xinoehp512

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.

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

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. 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 They are in a state like rule 210, which is not repealed.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.

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. 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 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

Fair, although to be honest that rule does seem a bit extreme. We might want to change that. 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. If I may ask, what do you think of mine and Meta's arguments in favor of removing them? @The_Truthwatcher

The yellow sighed. "We don't know," admitted the blue. "His mind is warded from my knowledge." "Impressions," said the purple. Her voice was lilting, almost singsongy. "Faint connections... that's how we knew the treasure lay with you."

To quote the rules: "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. 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. Does anybody want to argue for keeping rule 204 or 206? 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. Hmm. Good point. Luckily, Danex's rule change makes turns optional. 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. 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. Well to start with, we can bribe each other to vote for our proposals. It stops a rule change from including something like "this rule revokes rule x," as that would be a separate rule change. 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. Well, the votes for those proposals have yet to begin. But care to explain why you plan to vote against them? @Danex

"You comprehend quickly," said the blue with satisfaction. "However, the execution will potentially be of greater complexity than you envision. You see, the method by which we intended to liberate our captive colleague is the usage of an item similar in composition to the one you now hold," he gestured the the purple gemstone, "but of greater power. Said item (and the means of crafting it) rest solely in the possession of a scientist under King Aridith's employ. Fortunately, he has yet to relinquish the item- apparently he intends to use it as leverage to further his own personal goals. However, that may not be the case for long." "We think you have something that he wants," interjected the yellow. "Badly. Perhaps badly enough to give up his fancy purple Heart for it." "And we know that Aridith won't hesitate to take it from you if he can," finished the blue. @Channelknight Fadran

An update! 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. 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 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. No, as 104 is immutable and cannot be amended. 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. Why not? Actually, I don't think rule 111 is the cause of the prohibition- that would go to rule 103 and 104, I think: So rule changes can't be adopted except as individual things. I'm down. Double-posting is fine in this subforum anyways. Aha, you spotted it. Yes, that is exactly why I specified that. 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.

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.

"He's going to wait for the King, I presume," said Jaxevist. "When he gets back, we'll take you to him. Then we'll finally see what he wants you for." The yellow sighed. "He was," she admitted, "before Aridith captured and enslaved him." "That's part of why we wanted to talk to you," added the blue. "It is in our interests to ensure his liberation. And it's in your interests as well." @Channelknight Fadran

"Indeed," said the blue. "You have been acquainted with our friend Jaxevist, correct?"

The gemstone flashes- once, twice, thrice - and suddenly, Fadran is somewhere else. A bland, cubical room with empty white walls. In front of him stand three holed- one yellow, one purple, and one blue. The blue steps forward. Strangely, his eyes are closed. "Greetings, Fadran," he says. "I see you have accepted our offer to converse." @Channelknight Fadran

The hallway opened up into a vast cavern, stretching farther up and down than the eye could see, and so far across that the Hyxali on the opposite wall appeared no larger than ants. The walls were covered in hexagons, as usual- unusually, however, many seemed to be decorated with brightly colored plants or strange iridescent paintings. Filling the cavern were numerous tall pillars in the same familiar hexagonal shape. Smaller ones sat around the edges of the area, getting larger as they moved in, culminating in one enormous column in the direct center of the room. "Wait here," said Santonio. "Don't try anything- we'll be watching." A pair of Hyxali workers flew up to the opening they'd emerged from and picked up Santonio, carrying him forwards into the vast expanse of the Outpost's heart. @Channelknight Fadran

I will put my vote for rule 301. Also, the doc has been updated to allow suggestions, and a player list has been added.

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

Could something allowing multiple rules/amendments/mutations to happen per turn be added to this amendment proposal?

@Channelknight Fadran

He did.

I think we should use the official ones.

The group passes through a stream of Hyxali workers. As they do so, Fadran feels something slide into his hand.

"If you can put that on hold," said Jaxevist, "you might want to." He nodded towards up ahead, where the passage began to widen. "We're about to pass into the main chamber of the outpost. If King Aridith is here in person, that's where he'll be."

An orange holed stepped forwards and picked up Queen, stepping quickly so as to not fall out of line.

There aren't, there are only 29.