MetaTerminal
-
Posts
586 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by MetaTerminal
-
This game was partially inspired by me getting frustrated by the labyrinthine 1e rules. (That is, it’s what inspired me to fall into the Wikipedia rabbit hole to find it.) Math is hard, okay? Majorities and possibly more rules will have been passed. Those will be edited into this post shortly. In addition, a final plug for riddles - y’all should already be added to the PM, but if you want to play and you aren’t already just let us know. :3 EDIT: Paradox of Retroactive Rulings - Rules do not apply retroactively in this instance. Unless there’s something that I have missed, which is entirely possible.
-
You’ll want to edit in a proposal, as per Meta’s Clause - otherwise your votes won’t count if someone calls you out. (I’m not invoking the UNO rule, so they will count until someone does.) :3 I propose the Corporations Rule: That a group players may agree to form a corporation under a name, and that upon the forming of said corporation the amount of Eggs that each person in the corporation (hereafter referred to as a ‘member’) has (be it positive or negative) is pooled into one shared sum (hereafter referred to as the Bank Balance). If a member chooses to leave a corporation, they receive ( S x n^(-1) ) Eggs (where S is the number of Eggs in the Bank Balance and n is the number of members) - this means that if everyone chooses to leave all at once they will all receive an equal amount of eggs. Any changes to a member’s Egg amount is instead applied to the corporation’s Bank Balance. A member may join a corporation after it has been formed if they receive the approval to join from a majority of the corporation’s members.
-
I resupport the amendment, and re-propose and uninvoke the Rule of Invalidation. I suppose it’s time for a rule repost, even though no new rules have been passed, so hang tight for that. Shall I add you to the PM? We might make it opt-out instead. We could also allow old-school chestnuts alongside riddles to widen the playing space. And there’s nothing wrong with having a few riddles with multiple answers or easily googlable ones, as long as it’s accounted for when deciding the winner. :3
-
If a riddle is unfair, or has multiple possible answers, you may invoke Gollum’s Complaint (as informally outlined in the Hobbit) and it will be taken into account. Presumably people will want to draft their own. And if nobody wants to play, then challenge people to another game - I just started that one because I know some good, non-Internet solvable riddles and we needed to get the game moving again. This is UNO... but the upside is that if Wandering Merchant is passed, new (though you’re not new... ignore me) players won’t get jumped by UNO again. :3
-
This is an amazing rule, and I support it. That being said, you may want to change the fact that if the new player meets the spacing requirements, they technically never stop being a Wandering Merchant (and thus can break the rules as much as they want). You may want to alter it so that they stop being Wandering Merchants after this time period is up. (Though @AonDii will have to revote for it if that change is made.) I support this as well. This. I don’t want to retag anyone, so if nobody explicitly signs up we may just add everyone to the PM and assume an opt-out (instead of an opt-in) policy. A propose a rule to fulfil my Clause: the Rule of Invalidation: that following this rule is expressly forbidden. I then withdraw the rule from consideration.
-
I second that, person who has a Slowbro as an avatar, is Hemalurgically fueled and may or may not be the god of the Alleyverse. (Though I forget what you’re supposed to be called.) A devilish plan indeed. I, too, used the first result from Google Images to fulfil Rule 15! Or you copied me. Either way, I don’t have to find my own image.
-
New laws have been passed into effect: Voidus' Rule of Potential Karmic Retribution, the Everyone Is A Winner Rule, Participation Eggs, Duel of Awww, the Maybe Rule, and the Rule of Big Eggs. In accordance to Ene’s First Rule, 3 Eggs have been awarded to @Voidus, 12 (!) Eggs to @MiToRo94, and 3 Eggs to @Dr. Dapper. Congratulations to everyone. I challenge all active players ( @Dr. Dapper, @AonEne, @TheVillageIdiot, @Voidus, @Kidpen, @MacThorstenson, @MiToRo94, @AonDii and @Taradiddle) to a communal game of riddles, as popularised by the Hobbit, in accordance with the Maybe Rule. The winner of the game of riddles (as decided communally by the players, and if only one person wins) will gain 900 Eggs. If you’re no good at riddles, feel free to challenge other people at other games you’re better at. :3 I have decided to add a note to the opening post to make it easier to jump into the game - specifically, to note that understanding the rules is hardly expected, that rule infractions will be called out instead of immediately punished, and to simply note how the game currently works (the Duel of Awww and the Maybe Rule specifically). Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments:
-
The original draft was “the Rule Lawyering Rule. This rule states that Rule Lawyering is forbidden - what is defined as Rule Lawyering can be decided on as a case by case basis, with common sense prevailing in this regard. (As a general concept, if passing a rule or making any sort of action requires bending existing rules to a great extent - by introducing alternate definitions or , or is contradicted by the Literal Rule, then it could be called Rules Lawyering.) Any post that is determined to contain Rule Lawyering will be entirely invalidated, under the same conditions as the rule to keep rules meaningful. Using a loophole that is clearly evident is obviously fine.” Some amendments were made, which I am trying to sort out, but it effectively prevents people from trying to break the rules too much. @AonDii :3
-
Done. How do I upvote a post multiple times? :3
-
I withdraw the Rule of Eh from consideration. Thankfully, this doesn’t mess up the numbering system, since I forgot to include it in the listing in the first place. The Literal Rule, the Fairness Rule, and the The Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea have all been removed from the rules, and the Rule Lawyering Rule (to be edited in shortly once I have the amendments sorted out), the Rule of Activity (similarly) and the Rule of Rules Actually Meaning Something have all been passed into effect. Under the Rule of Activity, the current majority requirement is 6. As a result, the Equal Opportunity Act, Ene’s First Rule, the Rule For Meta’s Sanity, The Act that Concerns the Frequency of Turns and Fair Start have all been passed into effect, alongside the amendment to the Act of Dog Inclusion. The majority will likely continue to drop over the course of the day, meaning more rules will continue to be passed into effect. I welcome anyone who wants to do Egg counts to do so and to post what they get, as it likely won’t be convenient for me to do so today. I support rules 81, 84 and 87. I propose the Rule of Relevancy: that relevant xkcd’s are expressly forbidden on this thread. :3 Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments:
-
Excellent. (For this post only, I shall assume that any assumption of a rule’s intentions, as per the Literal Rule, is valid. This is a valid interpretation, as per the Literal Rule.) I remove the Literal Rule, the Fairness Rule, and the The Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea from the Rules. This is in violation of the Voting Clause. I call UNO on myself, and I lose ten Eggs. (It’s only fair.) I pass the Rule of Activity into the Rules, the Rule Lawyering Rule into the Rules, all amendments to the Rule Lawyering Rule into the Rules, and the Rule of Rules Actually Meaning Something into the Rules, with the understanding that they shall all take effect just after when the next list of rules is either posted or edited into a post. This is in violation of the Voting Clause. I call UNO on myself, and I lose ten Eggs. New post forthcoming. A number of rules will soon be passed, due to the passing of the Rule of Activity. In addition, this loophole will no longer work due to the Rule of Rules Actually Meaning Something being passed. I agree to AonEne’s terms for the Eggs, while muttering something under my breath about buying votes and governmental corruption. :3 :3 :3
-
So do you support abolishing the Literal Rule and applying the Rules Lawyering Rule? Also, unlike the Literal Rule, the only way to have a severe issue with the Rule Lawyering Rule is that there would need to be an interpretation of the Rules Lawyering Rule than allowed rule lawyering of the Rule Lawyering rule - from there, problems could be leveraged. A subclause of the rule could be implemented such that this is expressly forbidden. Since Rule Lawyering requires taking the literal meaning of a rule, if this was literally forbidden, the damage could be limited. :3
-
I feel like this would be a possible compromise. I don’t envision requiring to interpret posts as they are intended to be interpreted being much of an issue, but I think that would fix the dispute. Again: you can intend to be correct without being correct. You can be mistaken of something even if you don’t intend to be mistaken. The alternate issue that you are proposing here (which you may be referring to in the previous example) is that the issue of ‘assumption’ is tricky to pin down. I would say that this can be agreed on communally, through ‘Common Law’. Indeed, it’s something we would likely do anyway - it’s likely that someone would protest a point by saying “hang on, doesn’t Dapper’s First Law imply the singular as well?” And we would have the same argument over again. That being said, this is a very strong argument, and perhaps the best reason to get rid of it. I don’t have an easy answer to it, beyond proposing a Common Law system... but any attempts to formalize such a system would be too unwieldy in practice. So... Argh. Laws are hard. If it really is an issue you think cannot be ignored (and since you’re not ignoring it, then it evidently cannot be), then I know of a loophole that I can use to remove the rule. (Heh.) However, should we remove the Literal Rule, I would rather we impose the Rules Lawyering Rule in its place. I would like not to get bogged down with needless nitpicking, and I think it would provide good guidelines for what we would and would not consider pastry (ie acceptable). I will likely impose this rule if I remove the Literal Rule. No part of the rule stipulates you must give out fifty at a time. The rule does stipulate you may give a maximum of fifty eggs to each player as a total. Thus, if you give fifty points to me (subtle suggestion is subtle) I may not receive any more. With @Voidus‘s and the President’s (@AonEne) agreement, I shall exploit the loophole (and thusly fix it) to remove the Literal Rule and impose the Rules Lawyering Rule, and I shall similarly start putting laws into effect as per my Rule of Activity (which will also be put into effect). I shall also do Egg counts tonight, so we can actually start using them egg-ectively. (Originally a misspelling - the pun was too good not to keep.) There is no rule forbidding the practice, so I would say so. Rule 15 Mandated Cat - :3
-
I’ve been reflecting, and I have decided that I’ve been too harsh. Both of these are fine, and supported by the rule. (Damnation to my knee, and its jerkiness.) I still take issue with some of your rulings. I also think that you don’t understand the Literal Rule. “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.” If something is a metaphor, or is phrased oddly but has a clear intended meaning (a la the original Literal Rule, or the Voting Clause), then you are required to interpret it in this way. No deliberate misinterpretations. Similarly, implications should be assumed - those can be debated and decided on, (does the First Law of Dapper assume the singular? As it stands, I think not, but that can be debated) but this rule effectively makes it so that rules can’t be broken excessively by pointless nitpicking, and that the pace of the game is maintained. I would also say that the rule drafter has no particular emphasis over the intention - note the ‘assumed’ before ‘assumed to be intended’. The Death of the Author applies. Nowhere does it state that the intention should be valued over the literal wording of the rule - or indeed that the wording can be ignored at all in favour of the intention. This just influences our interpretations of the wording when multiple interpretations are available. I also think you misunderstand what is meant by intent - you can intend to not break a rule, but still break it. You can intend to do something, but forget - you can intend for something to be correct, when it is incorrect. The ‘sense’ subclause also applies in all these instances. Does it make sense for random whitespace to be interpreted as a ‘depiction of a cat’? (It’s certainly not an image.) It depends on the whitespace, but in many cases it does not make sense. Does a cat emoji depict a cat? That’s not an intended part of the rule when it was drafted (speaking as the person who proposed the amendment), but it makes sense. I think this should resolve our conflict, and allow the game to continue. If you wish to withdraw - no hard feelings. (Though I would like to continue to play with y’all.) If you are continuing - what do you think of my Voting Clause activity interpretation? And more votes (if you’re behind) would progress things somewhat. :3
-
:3 New votes have been counted. The majority amount has risen to 8, unless... we’ll get to that. Welcome, @AonDii! Be sure to vote on all proposals. Yes, there are over 80. I’m sorry. If nobody voted on any rules, then nothing would be passed. If you would like your own rules to be considered, it should be fair play to consider other people’s rules as well - especially if you raise the majority. If both of you vote, then we will be able to pass some more rules. Some Questionable and Perhaps Hypocritical Rule-Stretching player (n): 1) a person taking part in a sport or game. “The Voting Clause: Upon a majority vote of more than three players...” It is a possibility that we only count people towards the majority if they are currently taking part in the Nomic. Currently would be about a 48 hour window, IMO. This would not violate the Main Idea, since if they are not active then they are not suggesting rules or amendments. This would lower the majority to 6, and allow more rules to be passed. If we wish to make this into a rule, I shall call it the Rule of Activity. I support the Rule of Idiocy and the Rule of Big Eggs. EDIT: Congratulations to @AonEne, who has been elected as President, as per the existing rule of the Beginnings of Democracy! All but one of the players have voted, which means the outcome has been determined. Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments:
-
I agree with you in some aspects, and disagree in others. The Literal Rule and the Rules Lawyering Rule does not prevent loopholes. Nor does it prevent setting up systems to allow for you to win (eg planting a coconut makes a seed - a seed grows into ten gold in one turn - coconuts cost five gold each - you need 100 gold to win). I would call AonDii’s and MiToRo’s interpretation as unintended loopholes, unanticipated by the intended meaning of the rule, while still fulfilling all conditions. However, there is a difference between an unforeseen consequence of a rule which a player exploits, and willfully misunderstanding or stretching a rule beyond what is reasonable. It is very possible that the game will end with the implementation of an above rule - however, it is much more likely (in my opinion) that said rule will have been part of a system, instead of a singular winning rule. As for turning into a different game - the very purpose of Nomic is to evolve. Technically, we have already turned it into a different game. If, however, I abide by the Literal Rule when reading that statement (that the only way to win would be to turn it into another game that already exists), then I would disagree. The first aspect is the fact that people win Nomics, without requiring an external rule set. I can dig up some the examples if people would like them, but winning is possible - indeed, frequent for games which survive initialisation. Beyond that, the nature of Nomics is that existing rule sets do not remain in modified for long periods of time. If we wanted to change this Nomic into chess: firstly, if someone was close to winning, it would be conceivable that a rule would get passed to prevent them from winning; secondly, the rules would be modified anyway for fun. It is unlikely to win simply by focusing on the ‘game’ aspect, much how you are unlikely to win in SE if you ignore special abilities. The game you are playing is constantly in flux. As for “the imposition of rules is merely a way to facilitate changes to other or altered modes of gameplay, rather than the actual purpose of the game itself.” The rules are, of course, the purpose. If we wish, we can make them centered around said altered modes. Certainly, I started this to see how the game would evolve, and not to try and win it. That’s why I voted against Dapper’s Voting Clause amendment. That is why I am protesting against unnecessary elastication of existing rules. Nomic doesn’t have an existing purpose. It doesn’t even have a win condition. If we want it to have a purpose, we make it into a rule. Grains. If people want, they can revoke the Literal Rule and make the rules lawyering playstyle as part of the game. I’m not sure what I would do if that happened, but should you gain sufficient votes, it would be entirely within the existing rules to do so. :3
-
Welcome, MistCLOAKed! The majority requirement has remained at 7. Several proposals are currently at 6 - if people who have not voted on proposals could cast their vote, then we should be able to implement them. In addition, be sure to get your vote in for president! The cutoff will be when no additional votes from players will change the outcome, which is not currently true. I support the following proposals: 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, and 78 - in addition to the proposals I already support. :3 ————————— Here is the shape of the game, as I see it now. Tomorrow, we shall hopefully have an influx of votes from those who haven’t checked in for a while. This will lead to rapid implementation, and the idea of Eggs and Presidents will be more or less put into place. From there, more mechanics should hopefully be implemented, to start shaping this game into something more tangible. Which means that we likely want to start looking at the bigger picture, of where we want this Nomic to go, and how we will spend our turns and actions in the future. New rules should therefore, in my opinion, be aimed towards addressing this.
-
I’d say that this is still the case - however, in my opinion, it should be amended to: “with each player trying to subtly bend the rules such that he or she can win first.” The fun of the game should still be necessarily prioritised, alongside the existing rules. It is still entirely possible to arrange the rules such that you can win - however, the idea is more to set up a series of rules such that you are able to win first, without others noticing. The unique aspect of this game is that it evolves, and that people are able to shape in what direction it goes. Any game can get bogged down by Rules Lawyering and nitpicking. That isn’t what makes the game special. By all means, design a system where you are more likely to win, given your position. Just don’t try and leverage existing rules in order to achieve that. (Unless we choose to make such behaviour systemic - but I would opposed to that. Salt, salt, salt.) (Actually, it should be more “with each player trying to implement a system rules such that he or she can win first, while other people can also have fun.” Bending the rules is admittedly shorter.) :3 EDIT: By all means, withdraw if the game was not what you anticipated. In which case, I apologise for misleading you, and I shall make that clearer to potential players in the future.
-
I initially shrugged at this, but now I take issue with it. It must be either an image of a dog or a depiction of a cat - even with the Literal Rule applied, the proposal has to make sense, and in many cases random white space being a cat is inherently nonsensical. Obviously, there are cases where it does make sense, but this cannot be a blanket rule. As a result many of your posts are now UNO-able. I also call Rules Lawyering, which I have protested about earlier. :3 Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments:
-
I invoke the Literal Rule in conjunction with the Voting Clause, which I believe heartily invalidates your claim and means that your rule must go through the normal channels for being taken into effect. (Even if it was ‘passed’, it would not be in effect, and wouldn’t affect the shape of the game.) I will expand on this if I wish. I am proposing a new rule - the Rule Lawyering Rule. This rule states that Rule Lawyering is forbidden - what is defined as Rule Lawyering can be decided on as a case by case basis, with common sense prevailing in this regard. (As a general concept, if passing a rule or making any sort of action requires bending existing rules to a great extent - by introducing alternate definitions or , or is contradicted by the Literal Rule, then it could be called Rules Lawyering.) Any post that is determined to contain Rule Lawyering will be entirely invalidated, under the same conditions as the rule to keep rules meaningful. Using a loophole that is clearly evident is obviously fine. This is mainly to keep the focus on the bigger picture - it doesn’t prevent the exploitation of loopholes, but if passing a rule requires bending existing rules to a great extent (I know @MiToRo94 would be interested in this rule.) Even if this rule isn’t passed, I would urge existing rule lawyers (@Voidus and @MacThorstenson) to consider the bigger picture. We should be, in my opinion, evolving the game, and coming up with new and exciting ideas, rather than bogging down discussions with fine-toothed-comb disputes over existing rules. I know I would much prefer a game where things are constantly evolving, and not where we are stuck discussing the definition of ‘taken into effect’. This is why the Literal Rule exists. Again, though, grain of salt. @Lunamor, @Snipexe, @Dr. Dapper, @I think I am here., @TheVillageIdiot, @Kidpen (I think), @Jaywalk and @Silverblade5 all need to vote on a great number of proposals. If you do so, rules can start to be passed in order to get the game moving. I will be editing in votes on proposals soon. :3
-
No, since the Voting Clause explicitly outlines when laws are in effect, and they must be in effect to have effect - since the law is not yet in effect, then it cannot have effect, and thus the Voting Clause supersedes it. :3
-
The problem here is that regardless of if you intended to comply with a rule, you can still violate it. If we decide that using the singular p-word is against the rules, then it is still against the rules, regardless if you attempted to comply or not. This is only true if the rule is already passed - if it has attained 7 votes. One vote won’t do anything. I support the rule, regardless. I propose the law of eh: that saying eh in this thread is forbidden. :3 EDIT: @Blessing of Potency I’m not sure what you’re requesting assistance on - do you misunderstand the concept of the game? Or the current game state?
-
(UNO! Rule 15! You lose 10 Eggs.) Wait, never mind. Storm you, Voidus. I invoked the Literal Rule - the implication is that a singular ‘p word’ should also be referred to as an ‘Egg’ - however, this interpretation is not necessarily correct, and I will defer to others if more people disagree. :3 EDIT: @MacThorstenson Either passing the Brevity Rule, or one of your ideas, or changing the Voting Clause to get a lower requirement for voting.
-
UNO! Dapper’s First Law! You lose 10 Eggs. :3
-
I was going to collect votes when 1) one person attains a majority of votes (ie 7, when votes by non-players have been removed); 2) when everyone has voted; 3) when no additional votes from players will change the outcome. Technically, 1 and 2 are subsets of 3. That being said, proposing the other things should happen early, since it takes about 12 hours for something to be passed into effect if it’s popular. Unless the new rules advantage the president, and you want to pass it when you’re the president, in which case I don’t care for it much either way. Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments:
