Print

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

[WalrusMcFishSr]

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.

are the rules I'm talking about here

[liopoil]

Under rule 103 I believe I am allowed to cover as many topics as I want with my rule. Also note that under rule 111 this is not the final form of my rule, I am happy to hear other player's thoughts first. (I want to make sure the rule passes) Anyway, Rule 214: Amend rule 203 to say that it only takes a simple majority to pass a rule, and that voting will start once the player proposing has posted the proposal it its final form. Voting will end once either more than half of the players voted yes (in which case the proposal passes) or once at least half the players voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to stop it. (in which case the proposal fails). Votes will be submitted to mail-mi via PM, and must clearly indicate whether the player is voting yes or no. Repeal rule 210. Transmute rules 105 and 109 into a mutable rule. Amend rule 201 to only say the first sentence of the current rule 201. amend rule 202 to say that liopoil gets an extra point on his first turn only.

[sudgy]

Under rule 103 I don't think you can make multiple rules at once.

Also, I've played it before where the rules you make start at 301, so that should be rule 301.

[liopoil]

PPE: a lot.  I agree that if you're not allowed to change multiple rules, we should amend something so that it is allowed.

[sudgy]

PPE: a lot.  I agree that if you're not allowed to change multiple rules, we should amend something so that it is allowed.

Also, I think that we should say that they all need to be related.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

We just need to amend 202 so it doesn't say one rule-change. Up to 5 or so maybe.

[sudgy]

We just need to amend 202 so it doesn't say one rule-change. Up to 5 or so maybe.

I've changed it before so that it says "one or more related rule changes".  I think they need to be related.  But the unanimity rule should be one of the first to go.

[liopoil]

I don't see why it should be limited at all. The more stuff you say, the less likely it is to pass. That's the natural limitation.

[sudgy]

Also, I would argue a bunch of rules we think are fixing up the game are related.

[Kirian]

Under rule 103 I believe I am allowed to cover as many topics as I want with my rule. Also note that under rule 111 this is not the final form of my rule, I am happy to hear other player's thoughts first. (I want to make sure the rule passes)

You already have sudgy saying he won't vote for a rule that tries to change multiple rules, so if you want your rule to pass, then I suggest you not go with this.

I do think, however, that Rule 203 could reasonably include time limits and voting method, so the following amended version might be able to pass:

"Rule 301:  Amend Rule 203 to read 'A rule-change is adopted if and only if a majority of eligible voters approve the rule-change.  Voting begins as soon as the proposal is posted in its final form, and ends when a sufficient number of votes have been tallied to determine the outcome of a vote."

I'm not certain I like the idea of secret-ballot voting at all for a Nomic, at least not from the start.

Edit:  Modified to rectify numbering

[Kirian]

Under rule 103 I don't think you can make multiple rules at once.

Also, I've played it before where the rules you make start at 301, so that should be rule 301.

That's already true, in Rule 108.

[liopoil]

My problem with just posting votes in thread is it gives incentive for everyone to wait and see how others vote, especially because of the rule that gives points for voting against a passed proposal. I'm fine with votes being revealed once voting is done though.

[Jimmmmm]

Are we allowed to chat like this? I guess why not, unless it's explicitly forbidden?

I agree with Jimmmmm about first priorities

Yes, we are, Rule 210.

What does a "future rule change" mean? Like, is it wrong to discuss what liopoil may propose before he proposes it?

Since Rule 210 effectively says "Ignore this rule on the Internet," and Rule 115 says "Go ahead and do anything not prohibited," I'd say it's perfectly fine to pretty much discuss anything.

In fact, I may consider just putting in a repeal of 115 just to get it out of the way for the purposes of clarity.

I'm now considering 210 to mean "in secret", so anything in this thread is fair game.

I must say I don't fully understand 115.

[GeoLib]

Can we please refer to this rule as rule 301 as per the guidelines on rule numbering in rule 108?

I agree that rule changes should be related. In addition to other considerations, since we're going to list any amended rule by the amendment proposal number, it would be super confusing to have multiple rules under one number.

Edit: I see that while I was posting, Kirian fixed his post. Thanks!

[Jimmmmm]

Here is a list of the things that I propose we do:

1. Change the unanimity requirement
2. Set deadlines
3. Repeal rules 204 and 206
4. Make a way players can phase in/out of the game
5. Make a punishment for breaking the rules (ten points?)
6. Change immutable rules from needing to be transmuted before being changed, make them need to have a unanimous vote to be changed
7. Maybe have a way to keep the game going after someone gets one hundred points (I've played before where all the current rules stay and you restart (of course you need to say what happens when a paradox occurs))
8. Amend/repeal rule 209
9. Something I've done before, make "game changes" which affect the state of the game, that can be proposed as well as rule changes
10. Maybe make it so that multiple related rule changes (or game changes) can happen at once

I might have forgotten a couple things, but I think everything on this list should be done before we start adding new mechanics.  These are in no particular order, it's just what came to mind.

I agree with most of this.

[Jimmmmm]

I think we should start creating and electing official titles, such as someone to keep track of points and some sort of judge to uphold penalties for breaking rules.

[Jimmmmm]

We just need to amend 202 so it doesn't say one rule-change. Up to 5 or so maybe.

I disagree that this is necessary.

[Kirian]

My problem with just posting votes in thread is it gives incentive for everyone to wait and see how others vote, especially because of the rule that gives points for voting against a passed proposal. I'm fine with votes being revealed once voting is done though.

Ah yes, I hadn't thought about that part.

[Jimmmmm]

My problem with just posting votes in thread is it gives incentive for everyone to wait and see how others vote, especially because of the rule that gives points for voting against a passed proposal. I'm fine with votes being revealed once voting is done though.

Ah yes, I hadn't thought about that part.

I don't think that's a huge problem. It also allows people to try to influence how others vote. I don't have a problem with it, and I think it works better than everyone PMing their votes, which can stagnate discussion.

[GeoLib]

I think we should start creating and electing official titles, such as someone to keep track of points and some sort of judge to uphold penalties for breaking rules.

This seems good, but I think unanimously determining a new way to vote should be the first priority. I think we all agree that rules should be changed by majority and the question is whether to have public or private voting.

Personally, I think public voting is more fun except for Rule 204 providing annoying incentives, so perhaps the rule could say the voting shall be in private until such a time as Rule 204 is repealed, at which point it will be public. That gets around proposing multiple rule changes at once (which I still think is illegal).

[Jimmmmm]

What's the right way to vote currently?

[Jimmmmm]

I think we should start creating and electing official titles, such as someone to keep track of points and some sort of judge to uphold penalties for breaking rules.

This seems good, but I think unanimously determining a new way to vote should be the first priority. I think we all agree that rules should be changed by majority and the question is whether to have public or private voting.

Personally, I think public voting is more fun except for Rule 204 providing annoying incentives, so perhaps the rule could say the voting shall be in private until such a time as Rule 204 is repealed, at which point it will be public. That gets around proposing multiple rule changes at once (which I still think is illegal).

I agree that establishing these is the priority.

[GeoLib]

Also, this rule needs to be changed for the purpose of internet play:

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.

[sudgy]

I think we should start creating and electing official titles, such as someone to keep track of points and some sort of judge to uphold penalties for breaking rules.

As I said in my list of ten things post, we should get all of that done before adding new mechanics.

I do remember one time when I was playing we named a certain player the scribe, and he had to write all rules and points down.  And we passed a rule saying that if he failed in some way he lost ten points.  That happened a lot... 

[Kirian]

Also, this rule needs to be changed for the purpose of internet play:

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.

Why?  This just suggests that at any time, the current player can post "Debate is over, here's the final format, vote!" which isn't entirely unreasonable in a vacuum.