Imperial Nomic: The Shattered Plains

[dannnex male]

6 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

Note: what's the call on these two rules under the no paradoxes rule?

The King said this: 

2 hours ago, Experience said:

Accepted. Note: This means that rejection loss is now 9, and no longer 15[0]% of acception.

but uhh, the king would actually be wrong here. As my sphere rule hasn’t been Redacted, and it’s been in place longer. 

6 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

Danex hasn't had any of his proposals accepted after this post, should he have spheres?

Yep, still have the default amount of +5. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Danex

[Experience he/him]

Just now, Danex said:

but uhh, the king would actually be wrong here. As my sphere rule hasn’t been Redacted, and it’s been in place longer. 

Sorry I was a bit unclear. I redacted the first one. 

[dannnex male]

2 minutes ago, Experience said:

Sorry I was a bit unclear. I redacted the first one. 

That sounds a lot like the king ‘making a proposal and then immediately approving’ it to me.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Danex

[Experience he/him]

Just now, Danex said:

That sounds a lot like the king making a proposal and then immediately approving it to me.

I did it that way so that I didn't have to reject yours and make you lose 5 spheres.

EDIT: If you guys really feel it should be the other one, I'm fine with that. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Experience

[xinoehp512 he/him]

I think it's fine the way it is. The second rule should perhaps have been a amendment, or the first rule should have been rejected but you can interpret it as giving six spheres to any rejected proposal. 

Besides, technically speaking neither has been in place longer, as they were accepted simultaneously (i.e. neither affected the other)

But to clear up confusion, I propose Repealing The Rule of Rejected Proposal Punishment Increase: Said rule is repealed. It was accepted, so it has to be repealed.  

[dannnex male]

7 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

But to clear up confusion, I propose Repealing The Rule of Rejected Proposal Punishment Increase: Said rule is repealed. It was accepted, so it has to be repealed.  

I agree with this but it’s automatically invalid as it stands, formatting is wrong. Redactions don’t get names, as they aren’t rules. They don’t go in the Rulebook either, the rule it’s redacting just gets removed: Also Redacted not Repealed. I know they mean the same thing, but consistency, ya know? I do like the word appeal though, maybe better. Maybe a future amendment?

 

Edit: Ah, it appears the rule im referencing here wasn’t actually approved, but it wasn’t rejected either. I think the King missed it. It was back in my first post. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Danex

[xinoehp512 he/him]

2 minutes ago, Danex said:

I agree with this but it’s automatically invalid as it stands, formatting is wrong. Redactions don’t get names, as they aren’t rules. They don’t go in the Rulebook either, the rule it’s redacting just gets removed: Also Redacted not Repealed. I know they mean the same thing, but consistency, ya know? I do like the word appeal though, maybe better. Maybe a future amendment?

8 hours ago, Danex said:

All proposals must have a name, and must be entirely bolded. The name must be underlined. The name must be on the same line as the rest of the proposal and have a colon on the end. The colon is considered apart of the name and must be underlined.

 

8 hours ago, Danex said:

The Rule of Proposal Types: A proposal can be one of three types. A New Rule, an Amendment, and a Redaction. A New Rule is a brand new rule, an Amendment is an alteration to an existing rule, and a Redaction is the complete removal of an existing rule. A proposal may only contain one of these things. A Redaction and an Amendment are not a New Rule, and thus they do not need a Name, and do not go in the Rulebook. Only the alteration goes into the RB.

They do not need a name. But the name is not prohibited!   Since formatting hasn't been laid out for redactions, it isn't necessarily wrong. I will keep that in mind for the future, however.

For clarification, I will propose The Rule of Redaction Formatting: Redaction proposals must be bolded and include the full name of the rule they are repealing.

[Chasmgoat he/him]

I propose one amendment and one law 

1. Amendment       

Limited repetition rule: Any proposal that was rejected or repealed cannot be proposed again until either 2 days or 3 pages have passed. addition of "or repealed"

2. Law

Law of Amendment reward/punishment: All future amendments that pass have a reward of 1/2 of the reward of a law that passes. All future amendments that do not pass have a fine of 1/2 of the current punishment.

[dannnex male]

9 hours ago, Danex said:

The Rule of Proposal Types: A proposal can be one of three types. A New Rule, an Amendment, and a Redaction. A New Rule is a brand new rule, an Amendment is an alteration to an existing rule, and a Redaction is the complete removal of an existing rule. A proposal may only contain one of these things. A Redaction and an Amendment are not a New Rule, and thus they do not need a Name, and do not go in the Rulebook. Only the alteration goes into the RB. 

Yeah, I had proposed this rule, which would mean that Redactions can’t have names and I saw that it wasn’t rejected so I had assumed it was approved, but it appears it flew under the radar and didn’t get a Verdict. May I get one now?

[Chasmgoat he/him]

59 minutes ago, Danex said:

Yeah, I had proposed this rule, which would mean that Redactions can’t have names and I saw that it wasn’t rejected so I had assumed it was approved, but it appears it flew under the radar and didn’t get a Verdict. May I get one now?

well, if you were to do it now you would not have it pass.

hint:

edit: anyone wanna post so I don't have to double post?

Edited October 29, 2020 by Chasmgoat

[dannnex male]

32 minutes ago, Chasmgoat said:

well, if you were to do it now you would not have it pass.

hint:

edit: anyone wanna post so I don't have to double post?

Sure! Also I don’t think I need a ninja, I’m not proposing a new rule, just drawing attention to an old one that got missed. 

[Chasmgoat he/him]

I propose the Loophole Immunity Act: Any loopholes found must be reported to the king. The King will post a poll and the people vote on what to do. A highprinces vote counts as 2, the king as 3, and anyone else as 1.

edit:

Quote

I don’t think I need a ninja, I’m not proposing a new rule, just drawing attention to an old one that got missed.

never mind, you don't need one. The proposal is not in the post anyway.

I propose the double post fee law: any future double post will result in the poster losing 5 spheres. For three or more posts you will be fined for 10 spheres per post.

I propose the Registration act: One can no longer propose laws, amendments, or redactions if one has not been registered by the king. anyone who has posted before this proposal has been activated is excluded from this law.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Chasmgoat

[Experience he/him]

5 hours ago, Danex said:

I agree with this but it’s automatically invalid as it stands, formatting is wrong. Redactions don’t get names, as they aren’t rules. They don’t go in the Rulebook either, the rule it’s redacting just gets removed: Also Redacted not Repealed. I know they mean the same thing, but consistency, ya know? I do like the word appeal though, maybe better. Maybe a future amendment?

 

Edit: Ah, it appears the rule im referencing here wasn’t actually approved, but it wasn’t rejected either. I think the King missed it. It was back in my first post. 

Oops. Somehow missed that.

5 hours ago, xinoehp512 said:

They do not need a name. But the name is not prohibited!   Since formatting hasn't been laid out for redactions, it isn't necessarily wrong. I will keep that in mind for the future, however.

For clarification, I will propose The Rule of Redaction Formatting: Redaction proposals must be bolded and include the full name of the rule they are repealing.

Approved.

5 hours ago, Chasmgoat said:

I propose one amendment and one law 

1. Amendment       

Limited repetition rule: Any proposal that was rejected or repealed cannot be proposed again until either 2 days or 3 pages have passed. addition of "or repealed"

2. Law

Law of Amendment reward/punishment: All future amendments that pass have a reward of 1/2 of the reward of a law that passes. All future amendments that do not pass have a fine of 1/2 of the current punishment.

1. Approved. 

2. What happens when the number is odd?

3 hours ago, Chasmgoat said:

I propose the Loophole Immunity Act: Any loopholes found must be reported to the king. The King will post a poll and the people vote on what to do. A highprinces vote counts as 2, the king as 3, and anyone else as 1.

edit:

never mind, you don't need one. The proposal is not in the post anyway.

I propose the double post fee law: any future double post will result in the poster losing 5 spheres. For three or more posts you will be fined for 10 spheres per post.

I propose the Registration act: One can no longer propose laws, amendments, or redactions if one has not been registered by the king. anyone who has posted before this proposal has been activated is excluded from this law.

1. Rejected. Sorry, but there really is no way for me to enforce this because I can't know if someone has found a loophole. 

2. I would like to amend to the following: Double post fee law: Any future double post will result in the poster losing 5 spheres. For three or more posts in a row you will be fined for 10 spheres per post. added in a row.

3. What do you mean, registered by the king?

4 hours ago, Danex said:

The Rule of Proposal Types: A proposal can be one of three types. A New Rule, an Amendment, and a Redaction. A New Rule is a brand new rule, an Amendment is an alteration to an existing rule, and a Redaction is the complete removal of an existing rule. A proposal may only contain one of these things. A Redaction and an Amendment are not a New Rule, and thus they do not need a Name, and do not go in the Rulebook. Only the alteration goes into the RB. 

Would you like to amend this to not contradict with the Rule of Redaction Formatting?

[xinoehp512 he/him]

3 minutes ago, Experience said:

Would you like to amend this to not contradict with the Rule of Redaction Formatting?

It doesn't, currently. It says that a redaction does not need a name; it does not prohibit a name being given to it, or place any restrictions on what the formatting of Redactions should or should not be.

13 hours ago, Danex said:

The Rule of No Paradoxes: If a Rule is found to contradict another Rule, the Rule that has existed longer is the one who’s effect is taken into account. The other rule is completely disregarded.

I would like to amend this rule as such: 

The Rule of No Paradoxes: If a Rule is found to contradict another Rule, the Rule that has existed longer is the one who’s effect is taken into account. The other rule is completely disregarded. <Alteration begins> If the two contradictory rules were placed into effect simultaneously (i.e. approved in the same post) the King decides which one takes effect. <Alteration ends>. My redaction proposal still stands, though.  

[Experience he/him]

7 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said:

The Rule of No Paradoxes: If a Rule is found to contradict another Rule, the Rule that has existed longer is the one who’s effect is taken into account. The other rule is completely disregarded. <Alteration begins> If the two contradictory rules were placed into effect simultaneously (i.e. approved in the same post) the King decides which one takes effect. <Alteration ends>. My redaction proposal still stands, though.  

Approved. 

[Chasmgoat he/him]

27 minutes ago, Experience said:

Rejected. Sorry, but there really is no way for me to enforce this because I can't know if someone has found a loophole.

The first clause was that if a loophole were found it has to be reported... I guess that they wouldn't report it, but maybe if it were acted on? anyway, I can't retry due to a law...

28 minutes ago, Experience said:

What do you mean, registered by the king?

they make a post to register themselves up for the thread.

29 minutes ago, Experience said:

2. What happens when the number is odd?

You round down

[Experience he/him]

4 hours ago, Chasmgoat said:

I propose the double post fee law: any future double post will result in the poster losing 5 spheres. For three or more posts you will be fined for 10 spheres per post.

I propose the Registration act: One can no longer propose laws, amendments, or redactions if one has not been registered by the king. anyone who has posted before this proposal has been activated is excluded from this law.

1. Accepted.

2. Rejected. No need for this. 

[xinoehp512 he/him]

Official Census of the Highprince of Commerce.

@Experience: King of Alethkar (0 spheres)
@Danex:  (25 spheres)
@Somebody from Sel:  (0 spheres)
@Chasmgoat: Highprince Sadeas (22 spheres)
@xinoehp512: Highprince Kholin (60 spheres)

Edited October 29, 2020 by xinoehp512

[Experience he/him]

1 minute ago, xinoehp512 said:

Official Census of the Highprince of Commerce.

@Experience: King of Alethkar (0 spheres)
@Danex:  (25 spheres)
@Somebody from Sel:  (0 spheres)
@Chasmgoat: Highprince Sadeas (22 spheres)
@xinoehp512: Highprince Kholin (60 spheres)

Didn't tag for some reason. Also, just a question. Are you including the bonus for commerce in this census, or the next one?

[dannnex male]

The Rule of Amendment Format: An amendment must state the name rule they are amending, then copy the entire rule, with the suggested alterations being either Underlined (for added text) or Struck-Through (for removed text). 

I propose that The Rule of No Paradoxes be amended as such:
The Rule of No Paradoxes: If a Rule is found to contradict another Rule, the Rule that has existed longer is the one who’s effect is taken into account. The other rule is completely disregarded. If the two contradictory rules were placed into effect simultaneously (i.e. approved in the same post) the King decides which one takes effect. The King may not approve two rules that obviously contradict each other in the same post. This is to keep the King from being too nice. With the current rules the king could approve a rule he would have otherwise rejected, but then still have the rule’s effect not take place. It’s really just a more elegant solution.

Also, right now this rule is kinda in and of itself a paradox. It contradicts the basic rule that the King may not propose laws, choosing which rule gets to stay is essentially the same thing. 

Also also, those basic rules need to be reformatted and added to the King’s Rulebook.

[Experience he/him]

2 minutes ago, Danex said:

The Rule of Amendment Format: An amendment must state the name rule they are amending, then copy the entire rule, with the suggested alterations being either Underlined (for added text) or Struck-Through (for removed text). 

I propose that The Rule of No Paradoxes be amended as such:
The Rule of No Paradoxes: If a Rule is found to contradict another Rule, the Rule that has existed longer is the one who’s effect is taken into account. The other rule is completely disregarded. If the two contradictory rules were placed into effect simultaneously (i.e. approved in the same post) the King decides which one takes effect. The King may not approve two rules that obviously contradict each other in the same post. This is to keep the King from being too nice. With the current rules the king could approve a rule he would have otherwise rejected, but then still have the rule’s effect not take place. It’s really just a more elegant solution.

Also, right now this rule is kinda in and of itself a paradox. It contradicts the basic rule that the King may not propose laws, choosing which rule gets to stay is essentially the same thing. 

Also also, those basic rules need to be reformatted and added to the King’s Rulebook.

1. Approved.

2. Approved.

3. Ya, I'll add those into the Rulebook.

[Chasmgoat he/him]

3 hours ago, Danex said:

The Rule of Amendment Format: An amendment must state the name rule they are amending, then copy the entire rule, with the suggested alterations being either Underlined (for added text) or Struck-Through (for removed text). 

I propose that The Rule of No Paradoxes be amended as such:
The Rule of No Paradoxes: If a Rule is found to contradict another Rule, the Rule that has existed longer is the one who’s effect is taken into account. The other rule is completely disregarded. If the two contradictory rules were placed into effect simultaneously (i.e. approved in the same post) the King decides which one takes effect. The King may not approve two rules that obviously contradict each other in the same post. This is to keep the King from being too nice. With the current rules the king could approve a rule he would have otherwise rejected, but then still have the rule’s effect not take place. It’s really just a more elegant solution.

Also, right now this rule is kinda in and of itself a paradox. It contradicts the basic rule that the King may not propose laws, choosing which rule gets to stay is essentially the same thing. 

Also also, those basic rules need to be reformatted and added to the King’s Rulebook.

 

2 hours ago, Experience said:

1. Approved.

2. Approved.

3. Ya, I'll add those into the Rulebook.

Actually, I believe that they should both be rejected since the Ninja rule has been violated.

[Experience he/him]

10 minutes ago, Chasmgoat said:

 

Actually, I believe that they should both be rejected since the Ninja rule has been violated.

Are you kidding me. Yes, that is correct. I must revoke the below rules, because there was no  in said post. *sigh*

3 hours ago, Danex said:

The Rule of Amendment Format: An amendment must state the name rule they are amending, then copy the entire rule, with the suggested alterations being either Underlined (for added text) or Struck-Through (for removed text). 

I propose that The Rule of No Paradoxes be amended as such:
The Rule of No Paradoxes: If a Rule is found to contradict another Rule, the Rule that has existed longer is the one who’s effect is taken into account. The other rule is completely disregarded. If the two contradictory rules were placed into effect simultaneously (i.e. approved in the same post) the King decides which one takes effect. The King may not approve two rules that obviously contradict each other in the same post. This is to keep the King from being too nice. With the current rules the king could approve a rule he would have otherwise rejected, but then still have the rule’s effect not take place. It’s really just a more elegant solution.

Also, right now this rule is kinda in and of itself a paradox. It contradicts the basic rule that the King may not propose laws, choosing which rule gets to stay is essentially the same thing. 

Also also, those basic rules need to be reformatted and added to the King’s Rulebook.

 

[Chasmgoat he/him]

and Danex is unable to try them again for a while...

[Experience he/him]

1 minute ago, Chasmgoat said:

and Danex is unable to try them again for a while...

Note: I just crossed them out in the OP, so when they do happen I don't have to re-do everything. They are crossed out, and therefore void.