Print

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

[Voltaire]

My goal with my turn is to do several housekeeping/administrative/fix-y things. If you disagree with some of my administrative fixes, please still vote for the motion to suspend and then convince me why I should do less/do stuff differently.
(the reason being, if you vote down my motion to suspend then I'll only be able to do one administrative fix and that's less-than-ideal. Also, it's impossible for me to "put one over" on anyone this way, because if I put everything in my final proposal after everyone says they don't like it, you can just vote it down)

I make a motion to suspend 107, 108, 303, and 331.

Yes on Motion to Suspend

I want to suspend 107 (no retroactive application of rules) because I want to retroactively strike all of the amended and repealed rules from the books; 108 (determines the numbering of new rules) because I want to fix typos without giving those rules new numbers and potentially messing up the ruleset; 303 (up to 3 rule changes if they're all repeals/transmutations) for safety's sake since it'd be weird to have a rule mentioning you can do 3 rules and no other reference to any other number or limit; 331 (one rule-change per turn) because it's the biggy - I need several this turn.

Draft of Rule Changes: (explanations are in red italics)

341: (mutable) If a rule amends or repeals an existing rule, the rule it amends or repeals will be removed from the ruleset at the same time that the new rule takes effect. The portion of the new rule which refers to the act of repealing or amending the existing rule, (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Amend rule ### to say the following.", "Amend rule ### to say:", etc.) will also be removed immediately after the new rule takes effect. !This includes all amendments and repeals that have previously passed, as well as phrases in existing rules that comment on the act of repealing or amending a specific previously-existing rule (such as, but not limited to, "Amend ### to the following:", "Amend rule ### to say the following.", "Amend rule ### to say:", etc.) The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
This rule is completely new. It cleans up the ruleset, makes it way more readable, and lets us only have one list in the OP.

342: (mutable) Amend rule 314 to read: Any player without a color must choose a color during his or her next turn, which will personally represent him or her in this game (referred to as "your color", "player's color", etc.).

This will be done by posting in thread a color in the format (Red Value, Green Value, Blue Value), where each Color Value is an integer between 0 and 255. So for example, (0, 0, 0) would be black, (255, 0, 0) would be red, (0, 255, 0) would be green, and so on. A player may change his selected color as many times as he or she likes until the end of his or her turn; the last bolded and correctly-formatted color posted will be counted as the official choice. Players may not change colors or choose additional colors on subsequent turns.

White (255,255,255) may not be chosen as a personal color, nor may colors with all Color Values greater than 200. Players are encouraged to choose colors which are as unique and distinct as possible, and may not choose colors which are too similar to white or previously chosen colors. Whether the color is distinct enough may be settled by judgment if necessary. !This is Rule will be numbered 314. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
The change here is that new players now pick a color on their first turn. Removes the awkwardness of "after this is passed" and should make things clearer going forward. Question: should this still be a mandatory action? If so, I'll add something saying "This is a mandatory action" so it matches 331. Also note that it will remain Rule 314 because of fancy shenanigans I'm quite proud of (as will every other change below).

343: (mutable) Amend rule 325 to read: The active player may make a motion to suspend any number of rules during their turn.  This must be done at the same time as the presentation of the draft proposal(s), and the rules to be suspended must be explicitly named.  Voting on the motion begins immediately, and players must post their votes in the thread, in the format [Yes|No] on Motion to Suspend. The motion passes if two-thirds of the players vote yes, and immediately fails if 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 the motion passes, all players (including Judges) must treat the game as though those rules are not in effect, during that turn only, for all purposes including decisions regarding whether a proposal is valid, or whether a move is legal.

If the motion fails, that player may not make another motion to suspend rules during this turn.  Any further drafts of that player's proposal must contain some portion of the original proposal.  If no portion of the original proposal can be retained without suspending the rules, all players are eligible to end the current player's turn; this clause overrides rule 332.

Both mutable and immutable rules may be suspended in this manner, but this rule cannot be suspended by itself. !This is Rule will be numbered 325. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I removed a reference to a non-existent rule (323) contained in this rule and fixed it to the right rule number (332). I considered removing the reference completely, but there's been talk of inverting the numbering structure in which case we will still want this phrasing (even though it's redundant right now). More importantly, I added language making everyone eligible to end the turn of a player who cannot retain some element of their draft proposal, which was previously missing.

344: (mutable) Amend rule 332 to read: After a player ends 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. !This is Rule will be numbered 332. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I changed "After a player ended a turn" to "After a player ends a turn", which I believe is more correct.

345: (mutable) Amend rule 337 to read: When a player reaches 100 points, they win. When a player wins, they add one Legacy Point (LP) to their Legacy Point total and sets their points to 0. When a player joins the game, they have 0 LPs. The number of LPs a player has may not be altered unless explicitly permitted in the rules.  !This is Rule will be numbered 337. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
I cleaned up the phrasing and added the "only by rules" clause for safety.

346: (mutable) Amend rule 340 to read: If the current player has a unit directly or diagonally adjacent to another player's unit, the active player may spend one IP to gain two points and the owner of the adjacent unit will gain one point. This process is known as "Proximity". Players may not use one of their own units more than once a turn to earn points via Proximity.  Units may not earn points through Proximity during the turn they are created.

To earn these points, a player must post in thread the following bolded command: Proximity between ## and %%, where ## is the name of the tile their unit is on and %% is the name of the tile the other player's unit is on. !This is Rule will be numbered 340. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
Fixed the fact that the bold command wasn't actually in bold, and named the system as per Grujah's suggestion. I'm open to different names.

Originally I was going to also add something new to the game (river barriers), but after doing all of that I'm exhausted so I skipped it. So...thoughts?

[Voltaire]

Create H7

[Jack Rudd]

Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend

[Voltaire]

Also, I added a list of what you can do with IPs to the OP.

[Jimmmmm]

Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend

Looks good. A couple of things:
-You've said "This is Rule will be numbered" a few times.
-Why don't you just add a rule allowing proposals to have clauses that will be removed after the rule takes effect?

[Voltaire]

Looks good. A couple of things:
-You've said "This is Rule will be numbered" a few times.
-Why don't you just add a rule allowing proposals to have clauses that will be removed after the rule takes effect?

-Yeah, I noticed that too after I posted it. I'll fix it for the final.
-Because honestly I don't think we need it - the ! trick should work fine even when we're not suspending rules, and it's almost explicitly suggested in one of the original rules (115):

Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule.

[Jimmmmm]

Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.

[Jimmmmm]

Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.

Actually I don't think that would work, because you'd have to suspend 103 itself I think, in order to amend an immutable rule, and that leaves us with no definition of what a rule-change is. You could at least transmute it so someone else can fix it.

[Voltaire]

Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.

For anyone else wondering about this, I was initially confused by what Jimmmmm said but figured it out. Because of what I'm doing (striking old rules from the books), part 2 is now irrelevant. I'm pretty sure I can add it two more rules, one to transmute 103 and one to amend it, and that would still fit in with my draft.

[Voltaire]

Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.

Actually I don't think that would work, because you'd have to suspend 103 itself I think, in order to amend an immutable rule, and that leaves us with no definition of what a rule-change is. You could at least transmute it so someone else can fix it.

Couldn't I do two rules, the first transmutes it, the second amends it?

[Voltaire]

Oh, and something else I think I'm going to do for my final draft - number my proposals 341 and then A-E, so I don't create a big gap of missing numbers all at once (because 108 is suspended, technically I can number my proposals whatever I want).

[Jimmmmm]

Also, if you could somehow squeeze fixing 103 that would be good, although I guess that would require at least one more rule to be suspended. Basically part (2) should be ditched.

Actually I don't think that would work, because you'd have to suspend 103 itself I think, in order to amend an immutable rule, and that leaves us with no definition of what a rule-change is. You could at least transmute it so someone else can fix it.

Couldn't I do two rules, the first transmutes it, the second amends it?

I guess that works. Do we have some sort of numerical order of resolution going on? Like, will 341 take effect first, followed by 342 etc, or will they all take effect at the same time? If the latter, won't 103 still be immutable when you try to amend it?

[Voltaire]

I guess that works. Do we have some sort of numerical order of resolution going on? Like, will 341 take effect first, followed by 342 etc, or will they all take effect at the same time? If the latter, won't 103 still be immutable when you try to amend it?

Hmmm. They'll all go into effect at the same time, and then numerical order will take precedence. So it will be 341 first, then 342 (probably will be renamed A...unless that will screw up trying to fix 103 as well)...anyway, pretty sure it's the former, so 103 will be mutable as long as rule F transmutes it and rule G amends it.

The good news is that this is such a tiny fix it won't matter if we can't figure out a way to do it.

[Jimmmmm]

Also, while you're fixing the colours, I don't think it's necessary to have new players wait until their first turn in order to choose a colour. You could just say that the player without a colour who has been playing for the longest may choose a colour at any time, and also must do so before they end their turn, or maybe someone else can choose for them?

As a more general point, I think as an unwritten rule, there should be a way around any "mandatory" actions that other players can take in case someone can't or won't take that action.

[Voltaire]

Also, while you're fixing the colours, I don't think it's necessary to have new players wait until their first turn in order to choose a colour. You could just say that the player without a colour who has been playing for the longest may choose a colour at any time, and also must do so before they end their turn, or maybe someone else can choose for them?

As a more general point, I think as an unwritten rule, there should be a way around any "mandatory" actions that other players can take in case someone can't or won't take that action.

Another option I was considering is that new players must choose a color at the same time they /in. Open to other ideas. I do agree that there's no real need for them to wait for their first turn, but I wasn't sure how else to deal with the fact that people should have to choose a color.

[Jimmmmm]

Also, while you're fixing the colours, I don't think it's necessary to have new players wait until their first turn in order to choose a colour. You could just say that the player without a colour who has been playing for the longest may choose a colour at any time, and also must do so before they end their turn, or maybe someone else can choose for them?

As a more general point, I think as an unwritten rule, there should be a way around any "mandatory" actions that other players can take in case someone can't or won't take that action.

Another option I was considering is that new players must choose a color at the same time they /in. Open to other ideas. I do agree that there's no real need for them to wait for their first turn, but I wasn't sure how else to deal with the fact that people should have to choose a color.

Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.

How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.

[scott_pilgrim]

Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend

[Jimmmmm]

Also, while you're fixing the colours, I don't think it's necessary to have new players wait until their first turn in order to choose a colour. You could just say that the player without a colour who has been playing for the longest may choose a colour at any time, and also must do so before they end their turn, or maybe someone else can choose for them?

As a more general point, I think as an unwritten rule, there should be a way around any "mandatory" actions that other players can take in case someone can't or won't take that action.

Another option I was considering is that new players must choose a color at the same time they /in. Open to other ideas. I do agree that there's no real need for them to wait for their first turn, but I wasn't sure how else to deal with the fact that people should have to choose a color.

Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.

How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.

And you could put in a clause removing itself and the "if all current players have a colour" clause when all current players do in fact have a colour.

[Voltaire]

Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.

How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.

You are completely right that colors don't do anything. Adding language stating that ownership is determined by piece color would potentially be helpful.

I'll think about your suggestions. I like them, but I'm concerned about 1. determining who has been playing the longest without a color 2. people honestly forgetting and posting at the start of their turn, and then it's skipped

[Jimmmmm]

Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.

How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.

You are completely right that colors don't do anything. Adding language stating that ownership is determined by piece color would potentially be helpful.

I'll think about your suggestions. I like them, but I'm concerned about 1. determining who has been playing the longest without a color 2. people honestly forgetting and posting at the start of their turn, and then it's skipped

Well yeah there's that. Maybe that's a bit extreme. But really we want to get to the point where every current player has a colour and you have to choose one to join.

[Jimmmmm]

Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.

How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.

You are completely right that colors don't do anything. Adding language stating that ownership is determined by piece color would potentially be helpful.

I'll think about your suggestions. I like them, but I'm concerned about 1. determining who has been playing the longest without a color 2. people honestly forgetting and posting at the start of their turn, and then it's skipped

Well yeah there's that. Maybe that's a bit extreme. But really we want to get to the point where every current player has a colour and you have to choose one to join.

Although I don't think determining who has been playing the longest is an issue right? Just look at when they joined. Pretty sure mail-mi joined before EFHW.

[Jimmmmm]

Colours don't actually do anything though right? We're choosing to use people's official colours in the unofficial spreadsheet representing the World Map, but there's no rule saying we can't pick a random colour to represent mail-mi's units in the spreadsheet. Obviously mail-mo has no real reason not to choose a colour, and we have no reason not to use his selected colour, but it's been shown in the past that sabotage is not out of the question.

How about this? If all current players have a colour, new players must choose a colour in order to join the game. Current players without a colour may choose one at any time (or perhaps only the player who has been playing the longest without a colour), but when their turn starts if they post without choosing a colour, the turn is skipped in its entirety.

You are completely right that colors don't do anything. Adding language stating that ownership is determined by piece color would potentially be helpful.

I'll think about your suggestions. I like them, but I'm concerned about 1. determining who has been playing the longest without a color 2. people honestly forgetting and posting at the start of their turn, and then it's skipped

Well yeah there's that. Maybe that's a bit extreme. But really we want to get to the point where every current player has a colour and you have to choose one to join.

Although I don't think determining who has been playing the longest is an issue right? Just look at when they joined. Pretty sure mail-mi joined before EFHW.

And that clause can be auto-removed once they've both picked a colour.

[sudgy]

Vote: Yes on Motion to Suspend

You should also make a rule that says game constructs can't be changed unless another rule allows for it.  It gets rid of us needing to say it in every rule.

[EFHW]

I have a suggestion.  What if each rule began with a title indicating the general purpose of the rule.  Like Rule XXX: Turn Order, or Rule YYY: Selection of Colors.  This could make it easier to find rules you need.

Also, re colors, how about at the start of the game each player picks a color in the order of their /in.  Then if at any time one or more new players join, they are instructed by any player at any time to pick colors based on the order of their /in.  If they decline to (or fail to within a certain amount of time), it will be determined randomly by ____ and then the person with the next /in would go next. 

Is there a moderator?

vote: Yes on motion to suspend