MetaTerminal

I don’t think that’s how it works any person’s judgement is real judgement, even if you disagree with it. It is @xinoehp512’s turn as Judge - it’s my turn. He is the one preceding the one moving (ie me). If it’s any help, I agree with xino here - the rule took effect the moment it was passed (and the moment it was passed was the moment it was ‘winning’) so Truth doesn’t get any points. Short shrift but ‘s how I see it. As for Chesterton’s Fence: it might now be more frustrating to lose a vote but this stops people engineering votes for their own gain. I’m okay with the trade-off. We can reinstate it later if we want. Rules 305 and 306 have both been passed! I get 29 points. I have two ideas for 307, both involving NPC’s: either that there be a Bank/Casino that you can incur debt to if your points drop below zero (and there be some way of losing points) - this would probably turn into a property/points trading game? Maybe you could play games against the Bank somehow. There would be room here around games against the Bank, the rules of the Bank, maybe taxes or loans or bonuses when players fulfil certain conditions. Alternatively, we create a Merchant who can hold items which you can buy; then it would probably become a trading game with different items - that would maybe tie nicely into contracts - and we could set different win conditions (well, getting lots of points, because of 112) on having certain sets of items, or being granted abilities from items. (There could be x point-gain conditions and they’re assigned to players randomly and perhaps secretly? That might need a game-master or something, so, hrrm.) If other people have ideas I would love to hear those as well.

Well, that’s enough to pass both motions, but @The_Truthwatcher and @xinoehp512 still both need to vote because of how the rules work. I’ll have a think about what mechanics we might want to start including, but I’m very free to take suggestions. Alternatively I could spend the slot fixing something we wanted changed. Maybe how points are collected?

My turn! Rule 305. 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^ in mathematical notation.) 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. Rule 306. That rule 206 be repealed. Rules 305 and 306 are open to vote. I vote for rule 305 and for rule 306. The following rule isn’t open to voting yet, I’d like to have some discussion about it in accordance with 111. Rule 307. That there be a board, consisting of an 4x4 grid of alternating black and white squares, like a quarter of a chessboard. This is the ‘gameboard’. Every player has a grey token on the board (‘their’ token) which they may move on their or someone else’s turn by one orthogonal square (ie they may move one square vertically, or horizontally, but not diagonally.) Every player’s token starts at the top-leftmost square. Is this a good idea? We can start tying winstates or achievements to arriving on certain squares, travel restrictions, tolls, ownership of squares, recolouring squares. If it’s too hard to keep track of I’d like to implement an alternate game mechanic to get started. Or we could change point scoring, but I didn’t have any good ideas about that, so other people will have to suggest those.

No rule says all proposals must be simultaneous. Indeed, this rule actually implies otherwise. And it still encompasses one turn, since in one turn you can propose up to three rules - not ’you have to propose up to three rules all at the same time’, but presumably ‘over the course of your turn’.

I still think all the additions are natural outgrowths of the original rule, and it serves no purpose excluding them. Emphases mine. The amendments specifically deal with those two parts, both part of the same original rule. They are all amendments to a single rule. Of a mutable rule, singular. If we insist, then I have no problems with it; but it's well within what the rules allow and I would not have any issue supporting it. If I was Judge, I would say it were a single rule. There's no difference, functionally, of starting the vote over again without the zero thing, except to delay the game further, and it will be added back in (to this rule, probably) later.

Doesn't pass, I think. Needs a majority.

Can you not suggest? I’m able to but xino has to approve my changes.

Think Truth is correct. Votes for 303 and 304 opened after the vote for 302 closed. Rules take effect the moment the vote is finished (205), meaning 302 is in effect right now. Even if 303 and 304 were being voted on before 302 took effect, 302 still would apply to the current vote (if the vote was still ongoing. If it was finished, tough luck.) EDIT: also, xino votes, right?

I vote for 303 and for 304, but note that ‘two turns of their own’ is still a long time. Two turns of any player maybe? (Assume my for vote stands if you make that alteration.)

I am only more confused... 302 is passed! Rules now only need a majority to be passed. (Though everyone still needs to vote each time.) @xinoehp512 needs to put 303 and 304 to a vote.

If you read the original rule, it deals with turns not being able to be ‘skipped’ - the amendment therefore is well within what the original rule is about since it deals with skipping turns. It has to amend 201 since otherwise they would contradict... Alright! @The Last Post, please vote on 302. @xinoehp512, let’s put a final version of 303 and 304 to vote! (Note suggested changes by me/Danex now on previous page.) Your excuses only make me more curious...

No worries! Easily fixed. If Danex, Truth, xino agree, we can implement 302, and we should put the updated 303 and 304 to vote.

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.

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...

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

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.

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

xino has been using red as additions to rule changes/amendments or emphasis, but he's used green to vote 'for' twice now (for both 301 and 302). The red-green colourblind thing is a great point, though. Green as for, blue as against, red as (optionally) suggested changes to rules? That seems to be in line with what xino has been doing.

I vote for. Current votes: 3/6. @Gears@The Last Post@Danex are remaining. I'd be interested to see if we wanted this tied to turns but I don't really have strong opinions one way or the other. I'd probably vote for. Let's get some game mechanics in here! Oh oh oh. On that note, 303 probably has to be an amendment of 201 anyway (or must specifically overrule it, which 211 allows - otherwise 201 takes precedence) since 201 states that no turns may be skipped. If we're going to open that to a vote, you'll want to make that change.Abolition of turn order is an interesting concept: I've also become fine with it, so maybe it's an idea to bring up at a late date once we sort out the immediately pressing stuff. Also: "Players that do not post within 24 hours of a vote beginning will be rendered inactive for the duration of that vote" creates a specific edge case: someone not posting in the first 24 hours of a vote, then returning just after, means they are unable to undertake any actions until that vote is resolved. That includes voting for other, unrelated proposals, and anything else that requires you to be a player. Is that undesirable? 111 allows for debate when a rule "arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded" (which we're already doing anyway) but ultimately doesn't prohibit a two-in-one rule being passed. So xino is correct. It is ultimately up to you. However, I would just say that someone might potentially like your new rules, but also want to keep 204 or 206, which means that they might want to vote against it and wait for a version to be proposed that didn't replace their wanted rules. (This is what I would argue constitutes as two rule-changes; the repealing of the original rule and the implementation of the new one - someone might want one but not the other). Personally: I'm fine with 204 either standing or going. I don't think it creates too much of an issue. If you vote against a proposal, and then it doesn't pass, you don't get any points - and also people get mad at you I think it adds a bit of strategy. You only vote against a proposal if you're pretty sure everyone else will vote for it. (But I can also envision weird loopholes in conjunction with a separate 303, so... maybe a bad idea.) As for 206: it does serve a purpose, which is making sure that people create sound proposals and listen to others before they go ahead, but 301 already does that with the 'multiply by fraction of favourable votes' element, so I'm fine with this going. Or, if you're worried about debt, being superseded by 303: you could say something like players can't have less than 0 points... maybe the debt is incurred to a non-player character, who is a kind of 'enforcer', and can't win the game. Future rules can decide how these points are doled out. Like free parking! TL;DR I'm fine with keeping these as amending 204 and 206, but if other people have problems let's make them separate. It's not forbidden, just explicitly has to be discussed beforehand. We agree! And see my previous comments about implementing reasons to enact contracts. I don't see the contradiction here: none of these rules says anything about how many rule-changes there can be per turn, which 301 now purely handles. Had a feeling it was intentional. Nice work. Mmm. We might need to invoke Judgement if this case happens, since the rules are silent. And then make a rule explicitly listing what happens in accordance (or disagreement, maybe) with that decision. Meta rule? Oh, nevermind. Wouldn't green as for and red as against make a lot more sense? Then blue can be "I pressed the wrong button on the color picker and didn't notice". I believe it is!

Oh, here’s an interesting thing. 303 doesn’t contradict 105 at all. So there’s no issue. 105 says that all players are eligible voters and must participate in every vote. 303 gets around this by saying inactive people aren’t players, and therefore aren’t obligated to vote. Tricky, eh?

+1. I'm happy to start doubleposting; this is particularly if other people are viewing the thread. If nobody is, it's probably fine to edit. In accordance with 111, I don't know if voting has started yet, and we'd want to fix the 'amendment' bit anyway first. Could you... withdraw your vote? Is that a thing? I think your version of 304 (which isn't actually 304) will get chaotic and rules will get left behind. But that's my opinion and maybe the logistics will work out. Hey, you're right. The interesting thing is, if we make it mutable, and then next turn I amend it and then make it immutable with two rule proposals, what's the ordering for those actions to be enacted? Simultaneously is something I suppose could work.

There's like four methods of proposed turn-going here, this might get chaotic And yeah, not sure why 204 and 206 are relevant. We'll want to fix that. I like this, agree it should be 'simple majority'. I like this - I think distinguishing between who is active and inactive will be helpful even if we do away with turns just to help with voting (so proposals can still get passed even if, say, half the players stop playing). I built on Danex's proposal above in a way that I think is helpful (ie we don't do away with turns entirely) that can probably be an amendment to this rule if we want to enact it. I like this, actually. I think we can start forming the game even as we sort out the other stuff. Three proposals per turn allows for that. However, the maximum is set at 9E999, which is... a lot. Do we want to keep this? Seems like fun. I'd vote for it. We'd want to change the win state though, since we can currently surpass it by 997 orders of magnitude. We'd also want to work out pretty quickly why people would want to set contracts: what benefits could one gain that would be worth losing points (and putting someone else closer to winning)? Are there items? Is there a board? Alternate currencies? Are there multiple winstates? I'd also like to say that if we're keeping turns, we might want to set things like 'actions per turn', say: you can make a maximum of one contract per turn (including other players' turns), you have to specifically 'claim' fulfillment of a contract on a different turn than the contract was made (to prevent lots of exchanges all in one go and clear up the order of actions a bit), contracts are considered null after x turns (maybe x can be set by the contracter?). This is keeping in line with my idea of 'there should be turns, even if the turn order is malleable'. This initially caused me alarm, but actually I do think we're in the clear: 111 is specifically talking about if one of the rule-changes is arguably two changes rolled into one, not prohibiting multiple rule-changes per turn. If it did contradict though then xino would still only be able to suggest one per turn since 111 takes precedence. See: "If a rule-change as proposed...arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded...then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." Emphasis mine. It's specifically talking about individual rule changes acting as 'double-ups', not prohibiting people suggesting more than one individually.

Always good to know my calculations are correct! Also, you're now technically in the lead to win. Probably not for long though. Savor it while it lasts. I missed the small note that amended rules gain the number of their amendments. That's a cool thing and probably helpful. These base rules are actually a lot better than I gave them credit for way back when. Edit responding to your edit: This could work with some adjustment. Turns (ie someone having 'control' at any one time) are helpful to make sure all proposals are considered/voted on, at least to achieve majority for or against. Might also help in the future if we implement a board state or something to track time and how often people can move (even if it's as simple as 'you may move once every turn, including on other player's turns'). Maybe you can 'take' a turn after x% of other players take a turn after you, and once someone claims a turn it's their turn, and it has to be followed through to the end with other people voting and points being allocated. Prevents one person getting busy and holding everything else up, but keeps the benefits of the structure.

Yup. Current rules are you can only put rule changes to vote when it's your turn - which I think is after xino, me, and then TLP. If you want you could 'suggest' rules (ie they aren't up for vote) so that other players could maybe incorporate them early (especially since we can suggest up to 3 now). Discussing those might be fun while we wait for stuff to happen. On that note: people have suggested changing how one gets points, unanimity rules, and looking how we deal with 'activity' so we don't get stuck waiting for people to take that turn if that ever becomes an issue, That's Danex's turn! As per rule 202, he gets ((301 - 291)*(6 / 6) = 10) 10 points. (I put it on the rules doc just so we have somewhere to keep track of game state.) 301 passes by unanimous vote; now people can put up to three rule changes to a vote each turn. It's xino's turn. I think he's now asleep, so when he wakes I'm sure there will be a flurry of activity.

TL:DR read rule 301 and vote for/against, then Danex gets his points, and then it's xino's turn. Who probably just went to bed, so hooray for more waiting! In the meantime, if we want to do something, we could talk about what rules we want to start to implement. xino gets three suggestions. I suggest first unanimity, and activity rules to be changed, so that we minimise the number of times we get stuck in the future. If we wait for 24 hours and someone doesn't take their turn (or vote), we should be able to move on. And point gaining should be different, though we might need to come up with ideas for that.