Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jimmmmm]

I don't like "at the time this rule is passed", since it stays in the rule but immediately becomes irrelevant.

[scott_pilgrim]

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.

[sudgy]

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.

[Jimmmmm]

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.

[Twistedarcher]

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

[Twistedarcher]

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?

[Jimmmmm]

Also, points victory condition? How bland

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.

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."

[Twistedarcher]

Er so this was locked. If i did that inadverantly on phone that's my fault.

[faust]

It might be a good idea to pass that change before introducing VP.

[scott_pilgrim]

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?

[Jack Rudd]

Looks good to me. I take it this will be proposal 207?

[Twistedarcher]

looks good

[scott_pilgrim]

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.

[scott_pilgrim]

Also it looks like I get to vote on it, so

207 Vote: Yes

[Jack Rudd]

207 Vote: Yes

[Twistedarcher]

207 Vote: Yes

[sudgy]

207 Vote: Yes

[faust]

207 Vote: Yes

[Jack Rudd]

There are 8 current players, and 5 have voted yes. I end the turn, and the proposal passes.

[chairs]

Sweet. That's a solid rule.

[faust]

Stalling already? Come on Voltaire, where are you?

[Jimmmmm]

Time up, let's continue.

I end the turn. It is now faust's turn.

[Jimmmmm]

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?

[Twistedarcher]

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.

[Jimmmmm]

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.