Nomic [Resurrected]

[theTruthshaper]

5 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

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

I only found your arguments, (Meta seemed to be amenable to doing either), so:

You simply dislike one because it can cause negative points, which you do not want to interact with the debt system, and that the other because it would incentivize people to vote against popular trends, but I don't have a problem with either.

[danex]

I did not vote for 303 and 304 because I think they are each 2 proposals rolled into one, bringing the number of proposals in your turn to 5, violating rule 301. Your argument is that the term “amendment” is subjective and therefore you can “amend” rules 204 and 206 by deleting them and writing 2 completely different rules in their place. I think the term amendment is not subjective and in fact is defined by the dictionary and rule 103. 

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.

You are trying to both enact and repeal in your proposals and calling them amendments. The contents of the rules themselves are a different matter. If you edit P303 to just repeal 204 and edit P304 to just repeal 206, you’d have my support. 

[xinoehp512]

52 minutes ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

You simply dislike one because it can cause negative points, which you do not want to interact with the debt system

Not strictly true. While it is true that I would like to avoid negative points, I also think that it's overly harsh. As it stands now, if you lose a vote not only do you get fewer points, not only do you lose a chance to change the rules, you also get slapped with a quite significant penalty. I don't want to have to deal with that, and I don't think anyone else deserves it either.

54 minutes ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

and that the other because it would incentivize people to vote against popular trends

I don't believe that is entirely accurate either. I do think that it's better to encourage cooperation than competition in the early stages of the game, but I mainly dislike the rule because it encourages people to vote contrary to what they believe. It seems entirely possible to me that this rule could cause rules to be denied that would otherwise pass, which would slow the game down. In addition, it encourages a 'wait and see' approach, which also slows the game down. 

 

If you could elaborate on why you think that removing these rules would unbalance the game, that would be helpful.

@The_Truthwatcher

19 minutes ago, Danex said:

I did not vote for 303 and 304 because I think they are each 2 proposals rolled into one, bringing the number of proposals in your turn to 5, violating rule 301. Your argument is that the term “amendment” is subjective and therefore you can “amend” rules 204 and 206 by deleting them and writing 2 completely different rules in their place. I think the term amendment is not subjective and in fact is defined by the dictionary and rule 103. 

You are trying to both enact and repeal in your proposals and calling them amendments. The contents of the rules themselves are a different matter. If you edit P303 to just repeal 204 and edit P304 to just repeal 206, you’d have my support. 

Okay, let's take this one piece at time. If it were the case that the rules said nothing about the number of proposals proposed in a turn, would you be against voting for either proposal as it currently stands?

@Danex

[danex]

Well, I do think that 204 and 206 can go, they don’t seem to matter all that much. I think P304 (the new rule part) is okay, at least I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. P303 (again, just the new rule part) is another issue. I think it’s an okay way of handling the inactivity and turns issue, but I’m personally for abolishing turns completely so I probably wouldn’t vote for P303. So individually, I’m good with 4/5 of your proposals, but then there’s still the issue of only 3 RCs allowed. 

[Gears]

@xinoehp512, I think you should just concede the point about the negation and just instate those rules separately [negate previous rule, add new rule for your last 2 rules]. I don't care about the existence of 204 and 206, but I do think that your rules are invalid because they are a negation and a new rule.

[xinoehp512]

5 minutes ago, Danex said:

Well, I do think that 204 and 206 can go, they don’t seem to matter all that much. I think P304 (the new rule part) is okay, at least I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. P303 (again, just the new rule part) is another issue. I think it’s an okay way of handling the inactivity and turns issue, but I’m personally for abolishing turns completely so I probably wouldn’t vote for P303. So individually, I’m good with 4/5 of your proposals, but then there’s still the issue of only 3 RCs allowed. 

Why would the existence of turns matter for P303? It's written with the existence of turns in mind, but it has applications even if turns are abolished or modified.

3 minutes ago, Gears said:

@xinoehp512, I think you should just concede the point about the negation and just instate those rules separately [negate previous rule, add new rule for your last 2 rules]. I don't care about the existence of 204 and 206, but I do think that your rules are invalid because they are a negation and a new rule.

Okay, take the new versions. They only add to the rule- they do not repeal anything. The rules still exist, the first parts simply do not have effect. They are in a state like rule 210, which is not repealed.

Do you see how these could reasonably be considered an amendment? Ignore for a moment, if you can, any other considerations.

[Gears]

Just now, xinoehp512 said:

Do you see how these could reasonably be considered an amendment? Ignore for a moment, if you can, any other considerations.

I think it violates the spirit of an amendment. 

[xinoehp512]

Just now, Gears said:

I think it violates the spirit of an amendment. 

Do you think that it would have a negative impact on the game to allow this? If so, why?

[Gears]

1 minute ago, xinoehp512 said:

Do you think that it would have a negative impact on the game to allow this? If so, why?

I think that first we should redefine an amendment.

[xinoehp512]

4 hours ago, Gears said:

I think that first we should redefine an amendment.

But it was never defined...?

 

We can define an amendment officially later, if you like. I just want to get as much of the groundwork out of the way as possible on this turn.

[MetaTerminal]

That’s five votes for 302! @The Last Post, you need to vote.

7 hours ago, Danex said:

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.

Voting hasn’t opened yet for 303 or 304, so you can’t anyway.

We already have rules for rule contradictions (which xino has already pointed out): immutable rules superseding and lower numbers superseding higher ones. I’m still curious to hear rules doc suggestions.

7 hours ago, Gears said:

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. 

In the future, sure, I’m okay with this. (The voting in sequence might slow things down, though). The question, however, is whether 303 and 304 count as two rule-changes under current rules. With xino’s additions, I think they now count as a single amendment (since they’re keeping the content of the original?). The issue is created, though, if someone wants to keep 204 or 206 but would otherwise let it pass (or doesn’t want to set this as precedent). 

Truthwatcher wants to keep 204 and 206, and Danex and Gears thinks it is against (at least the spirit) of the rules. Danex also has an interesting case of not wanting to enact 303 but being okay with repealing 204.

That said: personally I think they do count as amendments with your new changes, which I think Danex and Gears might be overlooking. (Actually, checking what each has said, I think Danex would be okay with a specific form of the rules.) This is a loophole, and the game [currently] is about exploiting loopholes, so I’m fine with going ahead with it.

However! If we cannot come to an agreement, then we’ll need to invoke Judgement; and under current rules, Danex becomes the Judge, which means we probably know which way the decision will go. I don’t think we should invoke Judgement, since it will slow the game down, but this is definitely the outcome to be aware of if we can’t agree.

In any case, even with majority rules (which will presumably happen once @The Last Post votes), you can only have up to two ‘against’ votes before it fails. If people are saying they have a problem with it, then you’ll want to change it so that some form of it gets passed.

6 hours ago, xinoehp512 said:

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

Nope. 201 actually overrules 301, saying that ‘no part of the turn may be skipped’ - if someone tried to suggest 0 rules, that would actually be illegal, since in a contradiction the lower number takes preference.

4 hours ago, Danex said:

P303 (again, just the new rule part) is another issue. I think it’s an okay way of handling the inactivity and turns issue, but I’m personally for abolishing turns completely so I probably wouldn’t vote for P303.

I’ve already argued against ‘abolishing turns completely’, so I’d be interested to see what you think of those arguments and, if you still disagree, what counter-arguments you have. If you’re talking about abolishing turn order (but still having specific people ‘be in control’, as it were), then 303 doesn’t require any turn order, or indeed, doesn’t even assume one.

If you think the fix should be different, I’d argue that you should still vote for this. Not having a fix for several turns means that we can run into problems while we wait for someone to propose a ‘proper’ fix. At a later date, someone can propose your fix which edits and repeals 303 as necessary, and we can vote on that then.

---

Here’s a suggestion of what xino could do.

303 should be put forward as an amendment to 201. This has to happen anyway, otherwise we run into problems. Then, as your final rule-change, you can select either repealing 204, repealing 206, or enacting 304 as what you want to happen first; then, since it’s my turn next, I can put the remaining two (or some form of the remaining two) to a vote. I suggest repealing 204. It seems the most pressing issue here. Debt and losing points doesn’t seem too important yet and any problems can be fixed later (ie ‘any negative points, as of time of the rule being passed, are made into debt to the Bank’.)

It actually probably doesn’t matter, functionally speaking, whether or not 303 and 304 can legally be passed. The issue is that it’s divisive, and thus probably won’t be passed, which means that we actually hold up making these changes for longer. Let’s get a form which people are all happy with through now (voting on each of them individually, too, so that we can discuss the merits of each without leading to conflicts like ‘I support one but not the other’).

Edited July 16, 2020 by MetaTerminal

[AonEne]

I’m happy that Nomic is back, but this is entirely too complicated for me lol, so I might join whenever you guys finish this, if you do. If anyone wants to start a second game with the 3SRs, I’d be down for that. 

[Chaos]

Double posts are not allowed in Forum Games, to be clear.

If you need to quote multiple people, please use Multiquote, and hit the + symbol by the words Quote. Then you can quote multiple people in the same posts.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Chaos

[MetaTerminal]

Rest in peace, Nomic doubleposts

2020-2020

---

Still waiting on TLP to vote. Maybe @xinoehp512 should put his final two slots to vote (I’m going to say follow my suggestion, because of course I am) so we can start voting on those. Whether 302 passes doesn’t matter since we still need to collect all the votes for the final two anyway.

[xinoehp512]

1 hour ago, MetaTerminal said:

Nope. 201 actually overrules 301, saying that ‘no part of the turn may be skipped’ - if someone tried to suggest 0 rules, that would actually be illegal, since in a contradiction the lower number takes preference.

Gah, that's unfortunate. Would've been good to know that last turn.

In that case, the second proposed rule change is an amendment to rule 201.

Rule 303.

Players shall alternate in clockwise order, taking one whole turn apiece. All players begin with zero points, and their total score can never drop below zero.

In mail and computer games, players shall alternate in numerical order by member number.

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.

And the third will be a proposal to repeal 204. I'm counting on you to implement the contracts rule, though!

I won't start the votes yet, however, as I think it would be best to wait for the current vote to finish. @The Last Post has yet to respond to any of the proposals, and I'd like to hear his thoughts.

In addition- @Danex @The_Truthwatcher @Gears- your thoughts on the updated proposals?

 

[Gears]

9 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

In addition- @Danex @The_Truthwatcher @Gears- your thoughts on the updated proposals?

Acceptable.

[theTruthshaper]

2 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

Nope. 201 actually overrules 301, saying that ‘no part of the turn may be skipped’ - if someone tried to suggest 0 rules, that would actually be illegal, since in a contradiction the lower number takes preference.

In my opinion, since part 1 of the turn consists of the words 'up to 3 rule changes', it is allowed for someone to suggest 0 rules. 

I like the new P303 

[danex]

I like everything, but I still think the problem of inactivity can be solved better. I think I’ll vote for it, as it’s better than the default, but I’ll probably try to amend it later with some sort of regulated “no-turns” idea. Also, having to go 2 entire rounds without posting to be declared inactive seems crazy. It’s been like 3 days and 5 pages of messages for less than 1/3 of a round. Having to wait something like 20 days for a player to be declared inactive seems like a long time. 

2 hours ago, xinoehp512 said:

I won't start the votes yet, however, as I think it would be best to wait for the current vote to finish.

Are you talking about P302 here? I think so but I’m just making sure. 

[MetaTerminal]

3 hours ago, The_Truthwatcher said:

In my opinion, since part 1 of the turn consists of the words 'up to 3 rule changes', it is allowed for someone to suggest 0 rules. 

Not suggesting a rule could be considered ‘skipping’ part of the round; we might have to invoke Judgement if it became a problem, though.

40 minutes ago, Danex said:

I’ll probably try to amend it later with some sort of regulated “no-turns” idea.

Also, having to go 2 entire rounds without posting to be declared inactive seems crazy. It’s been like 3 days and 5 pages of messages for less than 1/3 of a round. Having to wait something like 20 days for a player to be declared inactive seems like a long time. 

Are you talking about P302 here? I think so but I’m just making sure. 

I’d be curious to know more about this no-turns idea. See previous two statements about turns and my thoughts on those.

I agree it would probably be better to have it as ‘two turns of any player’ rather than two of your turns. We could even have it as ‘one turn if any player’, given there’s only been one so far... incentivizes people to check in every turn.

And yeah, the 302 vote. But given we’re only waiting on one player, I think we might as well start the next two votes now.

[MetaTerminal]

Double-post but there's been new info and I want to notify people. Shrug.

Inactivity 2 Waiting Boogaloo: TLP hasn't been on for 36 hours (and the vote's gone for 24), and I can't reach them elsewise, do we want to pretend they're not playing for now to move things along? Enact 302 (unanimous), put 303 (with Danex's alteration) and 304 to a vote (let's do them simultaneously to be quick), then it's my turn and people get points.

Also: Danex, what is your profile pic? I know the answer is BeanShark, but knowing the name of the thing doesn't help me...

Edited July 17, 2020 by MetaTerminal

[Gears]

That sounds fine. Also, we could add an alteration that made it so if a player has not been on for longer than the vote's existence and the vote is at least 24 hours old, they are temporarily not a player until they come back online.

[MetaTerminal]

6 minutes ago, Gears said:

That sounds fine. Also, we could add an alteration that made it so if a player has not been on for longer than the vote's existence and the vote is at least 24 hours old, they are temporarily not a player until they come back online.

11 hours ago, xinoehp512 said:

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.

I think 'posting' is better (shall we clarify that as "posting on this thread?") since someone could come online, but not post, but otherwise the rule covers what you're talking about. Unless I've misunderstood something.

 

[Gears]

14 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

I think 'posting' is better (shall we clarify that as "posting on this thread?") since someone could come online, but not post, but otherwise the rule covers what you're talking about. Unless I've misunderstood something.

Completely forgot about that. My apologies.

[MetaTerminal]

No worries! Easily fixed.

If Danex, Truth, xino agree, we can implement 302, and we should put the updated 303 and 304 to vote.

[theTruthshaper]

1 hour ago, MetaTerminal said:

Inactivity 2 Waiting Boogaloo: TLP hasn't been on for 36 hours (and the vote's gone for 24), and I can't reach them elsewise, do we want to pretend they're not playing for now to move things along? Enact 302 (unanimous), put 303 (with Danex's alteration) and 304 to a vote (let's do them simultaneously to be quick), then it's my turn and people get points.

I'm in.

1 hour ago, MetaTerminal said:

Also: Danex, what is your profile pic? I know the answer is BeanShark, but knowing the name of the thing doesn't help me...

It is sort of a long story