MetaTerminal
-
Posts
586 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by MetaTerminal
-
That is what the game’s inventor, Peter Suber, named it when it was invented in 1982. Apparently the word is derived from the Greek word nomos, meaning ‘law’. This is UNO, unfortunately. However, Eggs don’t really mean much at this point anyway, so this is no reason for concern. I want to comment briefly on the shape of the game as it exists - we’ve got an outline of a functional rule-changing system, with currency rules on their way (it would be splendid if @Jaywalk could vote on all proposals, though I am aware that there are many. The majority amount has also risen to 7.) But we don’t really have a game. Nothing to strategise about, or win or lose. Right now we’re just waiting for other people to make mistakes, and then call them out on it. Fun, sure. But not sustainable. Having more Egg rules passed would serve to fix this somewhat (especially the Maybe Rule, and the Duel of Aww Rule) but I’m thinking more long term. I proposed the Chessboard Rule a while back, but it didn’t really fly. I’d like to return to that briefly. Having the Chessboard Rule would be a way to make sure that we had a game. It’s a game of chess - once implemented, we can make changes to the rules (different coloured pieces, different game pieces, extra squares, different colours for squares, extra dimensions and Realms, zones on the board, rules about movement, rules about Egg consumption after moves... I just brainstormed those in a few seconds, so there is basically endless opportunity for development here) that allow the Nomic to develop further. Obviously, if people don’t like chess, then there’s no reason to go for this rule specifically. But I think that something should be implemented. Preferably a board game, or something that tracks its own state easily (if we wanted to focus on Eggs, then we could make corporations, tax laws, products, etc... though I think an external form would also serve to work alongside this and allow more clear gameplay). It could be anything, really. But I think something along these lines would be a good idea. The beauty of all this, of course, is that you can take my opinion for a grain of salt.
-
UNO! Dapper’s First Law. Rule 15:
-
I haven’t voted for anything (beyond my antics with the Literal Rule) since Page 2, so it’s time to amend that. :3 Agree: Disagree: To fulfil Meta’s Clause, I shall propose the following rule: Meta’s Clause Removal: That Meta’s Clause should be removed from the rules and no longer be in effect.
-
Majority rules. Since there are (as far as I am aware) 11 players, 6 votes are required to pass a rule. If there are 12, it should be 7. The poll will go up shortly. All players and all other nominated people (ie Tristan) are included.
-
Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments or Removals:
-
This is correct, but the rule still doesn’t apply. Rule 21 states that 15 minutes must have elapsed for the poster to be punished. The rules are in effect from the moment that they are in effect, and as such the rule does not pass. There is simply no punishment for breaking the rule.
-
The idea that ‘all rules can be interpreted in ways that were not intended’ is, as it stands, game breaking enough that I have decided to take executive action. I am sorry about this. I agree with your interpretation of the Literal Rule, Voidus. I lose ten Eggs. I interpret the Main Idea in a fashion that was not intended - that each person can vote multiple times in order to reach a majority. I propose a new rule. The Fairness Rule: that Meta shall receive a one-time sum of ten Eggs upon the passing of this rule. I support the Fairness Rule. I support the Fairness Rule.I support the Fairness Rule.I support the Fairness Rule. I support the Fairness Rule. I support the Fairness Rule. I support the Fairness Rule. I support the Fairness Rule. The Fairness Rule has attained majority, and is now in effect. Meta has 0 Eggs. I propose a new rule. The Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea: that the Literal Rule be rephrased as “All things, including rules, can be interpreted literally or metaphorically - as they were assumed to be intended - so long as it makes sense; and that any associated implications of the rule not explicitly stated should also be interpreted as true - this includes taking the spirit of a rule, even if the actual letter of the rule differs slightly due to a small technicality. This plea applies retroactively, with one exception: this plea does not apply to the post where this plea was introduced.” I support the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea. I support the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea. I support the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea. I support the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea. I support the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea. I support the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea. I support the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea. I support the Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea. The Slightly Altered Plea is now in effect - the Literal Rule has been altered. This also means people can no longer vote multiple times, in accordance with the new Literal Rule. In my opinion, this does not prevent loopholes or contradictions - only alternate interpretations. :3 cat emoji.
-
I propose a new rule. The Internal Consistency Plea: that the Literal Rule be rephrased as “All things, including rules, can be interpreted literally or metaphorically - as they were assumed to be intended - so long as it makes sense; and that any associated implications of the rule not explicitly stated should also be interpreted as true - this includes taking the spirit of a rule, even if the actual letter of the rule differs slightly due to a small technicality. This plea applies retroactively.” I support this rule, and invite everyone else to also support it so the game can actually continue without completely deteriorating.
-
Which we do, since that’s what we determined beforehand - the Literal Rule has already been interpreted as contradictory to what you are claiming, and thus your attempts to reinterpret it are incorrect, due to the Literal Rule. You have violated the Literal Rule. UNO! You lose ten Eggs.
-
See my discussion with Kidpen - we determined how the Literal Rule should be parsed, which clearly states that your view here is incorrect.
-
No - images inside quote boxes count. Which is why your post is also not a violation of rule 15.
-
I call attention to the Literal Rule - the Original Rule of Honor clearly implies that attempts to make unnoticeable changes (regardless of whether or not they are noticed) are a violation. The intended meaning (interpreted as such from Rule 6) thus means that UNO can be called on violations of the Original Rule of Honor, and as such a contradiction has been caused.
-
However - I have been abiding by the Original Rule of Honor - it is impossible for me to follow the First Law of Dapper and the Original Rule of Honor at the same time. With y’alls agreement, I shall be exempted from any violations caused by reposting the rules in their specificity and entirety. (Otherwise, I won’t post the rules, which means we will all get terribly confused.) EDIT: In addition, the UNO Rule specifies that the offending post must be quoted in order for the UNO to apply.
-
The French Law and the Paradox of Retroactive Rulings are now in effect. Rule 15 Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments or Removals:
-
On the contrary (1 min vs just now): By all means, pass a rule to repeal them.
-
Too late, sorry. I had edited it. New Rules may be incoming soon.
-
UNO! Violation of Meta’s Clause. You lose ten Eggs. Dr. Dapper: - 10 Eggs
-
Then nobody has lost any Eggs, since Voidus’ UNO on me was also incorrect (I had edited in a cat).
-
Personally, I think edits shouldn’t count if people call you out before the edit is made, but you should be let off this time since the UNO post was made after you made the edit, but before it was shown. UNO! Violation of rule 15. You lose 10 eggs. Eggs MiToRo: -10 Voidus: - 10 EDIT: @Dr. Dapper, please vote on the existing proposals.
-
Laws are now in effect! Due to me not being on the ball, we shall ignore the implications of Punishment being implemented before UNO. All laws are now considered to be in effect from here on out. The Unnamed Proposal, Meta’s Clause, the Third Law of Dapper, the Negative Rule, MiToRo’s Rule of Punishment, and the UNO Rule have attained a majority vote and are in effect. This post does not violate Meta’s Clause. EDIT: More rules incoming, since I forgot to count Ene’s votes. The Beginnings of Democracy is now in effect - once we decide on what form we shall take the poll, we shall do so. No, the Chessboard Rule does not require you to select a piece. Rule 15 Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments or Removals:
-
I do not agree with the Rule of Exceptions, given that all numbers are multiples of 1 - thus, every rule would be exempt from multiples of 3, including Rule 42 itself, thus nullifying the rule... which means that a paradox is caused. Does rule 42 apply or not? Should a revision or an alternative of this rule be proposed, I would be more inclined to support it. I do not agree with the Taxation Rule or the Spike Rule. I propose the Brevity Act: that there be a maximum of 50 proposed rules at any one time. Players may also vote to strike proposals from consideration - once a majority is reached, the vote is struck from consideration, and must be reintroduced and reattain all votes in order to reach a majority. Rule 15:
-
The rule parses as: “any rule can be interpreted (either) literally OR not (literally) - which one it is is selected given the intention of the rule drafter, as long as that intention makes sense.” Your move is thus considered in violation of the Trading Rule (the Literal Rule stipulates that players can only give their points) and the Literal Rule, and shall be ignored. I support all of the above proposals, though Rule 15 neglected. The majority requirement has risen to 6. I would like to ask @Kidpen to vote on all pending proposals, as to start getting as many of them passed as possible. Rule 15:
-
With 2 new players, the majority requirement has risen to 5! I support the Beginnings of Democracy, New Rule the Second, Participation Eggs and Non-Participation Eggs. The Second Law of Dapper and the Original Version of the Rule of Honor have been passed into effect! We have many, many proposals sitting on 4 votes, so if you haven’t voted on all proposals, be sure to do so (or simply pick ones that look interesting). It should also be noted that violations of Rule 15 have been frequent and flagrant, though until now unpunished, since we have no justice system. I propose a new rule. The French Law: at any time, a member of the ‘public’ (ie a non-presidential person) may declare a vote to overthrow the president. If a majority vote is attained, the person who started the poll becomes the new president in the place of the old one. Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments or Removals:
-
It is, in my opinion, time for some game mechanics! Rule proposals: 28. The Act that Concerns the Frequency of Turns (or ACFT): as stated by the Main Idea, you may only create new rules or amendments on your turn. You may only take a turn if two other people have taken their turn between now and your most previous turn, or if you have not taken your turn in over 24 hours. You do not have to propose a rule on your turn (unless otherwise indicated, eg by Meta’s Clause). 29. The Chessboard Rule: there exists a standard chessboard, originally starting as the starting piece positions for white and black. Each player may elect one piece on the board as theirs - during their turn, they may move their piece as per the standard rules of chess. Checking a piece (checks being defined as per standard chess rules) which is controlled by another player (the ‘recipient’) gains the moving player 100 points, and loses the recipient 100 points. Mutual checks provide no point increase or deduction for either side. 30. The Rule that Says You’ve Lost the Game (or RSYLG): every player must lose the Game at least once every ten turns. Other players are morally obligated to remind players when this requirement due (though not reminding someone is not considered an official infraction). To announce the fact that you have lost the Game, say in a post during which you have taken your turn, “I have lost the Game.” I support all of the above proposals. I have decided to start supporting the Negative Rule. This forum game only really works if everyone votes on all or most proposals - I’d like to request that @Dr. Dapper and @Lunamor vote on more (preferably all of) proposed rules, as to start passing more of them into effect - this request also applies to other players as well. Of course, this is not an actual rule. As per Rule 15:
-
I do not support either the Self Punishment Act or the Fair Play Act, for fear of abuse of said rules. In addition, it is my personal opinion that any paradoxes that may be resolved by the Fair Play Act should instead be kept for utmost mayhem. The Act of Dog Inclusion has now been modified, per the Voting Clause. Depictions of cats now fulfil the requirements of said rule. @Dr. Dapper, it should be noted that your previous is in violation of Rule 15, though there is no punishment for violation at this moment. (Ene’s First Rule, once implemented, would provide a way to punish for rule infractions.) (As was this post, but you can also ignore that.)
