Print

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

[Voltaire]

What if someone wants to invoke judgement to say that moving to the next turn was not allowed?

Forbid it.

Really? There will be cases in which it is not clear whether we can or cannot move to the next phase, or when it's barely allowed (for example, 3 minutes after a judges has ruled in a specific way), and if we cannot revoke that, this might be seriously abuse-able.

My current viewpoint is: I think it's a good idea to have the explicit turn-change, but I'm not sure how to incorporate it in the current rules.

I think - think - that setting a timelimit to challenge such an action (like in 323) should work, making it clear that play resets if something illegal is ruled to have occurred.

I would love it if we could get another draft proposal (that's fine, right? Nothing says you can't have 2 drafts, so under 116 I think a second draft is fine) before a final one is proposed. I want to check for unintended consequences.

If we're gonna do this, it's worth doing it right.

[florrat]

Fuck. I was writing a long proposal, and then I accidentally refreshed the page. I can't see the stuff I typed anymore, and it seems my browser didn't save the text when I last previewed my post (the "back"-button doesn't work since I didn't navigate to a new page, but I just refreshed the page)

Sorry, but I'll write up a proposal tonight.

[florrat]

Okay, I'm going to try to fix multiple rules at once to implement Jim's idea, and hopefully fix all issues with turn ending. Suggestions are welcome!

I make a motion to suspend rule 308

Note:
(1) I do not need to suspend rule 303 also, because that allows you to propose 3 rule changes, it does not restrict anything (as I read it)
(2) Suspending rule 308 doesn't endanger anything, by rule 315 we are still voting on my rule proposals (if I make them, and I will do that)

So, my draft rule proposals:
(I'm going all out, if everyone is okay with that)
(for the last three proposals I indicate exactly what I've changed by crossing out/bolding text. The non-bolded non-crossed text is exactly the same as it was)

Proposal 327: Amend rule 201 to say: Players take turns in player order.
Proposal 328: A turn is over and the next turn simultaneously begins only when a player eligible to end the turn announces it. An announcement to change turns must be bold, and it must mention the next player's name and that it is their turn. Players are only eligible to end the turn if it is explicitly stated by some rule, and if no rule states they're not eligible.
Proposal 329: Players are eligible to end their own turn. If all "mandatory" actions have been taken during a turn, all players are eligible to end the turn.
Proposal 330: Amend rule 316 to say the following. If a player has not proposed a rule within 72 hours of the start of their turn, all players are eligible to end the turn.
Proposal 331 Amend rule 308 to say the following. A player is not allowed to propose more than one rule-change per turn, except when explicitly allowed by some rule. Proposing a rule-change is a "mandatory" action during the turn.

Proposal 332: Amend rule 323 to say the following. A player's turn ends when they have taken all required actions during their turn. The turn of the player after them in the turn order then immediately begins. Players have 24 hours to invoke Judgement on any issue relating to whose turn it is. If play continues after the action(s) being Judged occurred, and the Judgement overturns the action(s) taken, play resets to the gamestate immediately prior to the overturned action(s). Otherwise, play will continue from the current gamestate.

Proposal 333: Amend rule 319 to say the following. This rule takes precedence over all other rules describing the invocation of Judgment (including, but not limited to Rule 313).
If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then any player may decide to invoke Judgment as follows: They must announce the dispute in question and state at least one proposed resolution. In the same post they must use the forum system to roll a 1d(# of players). The player whose turn number in the opening post corresponds to the number rolled is named the Judge unless this would cause the selection of the player invoking Judgment, a player whose move is being challenged, or a player who has previously been Judge this turn and has been overruled. If one of these cases would occur, the player invoking Judgment must perform another random die roll. If for some reason all players are excluded from being the Judge, then the Judge is selected by the same random die-roll process with no player except the one invoking Judgment excluded.

If the number of players (including whether a particular player is playing) is the issue under dispute, then the die shall be rolled to reflect the larger number of players and the player whose presence in the game is in question shall be excluded from being Judge.

If the turn ordering is the issue under dispute, then the player invoking Judgment will list all players who are playing and assign them numbers for the purpose of determining the Judge. These numbers will be used instead of the turn numbers, but only for the purpose of selecting the Judge.

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 player selected as Judge must settle the issue in question. Nobody is eligible to end the turn after Judgment has been invoked, unless the rule [EDIT: Judge] has settled the issue, and the last time the judge settled an issue was more than 24 hours ago.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a two-thirds majority vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun.
If the Judge has settled an issue in the last 24 hours, any player other than the Judge may open a vote to overrule the Judge. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and fails if more than one-third of the players vote no.  If, after 60 hours, the motion has not passed or failed, players who have not voted are considered not eligible voters on this motion.

If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then a player must select a new Judge in the manner described above, with all players who have been Judge this turn excluded from being the new Judge. The player who originally invoked Judgment is still excluded from being Judge, but the player rolling for a new Judge is not.

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.

Proposal 334: Amend rule 315 to say the following. When a rule-change is finalized by the player proposing the rule change, it will be voted on. Players will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form Vote: Yes on rule ---, or Vote: No on rule --- (where '---' denotes the proposal number). The player proposing the rule will by default vote yes unless they say otherwise. Once over half of the players have voted yes, the proposal is passed. Once either half the players have voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to end the voting, the proposal fails. Once the proposal has been resolved, all votes will be revealed if they were sent via PM to mail-mi. If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 60 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting.

Comments:
- I tried to only suggest rules which clear things up or which add Jim's feature of explicitly saying that the turn ends.
- I split up the rules, because this makes it easy to add cases when it is (dis)allowed to end turns. If people prefer, I can merge rules.
- Proposal 328 will ensure that every rule which says someone is not eligible to end the turn takes precedence over any rule allowing someone to end their turn, regardless of the order of the rules.
- I use the words "mandatory" for actions which are not really mandatory. Maybe I should use a better word (suggestions are welcome), but I want to make the distinction between actions someone ought to do (like proposing a rule) and actions which are completely optional (for example in future: moving around the board).
- I also proposed 2 rules (331 and 334) to make them more clear without changing the gameplay. Hopefully everybody is fine with that.
- If anyone thinks that stuff is still not clear or sees problems, comment!

[Jack Rudd]

I like this. I vote: yes on your suspension motion and your rule proposals.

[Grujah]

Problems
 a)
Only proposing a rule is mandatory, not the voting itself. So you can end the turn in middle of the vote. I guess you only want that if it is going to fail anyway? Not a problem, more of a quirk, I guess?

b) Judge settles an issue, 20 hours later somebody overrules, 5 hours after that somebody ends the turn. I think with your rules this is possible. Nobody should be eligible to end during overruling as well.

c) 332 - 24 hours - after what? Should say after a turn ends, I think?

d) Maybe one judge for whole turn should go? Or should it stay?

[florrat]

(a) is an intended quirk, but I clarified it a bit more. Good points on (b)(c). I'm not sure about (d), but I think my rule changes are already doing enough, so let's not add that. Also, I forgot to add something to rule 330 the second time I wrote it.
EDIT: On (b), it is now disallowed to end a turn during the voting. If the overruling passes, a new judge is chosen, and then it's still disallowed to end the turn, because the current Judge has not yet settled the issue. [edge case: every player who was allowed has already been Judge that turn, and the new Judge is Judge for the second time that turn. In that case we can safely say something has gone seriously wrong]

Current draft proposal: (bolded changes w.r.t. previous version)

Proposal 327: Amend rule 201 to say: Players take turns in player order.
Proposal 328: A turn is over and the next turn simultaneously begins only when a player eligible to end the turn announces it. An announcement to change turns must be bold, and it must mention the next player's name and that it is their turn. Players are only eligible to end the turn if it is explicitly stated by some rule, and if no rule states they're not eligible. Whenever a turn ends during voting, the motion voted on automatically fails.
Proposal 329: Players are eligible to end their own turn. If all "mandatory" actions have been taken during a turn, all players are eligible to end the turn.
Proposal 330: Amend rule 316 to say the following. If a player has not proposed a rule within 72 hours of the start of their turn, all players are eligible to end the turn. Voting required by any rule and waiting for a Judge to settle an issue do not count towards this time.
Proposal 331 Amend rule 308 to say the following. A player is not allowed to propose more than one rule-change per turn, except when explicitly allowed by some rule. Proposing a rule-change is a "mandatory" action during the turn.

Proposal 332: Amend rule 323 to say the following. Players have 24 hours to invoke Judgement on any issue relating to whose turn it is. After a player ended a turn, players have 24 hours to invoke Judgement on the issue whether the player ending the turn was eligible to do so. If play continues after the action(s) being Judged occurred, and the Judgement overturns the action(s) taken, play resets to the gamestate immediately prior to the overturned action(s). Otherwise, play will continue from the current gamestate.

Proposal 333: Amend rule 319 to say the following. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then any player may decide to invoke Judgment as follows: They must announce the dispute in question and state at least one proposed resolution. In the same post they must use the forum system to roll a 1d(# of players). The player whose turn number in the opening post corresponds to the number rolled is named the Judge unless this would cause the selection of the player invoking Judgment, a player whose move is being challenged, or a player who has previously been Judge this turn and has been overruled. If one of these cases would occur, the player invoking Judgment must perform another random die roll. If for some reason all players are excluded from being the Judge, then the Judge is selected by the same random die-roll process with no player except the one invoking Judgment excluded.

If the number of players (including whether a particular player is playing) is the issue under dispute, then the die shall be rolled to reflect the larger number of players and the player whose presence in the game is in question shall be excluded from being Judge.

If the turn ordering is the issue under dispute, then the player invoking Judgment will list all players who are playing and assign them numbers for the purpose of determining the Judge. These numbers will be used instead of the turn numbers, but only for the purpose of selecting the Judge.

The player selected as Judge must settle the issue in question. Nobody is eligible to end the turn after Judgment has been invoked, unless the current Judge has settled the issue, and the last time the Judge settled an issue was more than 24 hours ago. Also, nobody is eligible to end the turn during the process of voting to overrule a Judge.

If the Judge has settled an issue in the last 24 hours, any player other than the Judge may open a vote to overrule the Judge. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and fails if more than one-third of the players vote no.  If, after 60 hours, the motion has not passed or failed, players who have not voted are considered not eligible voters on this motion.

If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then a player must select a new Judge in the manner described above, with all players who have been Judge this turn excluded from being the new Judge. The player who originally invoked Judgment is still excluded from being Judge, but the player rolling for a new Judge is not.

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.

Proposal 334: Amend rule 315 to say the following. When a rule-change is finalized by the player proposing the rule change, it will be voted on. Players will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form Vote: Yes on rule ---, or Vote: No on rule --- (where '---' denotes the proposal number). The player proposing the rule will by default vote yes unless they say otherwise. Once over half of the players have voted yes, the proposal is passed. Once either half the players have voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to end the voting, the proposal fails. If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 60 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting.

[Grujah]

I am going to vote yes on suspending the rule.

[liopoil]

vote yes on suspending the rule.

[Voltaire]

Yes on suspending rule

[Jimmmmm]

Hmm okay.

Just a quick point: 328 states you can in the turn if a rule says you can and no rule says you can't. 329 states you can end your own turn. 333 says nobody can end the turn during judgment. That is all fine since currently 328 takes precedence, meaning it will work as intended. Even if we reverse numerical precedence as has been suggested it will still work as intended since 333 will take precedence. But say if the next person amends 328, then 329 will take precedence and any player will be able to end their own turn, even if judgment is occurring. That's how I understand it anyway. So I guess either fix that up now or just be aware of the ramifications of amending 328.

Anyway, Vote: Yes on suspending rule 308

[florrat]

@Jimmmmm: Good point, and I think that is a problem. How about adding the following? "This clause takes precedence over any other rule specifying eligibility to end a turn"

[Jimmmmm]

Sounds good.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Vote of No Confidence in Chancellor Valorum's leadership

I mean, Vote yes on suspending the rule

[heron]

Vote yes on suspending rule.

[florrat]

Not sure if necessary, but Yes on Motion to Suspend. That makes 8/11 votes, which is a two-thirds majority, hence rule 308 is suspended.

Now I propose the following 8 rule-changes (no changes since my previous version, except as specified in my last post).

Official rule Proposals 327-334

Proposal 327: Amend rule 201 to say: Players take turns in player order.
Proposal 328: A turn is over and the next turn simultaneously begins only when a player eligible to end the turn announces it. An announcement to change turns must be bold, and it must mention the next player's name and that it is their turn. Players are only eligible to end the turn if it is explicitly stated by some rule, and if no rule states they're not eligible. This clause takes precedence over any other rule specifying eligibility to end a turn. Whenever a turn ends during voting, the motion voted on automatically fails.
Proposal 329: Players are eligible to end their own turn. If all "mandatory" actions have been taken during a turn, all players are eligible to end the turn.
Proposal 330: Amend rule 316 to say the following. If a player has not proposed a rule within 72 hours of the start of their turn, all players are eligible to end the turn. Voting required by any rule and waiting for a Judge to settle an issue do not count towards this time.
Proposal 331 Amend rule 308 to say the following. A player is not allowed to propose more than one rule-change per turn, except when explicitly allowed by some rule. Proposing a rule-change is a "mandatory" action during the turn.

Proposal 332: Amend rule 323 to say the following. After a player ended a turn, players have 24 hours to invoke Judgement on the issue whether the player ending the turn was eligible to do so. If play continues after the action(s) being Judged occurred, and the Judgement overturns the action(s) taken, play resets to the gamestate immediately prior to the overturned action(s). Otherwise, play will continue from the current gamestate.

Proposal 333: Amend rule 319 to say the following. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then any player may decide to invoke Judgment as follows: They must announce the dispute in question and state at least one proposed resolution. In the same post they must use the forum system to roll a 1d(# of players). The player whose turn number in the opening post corresponds to the number rolled is named the Judge unless this would cause the selection of the player invoking Judgment, a player whose move is being challenged, or a player who has previously been Judge this turn and has been overruled. If one of these cases would occur, the player invoking Judgment must perform another random die roll. If for some reason all players are excluded from being the Judge, then the Judge is selected by the same random die-roll process with no player except the one invoking Judgment excluded.

If the number of players (including whether a particular player is playing) is the issue under dispute, then the die shall be rolled to reflect the larger number of players and the player whose presence in the game is in question shall be excluded from being Judge.

If the turn ordering is the issue under dispute, then the player invoking Judgment will list all players who are playing and assign them numbers for the purpose of determining the Judge. These numbers will be used instead of the turn numbers, but only for the purpose of selecting the Judge.

The player selected as Judge must settle the issue in question. Nobody is eligible to end the turn after Judgment has been invoked, unless the current Judge has settled the issue, and the last time the Judge settled an issue was more than 24 hours ago. Also, nobody is eligible to end the turn during the process of voting to overrule a Judge.

If the Judge has settled an issue in the last 24 hours, any player other than the Judge may open a vote to overrule the Judge. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and fails if more than one-third of the players vote no.  If, after 60 hours, the motion has not passed or failed, players who have not voted are considered not eligible voters on this motion.

If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then a player must select a new Judge in the manner described above, with all players who have been Judge this turn excluded from being the new Judge. The player who originally invoked Judgment is still excluded from being Judge, but the player rolling for a new Judge is not.

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.

Proposal 334: Amend rule 315 to say the following. When a rule-change is finalized by the player proposing the rule change, it will be voted on. Players will vote by posting in thread. Votes should be presented in the form Vote: Yes on rule ---, or Vote: No on rule --- (where '---' denotes the proposal number). The player proposing the rule will by default vote yes unless they say otherwise. Once over half of the players have voted yes, the proposal is passed. Once either half the players have voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to end the voting, the proposal fails. If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 60 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted are not considered eligible voters (for this vote). This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting.

[Jack Rudd]

Vote: Yes on proposals 327-334.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Vote: Yes on Proposals 327-334.

[Jimmmmm]

Vote: Yes on Proposals 327-334.

[heron]

Vote: Yes on Proposals 327-334.

[Voltaire]

Vote: Yes on Proposals 327-334

[Voltaire]

Vote: Yes on Proposals 327-334

And that is the sixth vote, and the rule is now in effect. Therefore, I declare it to be Walrus's turn.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Select Color: (255, 0, 127)

So hopefully that's enough administration to keep things running smoothly for a while. I was thinking of expanding on the map functionality, considering that it still doesn't do anything.

I realize this is true for money as well right now. But here's the thing...actions with money are typically kind of irreversible. I could propose the ability to give money to someone else, sure. But without any reason to do so, people won't, because there's no guarantee they'll get their money back. So people are more likely to hoard their money until there's a meaningful context to spend it. That's not so fun. In the spirit of evolutionary fun, I'd say it's better to hold off on this for a minute.

I kind of feel the same way about a territory grab scenario. I like territory-based games as much as the next guy; I love Go and probably you've seen me raving about Europa Universalis. But again, it's kind of irreversible, because people aren't going to want to give their territory up without a fight, so once we're set we're set. And without any clear goals, people will just follow their aesthetics--is it better to blob up? Or scatter around? Or control the center? Who knows! And then people will argue and try to bend the emerging rules to benefit their particular configuration.

The Legacy Point thing should be instituted IMO. That's probably the best way to introduce a meaningful context to everything, is to pick a win condition and run with it. But I don't feel like proposing that right now.

So I like the idea of starting off with individual, moving pieces on the map, more like Chess rather than Go. Eventually maybe you could have multiple pieces (the board is large enough I think), but let's start with one. I was thinking originally that we would move like Kings, but the board is bigger than I expected. I thought Rooks or Queens, but that's kind of weird and makes things more abstract.

So how about this more generalized system: You start off with four actions each turn, which you can spend in a variety of ways. One of the ways you can use an action is to move one of your units one tile, like a king. That way you can cover some considerable ground in one turn if you want to, a good fraction of the board. It's easy to legislate in new things you can do with actions, like eating food or fighting terrorists.

Also, with such a long time between turns, it would kind of be a bummer to just nudge your King one space. Here at least you could feel like you accomplished something substantive, and maybe pull off some complex tactics!

Anyway I'll just write it out. Let me know what you think!

Draft for Proposal 335:

At the beginning of his or her turn, each player gains four Initiative Points (abbreviated IPs). These IPs may be spent during his or her turn to affect the gamestate in various ways. The player does not need to spend all of his or her IPs, or any of them if he or she so chooses. If a player attempts to spend IPs in a way which is judged to be against the rules, that player's attempted actions will not succeed, but he will not lose the IPs he attempted to spend in this way.

At the end of each player's turn, his or her quantity of IPs is set to zero, such that IPs may not be saved for future turns.

If he or she has no Units on the World Map, a player may spend one IP to create a Unit of his or her allegiance on any World Map tile that does not already contain a Unit. This Unit will exist permanently on that tile, unless it is specifically moved or removed by application of a rule. The position of Units will be denoted on the official Google Doc by use of color--tiles which do not contain a Unit will be colored white, and tiles which contain a Unit will be colored with the personal color of the player of that Unit's allegiance.

To create a Unit in this way, post in thread the following bolded command: Create ##, where ## is the name of the tile where the Unit will be created.

A player may spend one IP to move a Unit of his or her allegiance to a tile which is directly adjacent or diagonally adjacent to its current position. Multiple ICs may be spent in this way each turn, and a Unit may occupy the same tile multiple times in one turn. A player may not attempt to move a Unit to an invalid tile, or to a tile which already contains a Unit.

To move a Unit in this way, post in thread the following bolded command: Move ## to %%, where ## is the name of the tile where the Unit is positioned, and %% is the name of the tile to which the Unit is moving.

[Jimmmmm]

What are you imagining the point of these units will be?

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Essentially, a generic entity that represents your position in the world, like a chess piece, or whatever.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

I'm not thrilled about the names, if anyone has any better suggestions.