Print

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

[Jimmmmm]

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?

[Twistedarcher]

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.

[Twistedarcher]

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

[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.

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.

[sudgy]

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.

[Twistedarcher]

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?

[sudgy]

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".

[Jimmmmm]

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?

[chairs]

I love the politics of "I want to vote for this rule because exploitation of said rule abounds".

[Twistedarcher]

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!

[Jimmmmm]

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.

[sudgy]

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.

[faust]

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?

[Jimmmmm]

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.

[faust]

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.

[faust]

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]

[faust]

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

[Twistedarcher]

601 Vote: Yes

[chairs]

601 vote: yes

[Jimmmmm]

Is 'proposal' defined as 'final proposal' or 'draft or final proposal'? IE do you lose a point if you submit only a draft proposal?

[scott_pilgrim]

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

[Twistedarcher]

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.

[Jimmmmm]

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

[Jimmmmm]

And that's enough.

Proposal 601 passes, it is now my turn.

[Jimmmmm]

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?