Dominion Strategy Forum
Miscellaneous => Forum Games => Non-Mafia Game Threads => Topic started by: Twistedarcher on November 03, 2015, 06:21:53 pm
-
Players:
Scott_pilgrim
Voltaire
Faust
Jimmmmm - Current Player
Twistedarcher - Scribe
Sudgy
Chairs
Jack Rudd
Ranking Points:
Scott_pilgrim - 0
Voltaire - 0
Faust - 0
Jimmmmm - 0
Twistedarcher - 0
Sudgy - 0
Chairs - 0
Jack Rudd - 0
Section 1: Player conduct
101. All players must always abide by all the rules currently in effect, in the form in which they are currently in effect.
Section 2: Rules and rule changes
201. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules permits it.
202. If two or more rules conflict with each other, the one with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.
203. A rule change is the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a rule.
204. No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. No rule change may have retroactive application.
205. Each proposed rule change shall be given a number for reference. The number for enacted rules shall be the next successive integer (with the first number in each section ending with 01) in the section the active player deems appropriate. This need not be a section currently in use. If the section the proposed rule change will be in does not have a name, the active player shall name the section as part of the proposal. The section will receive that name if the proposal is approved.
206. If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. The first time a rule is amended, .1 is added to the end of its number. Any subsequent time it is amended or transmuted, the number after the point is increased by 1.
207. When a rules change is approved, any part of it inside square brackets takes immediate effect, and then is removed along with the square brackets.
Section 3: Turns
301. Players take turns in player order, returning to the top of the list when necessary. The player whose turn it is currently is the active player. When the active player’s turn ends, the next player’s turn starts immediately.
302. In a turn, the active player may submit up to two draft proposals and one final proposal, in that order.
303. Once the active player has submitted a final proposal, each player may vote. Players cast votes by typing xxx Vote: Yes or xxx Vote: No in the game thread, where xxx is the proposal number. Before the turn is over, players may change their vote. Only the most recent vote by each player is valid.
304. A turn is over only when a player who is eligible to do so declares it to be over. The current player may end the turn at any time. Any other player may end the turn if one of the following is true:
1) More than 48 hours have passed since the start of the turn and no draft or final proposal has been submitted,
2) More than 48 hours have passed since the last draft or final proposal, or
3) A final proposal has been submitted and a majority of players are voting the same way.
Any rule which prevents players from ending the turn takes precedence over this.
305. At the end of a turn in which a final proposal was submitted, it is approved if a majority of players were voting Yes when the turn ended, or if the turn lasted more than 48 hours after the final proposal was submitted, and more players were voting Yes than No when the turn ended. When a proposal is approved, the rule change takes effect immediately.
Section 4: Joining and leaving the game
401. A new player may join the game by posting /in in the game thread. If a final proposal has not been submitted in the current turn, they join the game immediately. Otherwise, they join the game at the end of the current turn. Either way, they are placed before the current active player in the player order.
402. A player may leave the game at any time by posting /out in the game thread. They are immediately removed from the game and no longer subject to any rules within.
Section 5: Roles
501. Each role described in this section must be occupied in order for any player to end a turn.
502. A player who has a role may vacate that role at any time. If this occurs, or if a player with a role leaves the game, the role goes to the first player to volunteer for it in the game thread.
503. The Scribe is responsible for keeping public documentation for the current ruleset, all previous rule changes, and all other publicly known gamestate information.
Section 6: Ranking
601. If any player makes a proposal that gets accepted, they gain one ranking point. If any player fails to make a proposal during their turn, they will lose one ranking point (negative numbers are allowed). All players will be ranked according to the number of ranking points they have, with the largest number going first. Ties are allowed. The current ranking along with the ranking points of each player are posted by the Scribe after each turn.
-
Draft rules, please comment on them so we can hopefully get the game started sooner rather than later! Rules numbers are the same from the previous ruleset, should get renumbered for the beginning of the game.
Thoughts: Judgement feels like it should be dealt with in game, rather than pre-game, although I know there were some problems with it last game.
Went with majority voting from the start, but we can start with unanimous voting required also.
Starts out needing 100 points to win, and keeping the dice roles intact, although I expect it to get removed. Could remove this pregame if everyone wants.
Got rid of mutable/unmutable rules.
Thought about removing #213 but I feel like it might be a key rule needed to keep the game in check, thoughts would be appreciated
Rules:
101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect.
103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment of a new rule, repeal of an existing rule, or amendment of an existing rule.
104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.
105. In order to be adopted, a rule-change must receive a "Yes" vote from the majority of players.
107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.
111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.
113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.
116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.
201. Playing order will be determined randomly, players taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points.
202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one six-sided die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.
205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.
207. Each player always has exactly one vote.
208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.
209. At no time may there be more than 25 rules.
211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.
If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.
If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.
When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.
The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.
Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.
New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.
213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.
This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.
-
Also if some of these changes are too much, and things we should deal with during the game and not pre-game, we can put them back in and deal with them. I just want to avoid a situation similar to the last game where Liopoil arguably won on the second turn due to a crappy ruleset and not anyone else's fault.
-
/in
-
Doesn't #213 make it so that the first player to break the game wins? That's not necessarily a bad thing, just making sure I understand it correctly.
-
I would like to counter this proposal with my own proposed ruleset and see what people think. Should get it done today.
-
I would like to counter this proposal with my own proposed ruleset and see what people think. Should get it done today.
Or rather what TA thinks, since he's opening the game.
-
Doesn't #213 make it so that the first player to break the game wins? That's not necessarily a bad thing, just making sure I understand it correctly.
Yes, at least at the start of the game. Like everything, you can change it any time.
-
A couple things I would change:
1. Get rid of rule 209, or at least change it to made rules. I think it was trying to make you make your established rules immutable, but we don't have immutable rules.
2. Make a way for people to start playing in the middle of the game. There was talk about this last game, and I think it would be best to start with it.
Also, are you wanting to play with the idea being you need to make the most complicated intricate ruleset ever, or just trying to make a game with the rules of Nomic to start with? This was a major point of disagreement in the first one.
-
I'm mostly a substantive rather than procedural player: my idea with Nomic is that it be used to create an interesting game, rather than trying to tie the ruleset up in knots.
-
I like that set of rules. Seems clear and capable of generating good stuff.
-
/in.
I'm probably more of a procedural player, wanting to win by virtue of pretzeling the rules. I've never actually played Nomic except maybe (and I don't remember for sure) I may have participated in the last f.ds Nomic.
-
Works for me. 501 seems useless now since it's superseded by 304, but other than that I don't see any issues.
-
Works for me. 501 seems useless now since it's superseded by 304, but other than that I don't see any issues.
304 gives precedence to 501.
-
Works for me. 501 seems useless now since it's superseded by 304, but other than that I don't see any issues.
No it doesn't, because rule 304 explicitly allows itself to be superseded by rules that prevent the ending of a turn.
-
Oh, duh. OK I like these rules, if no one protests let's start tonight.
-
I thought about putting a "restriction overrules permission" rule, but figured we can add that if it comes up.
-
Has anyone thought about a better wording for 204?
-
Let's start!
-
I had 202 twice - fixed.
-
Another idea is making it so that you can vote to kick people out. Make it a unanimous vote of everybody who can post within 48 hours or something so that we don't have to worry about multiple people being gone.
I think I'll play, but I'm really busy next week. Is that okay with you guys?
-
Another idea is making it so that you can vote to kick people out. Make it a unanimous vote of everybody who can post within 48 hours or something so that we don't have to worry about multiple people being gone.
I think I'll play, but I'm really busy next week. Is that okay with you guys?
It's fine with me. We can start you off at the bottom of the turn order.
-
Another idea is making it so that you can vote to kick people out. Make it a unanimous vote of everybody who can post within 48 hours or something so that we don't have to worry about multiple people being gone.
I think I'll play, but I'm really busy next week. Is that okay with you guys?
It's fine with me. We can start you off at the bottom of the turn order.
Or he can just end his turn when it comes around.
-
Started the game, because we can debate everything else in the game! Scott, you have the first turn starting now.
-
Whoa, I'm going first. Okay, how about defining a win condition for everyone? Like, the first player to 100 points wins. And we can figure out how people score points later. We can have a new section in the rules for win conditions I guess since it seems important enough to have its own section (and we might add more stuff to it later), and it doesn't really fit anywhere else.
(Draft:)
At the time this rule is passed, each player will have his score set to 0. (Saying that a player's score is x is equivalent to saying that that player has x victory points, or x VP.) If, at any time, a player's score is greater than or equal to 100, the game ends immediately and that player wins. If two or more players simultaneously reach 100 or more VP, the player with the highest score wins. If there are two or more players tied for the highest score (and both/all are greater than or equal to 100), the game does NOT end, and continues until this is no longer the case. Scores cannot be changed unless another rule allows for them to change.
Sort of a lot going on here, I wasn't expecting to have that much when I started writing. Summary:
1. Player's scores default to 0.
2. The first player to 100+ VP wins.
3. Ties are broken by who has the most points.
4. If there is still a tie, gameplay continues until the tie is broken.
5. Scores can't change unless a rule allows them to.
-
I don't like "at the time this rule is passed", since it stays in the rule but immediately becomes irrelevant.
-
I don't like "at the time this rule is passed", since it stays in the rule but immediately becomes irrelevant.
Do you have a suggestion for how to improve it? I just realized we also want new players' scores to default to 0 probably, so some other initialization clause might be better anyway.
-
I've played Nomic where we made things called "game changes" that could be included in a vote alongside a rule change at once. A game change would just change the state of the game once, when the rule was passed.
As for this rule, I think, after reading it really quickly, that it's fine.
-
I don't like "at the time this rule is passed", since it stays in the rule but immediately becomes irrelevant.
Do you have a suggestion for how to improve it? I just realized we also want new players' scores to default to 0 probably, so some other initialization clause might be better anyway.
It's hard to come up with a succinct way of putting it that covers now, new players joining and also players leaving and rejoining. Something like "When players join the game, their score is set to 0. [At the time this rule is passed, set all players' scores to 0, and remove the part of this rule in square brackets.]"
sudgy's idea of games changes is probably a good one.
-
At the time this rule is passed, each player will have his score set to 0. (Saying that a player's score is x is equivalent to saying that that player has x victory points, or x VP.) If, at any time, a player's score is greater than or equal to 100, the game ends immediately and that player wins. If two or more players simultaneously reach 100 or more VP, the player with the highest score wins. If there are two or more players tied for the highest score (and both/all are greater than or equal to 100), the game does NOT end, and continues until this is no longer the case. Scores cannot be changed unless another rule allows for them to change.
I think I'd prefer for this to say "Points cannot be gained or lost unless another rule allows for them to change". It's a small difference but I feel like the current version more speaks to rules such as "Scott Pilgrim now loses all his points!" as opposed to "Players gain x points by doing y".
I also think it's easier to say each player will have his victory points set to 0 and get rid of the bit in parentheses.
Also, points victory condition? How bland :P
-
I've played Nomic where we made things called "game changes" that could be included in a vote alongside a rule change at once. A game change would just change the state of the game once, when the rule was passed.
As for this rule, I think, after reading it really quickly, that it's fine.
I mean, this is cool, but it's not really in the current ruleset is it?
-
Also, points victory condition? How bland :P
What would you propose? I'm definitely open to alternative suggestions.
I've played Nomic where we made things called "game changes" that could be included in a vote alongside a rule change at once. A game change would just change the state of the game once, when the rule was passed.
As for this rule, I think, after reading it really quickly, that it's fine.
I mean, this is cool, but it's not really in the current ruleset is it?
If only we had some way to change that. :P
We could have a rule saying something like, "When a rules changed is approved, any part of it inside square brackets takes immediate effect, and then is removed along with the square brackets."
-
Er so this was locked. If i did that inadverantly on phone that's my fault.
-
It might be a good idea to pass that change before introducing VP.
-
Yeah, I actually like that. Okay, new draft:
When a rules change is approved, any part of it inside square brackets takes immediate effect, and then is removed along with the square brackets.
Just stealing this from Jimm. Any criticisms before I make it final?
-
Looks good to me. I take it this will be proposal 207?
-
looks good
-
Final Proposal:
Rule 207:
When a rules change is approved, any part of it inside square brackets takes immediate effect, and then is removed along with the square brackets.
-
Also it looks like I get to vote on it, so
207 Vote: Yes
-
207 Vote: Yes
-
207 Vote: Yes
-
207 Vote: Yes
-
207 Vote: Yes
-
There are 8 current players, and 5 have voted yes. I end the turn, and the proposal passes.
-
Sweet. That's a solid rule.
-
Stalling already? Come on Voltaire, where are you?
-
Time up, let's continue.
I end the turn. It is now faust's turn.
-
Is everyone happy with the draft proposal procedure? Are 2 + 1 final the right numbers? Is it okay that there's no requirement that they be related (obviously that came in useful for scott since it turned out to be better to do something else first)? Is 48 hours the right amount of time for deadlines? We could say throw in a 24 hour deadline for the active player to post at the start of the turn?
-
Is everyone happy with the draft proposal procedure? Are 2 + 1 final the right numbers? Is it okay that there's no requirement that they be related (obviously that came in useful for scott since it turned out to be better to do something else first)? Is 48 hours the right amount of time for deadlines? We could say throw in a 24 hour deadline for the active player to post at the start of the turn?
I think it can use improvement but also that it's not a high priority. Best way to keep the game moving is active players, not strict rules.
-
Is everyone happy with the draft proposal procedure? Are 2 + 1 final the right numbers? Is it okay that there's no requirement that they be related (obviously that came in useful for scott since it turned out to be better to do something else first)? Is 48 hours the right amount of time for deadlines? We could say throw in a 24 hour deadline for the active player to post at the start of the turn?
I think it can use improvement but also that it's not a high priority. Best way to keep the game moving is active players, not strict rules.
You're right, and one way to keep players active is to talk about the rules. Do you have any fun ideas for moving forwards? For me, I think we need to put in place something with intrinsic value - points and a win condition are one way, but there would plenty of other interesting ways to do this. I guess a difficult thing is to give us each something to aim for starting off with combined total control and a blank slate.
-
I have something cooked up that might go in that direction. I will post a first draft later today.
-
Is everyone happy with the draft proposal procedure? Are 2 + 1 final the right numbers? Is it okay that there's no requirement that they be related (obviously that came in useful for scott since it turned out to be better to do something else first)? Is 48 hours the right amount of time for deadlines? We could say throw in a 24 hour deadline for the active player to post at the start of the turn?
I think it can use improvement but also that it's not a high priority. Best way to keep the game moving is active players, not strict rules.
You're right, and one way to keep players active is to talk about the rules. Do you have any fun ideas for moving forwards? For me, I think we need to put in place something with intrinsic value - points and a win condition are one way, but there would plenty of other interesting ways to do this. I guess a difficult thing is to give us each something to aim for starting off with combined total control and a blank slate.
I have a few ideas. Looking forward to what Faust has to say.
A lot of my ideas would be in the "sillier" direction, closer to what the game would be in person with friends than what it would be online with strangers. Not sure if there's the support for that and we'd rather have a more serious game.
-
Is everyone happy with the draft proposal procedure? Are 2 + 1 final the right numbers? Is it okay that there's no requirement that they be related (obviously that came in useful for scott since it turned out to be better to do something else first)? Is 48 hours the right amount of time for deadlines? We could say throw in a 24 hour deadline for the active player to post at the start of the turn?
I think it can use improvement but also that it's not a high priority. Best way to keep the game moving is active players, not strict rules.
You're right, and one way to keep players active is to talk about the rules. Do you have any fun ideas for moving forwards? For me, I think we need to put in place something with intrinsic value - points and a win condition are one way, but there would plenty of other interesting ways to do this. I guess a difficult thing is to give us each something to aim for starting off with combined total control and a blank slate.
I have a few ideas. Looking forward to what Faust has to say.
A lot of my ideas would be in the "sillier" direction, closer to what the game would be in person with friends than what it would be online with strangers. Not sure if there's the support for that and we'd rather have a more serious game.
I guess all you can do is put it to a vote. Any ideas you want to share at this stage?
-
Okay, so let's get going. Here is a draft:
If any player makes a proposal that gets accepted, they gain one ranking point. If any player fails to make a proposal during their turn, they will lose one ranking point (negative numbers are allowed). All players will be ranked according to the number of ranking points they have, with the biggest number going first. Ties are allowed. The current ranking along with the ranking points of each player are posted by the Scribe after each turn. While a player occupies the first rank, during any vote that player may post Veto xxx, where xxx is the proposal number. If any eligible player does so before a proposal is accepted, the proposal will automatically fail. No player may use their veto more than once per round.
Basically, a motivation for playes to make good proposals and to be active. The ranking could also be used for various other things, and various other things could be awarded with ranking points.
-
D'oh, I forgot to include [Every player's ranking points are set to 0]. It will be in the final proposal if we get there.
-
I like it. I like some people having more power than others.
-
It's an interesting idea. I'm worried it will lead to stalemate situations, where a few players pull ahead and then consistently veto everyone else's rules because they do not serve their interest. What if instead, every time you veto something, you lose a ranking point (or maybe half a point)? That way they are sort of spendable, and it makes sure the power gets distributed in case someone pulls too far ahead.
Or maybe I don't know what once per round means. Is a round one complete cycle through the player list? If so then maybe it's fine as it is.
-
We could just have some kind of currency and it costs money to veto.
Actually a problem with that is that if you veto something, the next person can just propose it again. I guess with faust's suggested method, as long as you stay on top you can stop something from going through. Although of course as scott points out that could cause problems.
-
It's an interesting idea. I'm worried it will lead to stalemate situations, where a few players pull ahead and then consistently veto everyone else's rules because they do not serve their interest. What if instead, every time you veto something, you lose a ranking point (or maybe half a point)? That way they are sort of spendable, and it makes sure the power gets distributed in case someone pulls too far ahead.
Or maybe I don't know what once per round means. Is a round one complete cycle through the player list? If so then maybe it's fine as it is.
Yes, that's what I meant with round. Do you think there's a way to phrase it better?
-
We could just have some kind of currency and it costs money to veto.
Actually a problem with that is that if you veto something, the next person can just propose it again. I guess with faust's suggested method, as long as you stay on top you can stop something from going through. Although of course as scott points out that could cause problems.
Well, that's right, but if you e.g. veto the person that comes right before you in order, then at the very least you're going to be able to make your own proposal before someone else can re-propose. And if a group of people is tied for first rank, then if they coordinate, they can stop a proposal for multiple turns.
The veto should not be able to completely shut lower ranked players out of the game; hence once per round. I think a currency might do that, if someone finds a way to accumulate a pile of money. But of course once this veto rule is implemented, it can be further adjusted or supplemented by additional rules if you feel that that's the way to go.
-
Also note that as it is me proposing the rule, it will only take effect after my turn, so I will actually be the last in ranking for a while. I hope you give me some credit for making a rule that does not benefit me at all ;)
-
Also note that as it is me proposing the rule, it will only take effect after my turn, so I will actually be the last in ranking for a while. I hope you give me some credit for making a rule that does not benefit me at all ;)
Personally I don't mind if you give yourself and scott a point along with this.
-
If multiple players are tied for first, will all of them have the ability to veto?
I think I'd be in favor of losing a ranking point for using a veto, to make sure that people want to actually veto and there's a strategic reason to do so.
"Biggest number" should be changed to "highest number", I think? I'm not good with my math, but wikipedia redirects biggest number to largest number, which then says "Largest number is mathematically meaningless", so I don't want someone to be able to do some mathematical tomfoolery later. But someone better than math should comment on this.
-
Also note that as it is me proposing the rule, it will only take effect after my turn, so I will actually be the last in ranking for a while. I hope you give me some credit for making a rule that does not benefit me at all ;)
Personally I don't mind if you give yourself and scott a point along with this.
I'd be against this, I think it goes against the spirit of "No retroactive application". If we start doing this now are we going to have to do this for every rule change that has uneven application?
-
Also note that as it is me proposing the rule, it will only take effect after my turn, so I will actually be the last in ranking for a while. I hope you give me some credit for making a rule that does not benefit me at all ;)
Personally I don't mind if you give yourself and scott a point along with this.
I'd be against this, I think it goes against the spirit of "No retroactive application". If we start doing this now are we going to have to do this for every rule change that has uneven application?
Rules-wise it's not retroactive application, it's simply awarding a point to scott and faust, which we are now able to do, and it definitely doesn't make us commit to doing anything similar in the future.
Anyway, I'm not saying we should do it, I'm just saying I wouldn't be against it.
-
If we're going down this path we should decide if the points are only to be used for vetoing or can potentially be used for something else. If the latter, I'd suggest splitting it into two rules.
-
"Biggest number" should be changed to "highest number", I think? I'm not good with my math, but wikipedia redirects biggest number to largest number, which then says "Largest number is mathematically meaningless", so I don't want someone to be able to do some mathematical tomfoolery later. But someone better than math should comment on this.
Well I don't think the problem has anything to do with the difference between "biggest", "largest", and "highest". The problem that wikipedia is talking about is that there is no such thing as a biggest (or largest or highest) number in general, because if there was, you could get a bigger number by adding 1 to it. That's not what we're talking about here, we're just looking for the largest number in a finite set (or multi-set I guess).
Of course you could still be ridiculous and argue that you need to specify a total order before you're allowed to say "highest" or "greatest" or whatever. But that's getting into the territory where we have to define every single word or phrase we ever use. We all know the basics of how real numbers work, and everywhere in the real world we default to a particular ordering when it's not specified that it should be otherwise. So I don't think that's any more of a concern than picking any other random word in a rule and arguing it should be defined differently.
-
Also note that as it is me proposing the rule, it will only take effect after my turn, so I will actually be the last in ranking for a while. I hope you give me some credit for making a rule that does not benefit me at all ;)
Personally I don't mind if you give yourself and scott a point along with this.
I'd be against this, I think it goes against the spirit of "No retroactive application". If we start doing this now are we going to have to do this for every rule change that has uneven application?
Rules-wise it's not retroactive application, it's simply awarding a point to scott and faust, which we are now able to do, and it definitely doesn't make us commit to doing anything similar in the future.
Anyway, I'm not saying we should do it, I'm just saying I wouldn't be against it.
Of course, I wouldn't be against it either!
-
If multiple players are tied for first, will all of them have the ability to veto?
I think I'd be in favor of losing a ranking point for using a veto, to make sure that people want to actually veto and there's a strategic reason to do so.
"Biggest number" should be changed to "highest number", I think? I'm not good with my math, but wikipedia redirects biggest number to largest number, which then says "Largest number is mathematically meaningless", so I don't want someone to be able to do some mathematical tomfoolery later. But someone better than math should comment on this.
I'm probably better at math, but worse at English, so meh.
-
If we're going down this path we should decide if the points are only to be used for vetoing or can potentially be used for something else. If the latter, I'd suggest splitting it into two rules.
That is a very valid concern. I thought about splitting it into two rules, but then I put everything into the first draft so that it became clear what I was going for. Since you're up next, I'd be okay splitting this if you say you're going to propose the other part of the rule.
-
If we're going down this path we should decide if the points are only to be used for vetoing or can potentially be used for something else. If the latter, I'd suggest splitting it into two rules.
I think we should leave the window open for being used for something else
-
But I also don't get why it's needed to split this into two rules?
-
If we're going down this path we should decide if the points are only to be used for vetoing or can potentially be used for something else. If the latter, I'd suggest splitting it into two rules.
That is a very valid concern. I thought about splitting it into two rules, but then I put everything into the first draft so that it became clear what I was going for. Since you're up next, I'd be okay splitting this if you say you're going to propose the other part of the rule.
If you do the first part, I'll use the second part as a starting point for my turn.
-
But I also don't get why it's needed to split this into two rules?
I think if points will have multiple uses it's not good to have the definition of points in a rule about one of the uses; it should have its own rule.
-
I'm just going to say that I don't like forcing people to make "good" rule suggestions. I think we should be free to make whatever rule proposals we want. If people only want to make good suggestions, the wacky things that might end up having a usable idea inside will never get mentioned. I probably would not vote for a rule like this.
-
I'm just going to say that I don't like forcing people to make "good" rule suggestions. I think we should be free to make whatever rule proposals we want. If people only want to make good suggestions, the wacky things that might end up having a usable idea inside will never get mentioned. I probably would not vote for a rule like this.
Are you arguing against being able to veto?
-
I'm just going to say that I don't like forcing people to make "good" rule suggestions. I think we should be free to make whatever rule proposals we want. If people only want to make good suggestions, the wacky things that might end up having a usable idea inside will never get mentioned. I probably would not vote for a rule like this.
Are you arguing against being able to veto?
I think it's about giving points to approved rule changes.
-
But I also don't get why it's needed to split this into two rules?
I think if points will have multiple uses it's not good to have the definition of points in a rule about one of the uses; it should have its own rule.
I don't really see why it's a big difference
-
But I also don't get why it's needed to split this into two rules?
I think if points will have multiple uses it's not good to have the definition of points in a rule about one of the uses; it should have its own rule.
I don't really see why it's a big difference
It seems cleaner to me and easier to read, and also easier to amend - you can change the rule about points without touching the rule about vetoing and vice-versa.
-
I'm fine with rewarding people with the ability to veto, it's an interesting mechanic that I think should be tried. I just don't like rewarding people for having their rule change passed.
Actually, now that I think about it, I played once where we gave people points when their rules were passed, and at a certain point we started rejecting people's good rules because we were trying to the winners from getting points.
-
I'm fine with rewarding people with the ability to veto, it's an interesting mechanic that I think should be tried. I just don't like rewarding people for having their rule change passed.
Actually, now that I think about it, I played once where we gave people points when their rules were passed, and at a certain point we started rejecting people's good rules because we were trying to the winners from getting points.
How are you going to give points away in a differentiating way that doesn't lead to politics at some point, though?
-
I'm fine with rewarding people with the ability to veto, it's an interesting mechanic that I think should be tried. I just don't like rewarding people for having their rule change passed.
Actually, now that I think about it, I played once where we gave people points when their rules were passed, and at a certain point we started rejecting people's good rules because we were trying to the winners from getting points.
How are you going to give points away in a differentiating way that doesn't lead to politics at some point, though?
I don't like the politics of "should we vote for this rule for any other reason than it's a good rule".
-
I'm fine with rewarding people with the ability to veto, it's an interesting mechanic that I think should be tried. I just don't like rewarding people for having their rule change passed.
Actually, now that I think about it, I played once where we gave people points when their rules were passed, and at a certain point we started rejecting people's good rules because we were trying to the winners from getting points.
How are you going to give points away in a differentiating way that doesn't lead to politics at some point, though?
I don't like the politics of "should we vote for this rule for any other reason than it's a good rule".
What do you see this game as being, if not political?
-
I love the politics of "I want to vote for this rule because exploitation of said rule abounds".
-
I'm fine with rewarding people with the ability to veto, it's an interesting mechanic that I think should be tried. I just don't like rewarding people for having their rule change passed.
Actually, now that I think about it, I played once where we gave people points when their rules were passed, and at a certain point we started rejecting people's good rules because we were trying to the winners from getting points.
How are you going to give points away in a differentiating way that doesn't lead to politics at some point, though?
I don't like the politics of "should we vote for this rule for any other reason than it's a good rule".
What do you see this game as being, if not political?
I could see the argument for this being closer to a co-op game than a competitive game. Hell maybe we should invent a big boss we all have to work together to take down. Or we could even make someone the traitor who's secretly trying to sabotage us!
-
I'm fine with rewarding people with the ability to veto, it's an interesting mechanic that I think should be tried. I just don't like rewarding people for having their rule change passed.
Actually, now that I think about it, I played once where we gave people points when their rules were passed, and at a certain point we started rejecting people's good rules because we were trying to the winners from getting points.
How are you going to give points away in a differentiating way that doesn't lead to politics at some point, though?
I don't like the politics of "should we vote for this rule for any other reason than it's a good rule".
What do you see this game as being, if not political?
I could see the argument for this being closer to a co-op game than a competitive game. Hell maybe we should invent a big boss we all have to work together to take down. Or we could even make someone the traitor who's secretly trying to sabotage us!
Well technically it's not really a game at this stage is it? There's no way of winning or anything we're actually trying to accomplish.
I guess you could say the wincon is to set up a wincon you can achieve and then achieve it. Of course, there's still nothing forcing us to actually try to win.
-
I'm fine with the game being political, but I think that the making of the rules should not be political. We make competitive and/or political rules with new mechanics, not changing the core mechanic of the game.
-
sudgy, I'm fine with your criticism and see where you're coming from, but I want to move the game forward rather than getting caught up in long discussions. So unless you have an actual alternative proposal, I will just put mine to a vote.
I would do this now, but am a bit confused about the sections - the proposal doesn't really seem to fit anywhere. Do I just open a new section and make this rule 601? Do I have to name this section?
-
sudgy, I'm fine with your criticism and see where you're coming from, but I want to move the game forward rather than getting caught up in long discussions. So unless you have an actual alternative proposal, I will just put mine to a vote.
I would do this now, but am a bit confused about the sections - the proposal doesn't really seem to fit anywhere. Do I just open a new section and make this rule 601? Do I have to name this section?
Yeah, 205 is a bit unclear. The intention was that you can start a new section and name it as part of your proposal.
-
sudgy, I'm fine with your criticism and see where you're coming from, but I want to move the game forward rather than getting caught up in long discussions. So unless you have an actual alternative proposal, I will just put mine to a vote.
I would do this now, but am a bit confused about the sections - the proposal doesn't really seem to fit anywhere. Do I just open a new section and make this rule 601? Do I have to name this section?
Yeah, 205 is a bit unclear. The intention was that you can start a new section and name it as part of your proposal.
It turns out that it is a good idea to read the rules.
-
Final proposal:
Rule 601 in Section 6: Ranking
If any player makes a proposal that gets accepted, they gain one ranking point. If any player fails to make a proposal during their turn, they will lose one ranking point (negative numbers are allowed). All players will be ranked according to the number of ranking points they have, with the largest number going first. Ties are allowed. The current ranking along with the ranking points of each player are posted by the Scribe after each turn. [Every player's ranking points are set to 0]
-
I can vote, right? At some point we might want to introduce a rule that the proposing player automatically votes for their own proposal.
601 Vote: Yes
-
601 Vote: Yes
-
601 vote: yes
-
Is 'proposal' defined as 'final proposal' or 'draft or final proposal'? IE do you lose a point if you submit only a draft proposal?
-
Is 'proposal' defined as 'final proposal' or 'draft or final proposal'? IE do you lose a point if you submit only a draft proposal?
Since it's not specified, I assume any proposal counts (including draft). I'm not sure whether that's what faust intended, but that's how it is.
I think sudgy's concern is valid, and I'm undecided on whether I like vetoing, but since that's not part of the proposal anymore I think I'm okay with voting yes on this one.
601 Vote: Yes
-
Is 'proposal' defined as 'final proposal' or 'draft or final proposal'? IE do you lose a point if you submit only a draft proposal?
The way the rule is written now, I don't think you would.
-
Is 'proposal' defined as 'final proposal' or 'draft or final proposal'? IE do you lose a point if you submit only a draft proposal?
The way the rule is written now, I don't think you would.
As long as we're clear that proposal means final proposal.
601 Vote: Yes
-
And that's enough.
Proposal 601 passes, it is now my turn.
-
What are people's thoughts on Veto mode? Would we rather spend a point to veto or simply be able to veto if you're ranked at the top? If the former, can anyone spend a point to veto, or only those at the top?
-
Is 'proposal' defined as 'final proposal' or 'draft or final proposal'? IE do you lose a point if you submit only a draft proposal?
The way the rule is written now, I don't think you would.
As long as we're clear that proposal means final proposal.
601 Vote: Yes
I don't think it means that, but the only proposals that would ever get accepted would be final proposals.
-
I'll update OP in an hour or so
-
What are people's thoughts on Veto mode? Would we rather spend a point to veto or simply be able to veto if you're ranked at the top? If the former, can anyone spend a point to veto, or only those at the top?
I don't think I would vote for it without the point being spent. If it does cost a point, I might vote for it, I'd have to think about it some more.
-
Is 'proposal' defined as 'final proposal' or 'draft or final proposal'? IE do you lose a point if you submit only a draft proposal?
The way the rule is written now, I don't think you would.
As long as we're clear that proposal means final proposal.
601 Vote: Yes
I don't think it means that, but the only proposals that would ever get accepted would be final proposals.
Yes, I was referring to "If any player fails to make a proposal during their turn..."
-
...Hello?
-
Hello. Draft proposal incoming.
-
Draft Proposal 1
While a player occupies the first rank, during any vote that player may post Veto xxx, where xxx is the proposal number. If any eligible player does so before a proposal is accepted, the proposal fails and the turn is over. The player loses a ranking point unless is it the first time they have vetoed since their last turn.
I've kind of gone for a compromise between spending and not spending. You get one free one per round, and the rest you lose a ranking point for. Is it clear enough?
-
Clear enough. I'll be voting against, mind.
-
I'd vote in favor.
-
Clear enough. I'll be voting against, mind.
Why would you vote against it?
-
I am good with this, but I don't think the second veto will see much use.
-
Clear enough. I'll be voting against, mind.
Why would you vote against it?
I don't like vetos as an option.
-
Yeah, I think I would vote against this also. I'm worried about vetoes in general, but allowing more than one per round seems even more dangerous.
-
I'd vote against. Vetos should have a reason to not use them all the time, this doesn't provide one. Don't see why people wouldn't lose points on the first veto instead of the second.
-
If there's not support for this I might go in a different direction (I only went with vetoes because I told faust I would).
-
I would maybe barely vote for this, but here's my ideas to make it better (in my eyes):
1. Make it always use up ranking
2. Make you only able to veto once per round
3. Both!
-
Okay, I'm not overwhelmed by the support for vetoes, so I might go down a different track (sorry faust). I'll probably support a proposal for vetos in the future if that's still what people want.
So I'm interested in putting some actual game in this game. Here's the idea I have at the moment.
Draft proposal 2
There are 4 Resources: Copper, Silver, Gold and Platinum. At any point in time, each player has some non-negative integer of each, which is to be recorded by the Scribe. A set of Resources is one of each. At any time, a player who has not chosen a Resource to produce may choose one.
At any time, any player may give Resources they have to any other player.
Once per turn, the active player may roll 2 4-sided dice using the forum dice roll function. The result is added to that player's tally of the Resource they produce. After rolling, or if the turn ends without the player rolling, the player immediately loses a set of Resources if possible, and otherwise they lose a ranking point. When a ranking point is lost in this way, the player may change which Resource they produce in their next post. After rolling, the active player may lose an additional set of Resources to gain a ranking point.
When a player joins the game for the first time, they have one set of Resources.
When a player who has previously been in the game rejoins the game, they have the same Resources they had when they left.
[Each player has one set of Resources.]
So basically each player gets to collect one type of Resource, and then you have to trade with other players to get a full set by your next turn.
I was initially thinking 5 Resources, but that would create a big advantage for the 2 people who have the monopoly on their Resource, which I think might be interesting, but would also be harder to sell I think.
Thoughts? Is it too much for 1 rule? Is it clear enough?
-
Some commentary on this:
- I don't like the ressource names. When I think of Gold, Silver, etc., I think Gold is better than Silver, and not that they are two unrelated products. Some Settlers-of-Catan-style naming would probably be better. This seems to be going to a similar place as Settlers of Catan anyway.
- I think it is too much for one rule. I would like to keep things clear, and thus I prefer more distinct rules. From this, I would make these rules:
There are 4 Resources: Copper, Silver, Gold and Platinum. At any point in time, each player has some non-negative integer of each, which is to be recorded by the Scribe. A set of Resources is one of each. At any time, a player who has not chosen a Resource to produce may choose one.
When a player joins the game for the first time, they have one set of Resources.
When a player who has previously been in the game rejoins the game, they have the same Resources they had when they left.
[Each player has one set of Resources.]
At any time, any player may give Resources they have to any other player.
Once per turn, the active player may roll 2 4-sided dice using the forum dice roll function. The result is added to that player's tally of the Resource they produce. After rolling, or if the turn ends without the player rolling, the player immediately loses a set of Resources if possible, and otherwise they lose a ranking point. When a ranking point is lost in this way, the player may change which Resource they produce in their next post. After rolling, the active player may lose an additional set of Resources to gain a ranking point.
- In general, I am not sold on introducing a mechanic to the game that is political at the core. I like political games, but the making of rules itself is already political, I don't really want the next thing to be political also.
As it is, I would probably vote against it.
-
Another random nitpick: What is rule 2 in my post is unclear. Can people trade any amount of ressources? I think they can, but it does not clarify. If we are going in this direction at all, then I would propose to restrict trading in some way to make the game more challenging.
-
I agree with faust on everything pretty much. I like the ideas and that we're starting to make an actual game. I'd prefer to have different names for the resources so that one doesn't sound better than another. And I think it needs to be broken up into several rules.
I'm also not sure I like players producing only one resource. I think it would be better to have players "specialize" in one or more resources but still always be able to make all of them, even if others are more costly. But that's something we would fix with later rules anyway.
-
Jimmmmm - your proposal is almost 48 hours old. You should make a final proposal soon or you risk getting skipped.
-
I don't want to be rude, but I also don't want this to stall. If there is no final proposal when I get up tomorrow, I will declare the next player's turn.
-
I don't want to be rude, but I also don't want this to stall. If there is no final proposal when I get up tomorrow, I will declare the next player's turn.
Not rude at all. :) Just glad you're not up yet. Final proposal in the next 20-30 min.
I'll probably just go back to veto mode - my other ideas aren't fleshed out enough.
-
Final Proposal 602
While a player occupies the first rank and has at least one ranking point, during any vote that player may post Veto xxx, where xxx is the proposal number. If any eligible player does so before a proposal is accepted, the proposal fails, the turn is over and the player loses a ranking point.
I've left out a "once per round" clause because it's another thing that needs to be tracked and I don't think it's worth it. I think needing the highest ranking and also losing a ranking point is enough restriction.
-
602 Vote: Yes
In other news, I've gone cold on the idea of rewarding accepted proposals. I think a major effect it will have is slowing down the game as people spend more time trying to make any proposal they think will be accepted.
-
602 Vote: Yes
We can change it if people don't like it. I think it's a good thing to have people lose points if the fail to make a proposal though.
-
602 Vote: Yes
We can change it if people don't like it. I think it's a good thing to have people lose points if the fail to make a proposal though.
Yeah, failing to make a proposal is different to failing to have a proposal be accepted. It's good to encourage activity, but I think less good to encourage proposals that will definitely go through.
-
When the rule says "the player loses a ranking point", I feel like it's a bit ambiguous. Which player? We all know what it means. Are we just going to follow the spirit of the law (which I'm fine with doing)? If so, I'll vote yes.
-
When the rule says "the player loses a ranking point", I feel like it's a bit ambiguous. Which player? We all know what it means. Are we just going to follow the spirit of the law (which I'm fine with doing)? If so, I'll vote yes.
I don't think it can be read as referring to any player but the player who "does so".
-
Yeah, you're right, I think I must have misread. 602 Vote: Yes
-
602 Vote: No
-
602 Vote yes
-
602 Vote: No
-
TA, where are you? Your vote decides.
... not sure I like that actually. Maybe we can at some point find a way to make voting secret until everybody voted?
-
TA, where are you? Your vote decides.
... not sure I like that actually. Maybe we can at some point find a way to make voting secret until everybody voted?
Too late.
The turn is over, it is now Twistedarcher's turn.
Proposal passes 4-2.
-
Twistedarcher fails to make a proposal by the deadline.
Turn over, it is now Sudgy's turn.
-
Draft proposal:
If a player wishes to, a player may post "/suspend" in the game thread. If they do, they will be suspended from the game until they say "/unsuspend" in the game thread. A suspended player is in the game, but they can not make any actions in the game and no actions can be done to them. In any player counts, a suspended player will not be counted. Any deadlines that require a suspended player do not require them as long as they are suspended.
If a suspended player has not unsuspended within two weeks of suspending, they lose the game and leave as if they had said "/out". After unsuspending, a player must wait at least a week to suspend again.
The specifics could easily change (and probably some wording I goofed up), but I'm mainly wanting to allow people to leave for short periods of time, because people get busy. I realized that this could actually make for an interesting mechanic anyway, if you don't like what's about to happen, you could suspend yourself (but not be able to do anything else).
I thought about making you lose a ranking point when you suspend (to make you not be able to suspend a whole lot), but that's probably too much for just one rule.
This whole idea might not work out, but I thought it was worth a shot.
-
Sounds like a good idea.
-
So, if nobody says anything soon, I'll just put it up to vote, I guess? Barely anything has been said.
-
Hey guys, I had decided to quit the forum as it's become a time suck for me personally - forgot about this game until somebody reminded me about it. So I'll /out -- sorry to drum up interest in the game then immediately leave the forums! Hope you guys keep playing this
-
In which case, we need a new Scribe.
-
Well, according to rule 502, anybody can volunteer. Any volunteers?
If I don't get any more feedback on my rule, I'll just submit it as is for voting tomorrow.
-
Hey guys, I had decided to quit the forum as it's become a time suck for me personally - forgot about this game until somebody reminded me about it. So I'll /out -- sorry to drum up interest in the game then immediately leave the forums! Hope you guys keep playing this
:( Come back some day when you can!
-
Sorry, I somehow missed the new posts here.
I think it would be nice if we could force-suspend a player. Like, he hasn't posted for a whole round, he gets suspended until he posts /unsuspend or something.
-
I think this is the current ruleset and gamestate, yesno?
Players:
Scott_pilgrim
Voltaire
Faust
Jimmmmm
Sudgy - Current Player
Chairs
Jack Rudd
Ranking Points:
Scott_pilgrim - 0
Voltaire - 0
Faust - 0
Jimmmmm - 1
Sudgy - 0
Chairs - 0
Jack Rudd - 0
Section 1: Player conduct
101. All players must always abide by all the rules currently in effect, in the form in which they are currently in effect.
Section 2: Rules and rule changes
201. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules permits it.
202. If two or more rules conflict with each other, the one with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.
203. A rule change is the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a rule.
204. No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. No rule change may have retroactive application.
205. Each proposed rule change shall be given a number for reference. The number for enacted rules shall be the next successive integer (with the first number in each section ending with 01) in the section the active player deems appropriate. This need not be a section currently in use. If the section the proposed rule change will be in does not have a name, the active player shall name the section as part of the proposal. The section will receive that name if the proposal is approved.
206. If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. The first time a rule is amended, .1 is added to the end of its number. Any subsequent time it is amended or transmuted, the number after the point is increased by 1.
207. When a rules change is approved, any part of it inside square brackets takes immediate effect, and then is removed along with the square brackets.
Section 3: Turns
301. Players take turns in player order, returning to the top of the list when necessary. The player whose turn it is currently is the active player. When the active player’s turn ends, the next player’s turn starts immediately.
302. In a turn, the active player may submit up to two draft proposals and one final proposal, in that order.
303. Once the active player has submitted a final proposal, each player may vote. Players cast votes by typing xxx Vote: Yes or xxx Vote: No in the game thread, where xxx is the proposal number. Before the turn is over, players may change their vote. Only the most recent vote by each player is valid.
304. A turn is over only when a player who is eligible to do so declares it to be over. The current player may end the turn at any time. Any other player may end the turn if one of the following is true:
1) More than 48 hours have passed since the start of the turn and no draft or final proposal has been submitted,
2) More than 48 hours have passed since the last draft or final proposal, or
3) A final proposal has been submitted and a majority of players are voting the same way.
Any rule which prevents players from ending the turn takes precedence over this.
305. At the end of a turn in which a final proposal was submitted, it is approved if a majority of players were voting Yes when the turn ended, or if the turn lasted more than 48 hours after the final proposal was submitted, and more players were voting Yes than No when the turn ended. When a proposal is approved, the rule change takes effect immediately.
Section 4: Joining and leaving the game
401. A new player may join the game by posting /in in the game thread. If a final proposal has not been submitted in the current turn, they join the game immediately. Otherwise, they join the game at the end of the current turn. Either way, they are placed before the current active player in the player order.
402. A player may leave the game at any time by posting /out in the game thread. They are immediately removed from the game and no longer subject to any rules within.
Section 5: Roles
501. Each role described in this section must be occupied in order for any player to end a turn.
502. A player who has a role may vacate that role at any time. If this occurs, or if a player with a role leaves the game, the role goes to the first player to volunteer for it in the game thread.
503. The Scribe is responsible for keeping public documentation for the current ruleset, all previous rule changes, and all other publicly known gamestate information.
Section 6: Ranking
601. If any player makes a proposal that gets accepted, they gain one ranking point. If any player fails to make a proposal during their turn, they will lose one ranking point (negative numbers are allowed). All players will be ranked according to the number of ranking points they have, with the largest number going first. Ties are allowed. The current ranking along with the ranking points of each player are posted by the Scribe after each turn.
602. While a player occupies the first rank and has at least one ranking point, during any vote that player may post Veto xxx, where xxx is the proposal number. If any eligible player does so before a proposal is accepted, the proposal fails, the turn is over and the player loses a ranking point.
-
Sorry, I somehow missed the new posts here.
I think it would be nice if we could force-suspend a player. Like, he hasn't posted for a whole round, he gets suspended until he posts /unsuspend or something.
I think that would have to be a new rule.
-
Right, I need to actually propose this. This would be rule 403, right?
-
Sounds right. It's a rule about joining and leaving.
-
Final Proposal 403:
If a player wishes to, a player may post "/suspend" in the game thread. If they do, they will be suspended from the game until they say "/unsuspend" in the game thread. A suspended player is in the game, but they can not make any actions in the game and no actions can be done to them. In any player counts, a suspended player will not be counted. Any deadlines that require a suspended player do not require them as long as they are suspended.
If a suspended player has not unsuspended within two weeks of suspending, they lose the game and leave as if they had said "/out". After unsuspending, a player must wait at least a week to suspend again.
No changes from the draft. 403 Vote: Yes
-
403 Vote: Yes
-
FYI this turn cannot end until we have a new Scribe. Also, I propose the new Scribe makes a new game thread - nothing in the rules prevents us from doing that.
-
403 Vote: Yes
And I claim the Scribeship
New thread here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14278.0).