prevents new players from immediately becoming invalidated. Attempts to infringe on the speech, expression, or influence of a Wandering Merchant by any player is rendered null and void.
3. Wandering Merchants have the ability to grant Side Quests to a specific player. Wandering Merchants have a limit of one Side Quest per post. Side Quests award the chosen player an amount of Eggs upon completion.

As follow-up, I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Neutrality Act. 

• Wandering Merchants are unable to call UNO or attempt to punish any other player while a Wandering Merchant.

 

 

5 hours ago, AonDii said:

I'll vote yea on those

 

superior terminology act:

what was previously called an Egg is now called an Eggs

the plural of Eggs is Eggses

12 Eggses is a carton

a player is a citizen

a rule is a law

I support these.

I propose The Let Fate Decide Rule: If a player is accused of violating a rule, they can call a correctness check. Both players roll a d20. If one of the two players originally proposed the rule in question, they get a +2 modifier. For every 3 rules in the current rule book that a player originally proposed, they get +1 to their score, however this is only to a maximum of +3. The higher total score wins. The supposed rule violater loses 30 eggs as well as any they would of lost for the rule the originally violated if they lose the roll. The challenger will lose 35 eggs if they lose the roll.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Taradiddle

[MetaTerminal]

25 minutes ago, Taradiddle said:

I support these.

You’ll want to edit in a proposal, as per Meta’s Clause - otherwise your votes won’t count if someone calls you out. (I’m not invoking the UNO rule, so they will count until someone does.)

:3

I propose the Corporations Rule: That a group players may agree to form a corporation under a name, and that upon the forming of said corporation the amount of Eggs that each person in the corporation (hereafter referred to as a ‘member’) has (be it positive or negative) is pooled into one shared sum (hereafter referred to as the Bank Balance). If a member chooses to leave a corporation, they receive ( S x n^(-1) ) Eggs (where S is the number of Eggs in the Bank Balance and n is the number of members) - this means that if everyone chooses to leave all at once they will all receive an equal amount of eggs. Any changes to a member’s Egg amount is instead applied to the corporation’s Bank Balance. A member may join a corporation after it has been formed if they receive the approval to join from a majority of the corporation’s members.

[AonEne]

On 4/2/2019 at 9:19 PM, AonEne said:

I will give you fifty Eggs, but you must swear before everyone here that you will then trade - as per the Trading Rule - thirty of them back to me for one time in which I will vote as you direct on one law. This law must be one that comes in the future, and I have the power to veto which one it is if it goes against my morals - i.e. "Hemalurgy is okay" - but I will not use that power lightly.

 

On 4/2/2019 at 11:44 PM, MetaTerminal said:

I agree to AonEne’s terms for the Eggs, while muttering something under my breath about buying votes and governmental corruption.

Thank you, good sir. My Egg balance is now at twenty. A vote is yours. Choose wisely.

This offer, repeated above, is still valid.

20 hours ago, Taradiddle said:

I propose the Rule of Egg Puns: If someone makes an egg pun that is deemed valid, funny, and relevant by three people besides the poster of said egg pun, that poster will be awarded 46 Eggs.

But why 46? Why not 40? Reggardless (I reserve the right to use that one again if this passes), I support this rule.

18 hours ago, AonDii said:

I propose The Constitution, under this law, the Players will be split into roughly equal parts( groups decided by the president). When voting,group 1 votes, then if it passes, group 2 votes, then if it passes then, the president must pass or veto it. If it is vetoed, the it goes back to the beginning, and must gain a unanimous vote in the first two sections, if not, then it must be proposed again. If it fails in stage one or two, it fails and must be proposed again.

I worry about the fairness of this, because what if someone in the second group wants to vote yes and the first group doesn't even let it get that far? So I'm not going to support this, though I'd try my hardest to keep it fair if it passed.

14 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

New laws have been passed into effect: Voidus' Rule of Potential Karmic Retribution, the Everyone Is A Winner Rule, Participation Eggs, Duel of Awww, the Maybe Rule, and the Rule of Big Eggs. In accordance to Ene’s First Rule, 3 Eggs have been awarded to @Voidus, 12 (!) Eggs to @MiToRo94, and 3 Eggs to @Dr. Dapper. Congratulations to everyone.

I challenge all active players ( @Dr. Dapper, @AonEne, @TheVillageIdiot, @Voidus, @Kidpen, @MacThorstenson, @MiToRo94,  @AonDii and @Taradiddle) to a communal game of riddles, as popularised by the Hobbit, in accordance with the Maybe Rule. The winner of the game of riddles (as decided communally by the players, and if only one person wins) will gain 900 Eggs.

34. Participation Eggs: Once per 24 hour period, if a player makes a post and votes on all current proposals as well as submits at least one new proposal, that player gains 25 Eggs.

To the first: you forgot about me, dude. Nine Eggs are mine. Also, I'm claiming my Participation Eggs; this brings my total up to 54 Eggs.

If you haven't already used the opt-out system and added me to the PM (haven't checked PMs yet), please go ahead. I won't be submitting any riddles, but I'd like to read what you guys say.

13 hours ago, Hemalurgic Headshot said:

I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Exception. The Wandering Merchant Exception has the following clauses:

1. A player posting for the first time in the thread "Nomic - A Forum Game" [hereafter referred to as the Thread] is considered a "Wandering Merchant." After their first post, a player must not post at all in the Thread for no less than 24 hours or until two new pages have been added since that player posted previously. A player is only considered a Wandering Merchant for that singular post; any subsequent posts by that player in the Thread will remove the Wandering Merchant modifier if they do not meet the spacing requirements.
2. Wandering Merchants are exempt from punishments or restrictions exacted by rules. This prevents new players from immediately becoming invalidated. Attempts to infringe on the speech, expression, or influence of a Wandering Merchant by any player is rendered null and void.
3. Wandering Merchants have the ability to grant Side Quests to a specific player. Wandering Merchants have a limit of one Side Quest per post. Side Quests award the chosen player an amount of Eggs upon completion.

As follow-up, I would like to propose the Wandering Merchant Neutrality Act. 

• Wandering Merchants are unable to call UNO or attempt to punish any other player while a Wandering Merchant.

 

I support these. Also, I'd like to award you an Egg for being the first person (in my memory) to legally use a picture for Rule 15 that doesn't have a cat or dog in it! (I have the capacity to do this, as president.)

13 hours ago, AonDii said:

superior terminology act:

what was previously called an Egg is now called an Eggs

the plural of Eggs is Eggses

12 Eggses is a carton

a player is a citizen

a rule is a law

I don't support these...Eggs.

12 hours ago, MacThorstenson said:

Actually, his profile picture is of an animal, and mine is a depiction of an animal as well.

I propose yet another amendment to Rule 15: Humans do not count as animals for the sake of this rule.

I would also like to make the amendment that the animals used must be existing animals, to make it even more fair. Otherwise I'd just be using my dragon profile pic.

10 hours ago, Voidus said:

Rock paper scissors?

How do you play that online? I've always wondered.

8 hours ago, Taradiddle said:

I propose The Let Fate Decide Rule: If a player is accused of violating a rule, they can call a correctness check. Both players roll a d20. If one of the two players originally proposed the rule in question, they get a +2 modifier. For every 3 rules in the current rule book that a player originally proposed, they get +1 to their score, however this is only to a maximum of +3. The higher total score wins. The supposed rule violater loses 30 eggs as well as any they would of lost for the rule the originally violated if they lose the roll. The challenger will lose 35 eggs if they lose the roll.

NOPE. I do not support this. DND math is scary and complicated and nooooo thank you.

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I propose the Corporations Rule: That a group players may agree to form a corporation under a name, and that upon the forming of said corporation the amount of Eggs that each person in the corporation (hereafter referred to as a ‘member’) has (be it positive or negative) is pooled into one shared sum (hereafter referred to as the Bank Balance). If a member chooses to leave a corporation, they receive ( S x n^(-1) ) Eggs (where S is the number of Eggs in the Bank Balance and n is the number of members) - this means that if everyone chooses to leave all at once they will all receive an equal amount of eggs. Any changes to a member’s Egg amount is instead applied to the corporation’s Bank Balance. A member may join a corporation after it has been formed if they receive the approval to join from a majority of the corporation’s members.

I support this.

[+Doomstick]

50 minutes ago, AonEne said:

( S x n^(-1) )

So, S/n?

 

I propose an amendment to the proposal of superior terminology, the first part is gone (about an Egg being an Eggs)

the second part is changed to say:

the plural form of Egg is either Eggs or Eggses

Edited April 4, 2019 by AonDii

[MetaTerminal]

3 hours ago, AonEne said:

DND math is scary and complicated and nooooo thank you.

This game was partially inspired by me getting frustrated by the labyrinthine 1e rules. (That is, it’s what inspired me to fall into the Wikipedia rabbit hole to find it.)

2 hours ago, AonDii said:

So, S/n?

Math is hard, okay?

Majorities and possibly more rules will have been passed. Those will be edited into this post shortly. In addition, a final plug for riddles - y’all should already be added to the PM, but if you want to play and you aren’t already just let us know.

:3

EDIT: 

3 hours ago, AonEne said:

To the first: you forgot about me, dude.  Nine Eggs are mine. Also, I'm claiming my Participation Eggs; this brings my total up to 54 Eggs.

Paradox of Retroactive Rulings - Rules do not apply retroactively in this instance. Unless there’s something that I have missed, which is entirely possible.

Edited April 4, 2019 by MetaTerminal