Print

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

[faust]

I have something cooked up that might go in that direction. I will post a first draft later today.

[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.

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.

[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.

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?

[faust]

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.

[faust]

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.

[Jimmmmm]

I like it. I like some people having more power than others.

[scott_pilgrim]

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.

[Jimmmmm]

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.

[faust]

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?

[faust]

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.

[faust]

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

[Jimmmmm]

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.

[Twistedarcher]

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.

[Twistedarcher]

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?

[Jimmmmm]

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.

[Jimmmmm]

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.

[scott_pilgrim]

"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.

[scott_pilgrim]

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!

[faust]

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.

[faust]

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.

[Twistedarcher]

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

[Twistedarcher]

But I also don't get why it's needed to split this into two rules?

[Jimmmmm]

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.

[Jimmmmm]

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.

[sudgy]

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.