Print

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

[EFHW]

re: rule 341, I think there should be an un-tidied version somewhere that keeps track of all changes, and a tidied version to work with for future changes.  This way if there is a mistake or misunderstanding we can look back to what was done before.

[Jimmmmm]

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.

I like it.

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. 

Depending on how it works when someone "wins" and get a Legacy Point, we don't need to have rules regarding the start of the game, as it's already started. My suggestion is to get you and mail-mi coloured up ASAP and then require any new players to pick a colour in order to officially join the game.

Is there a moderator?

No, but Volt's kind of unofficially keeping things in order.

[Jimmmmm]

re: rule 341, I think there should be an un-tidied version somewhere that keeps track of all changes, and a tidied version to work with for future changes.  This way if there is a mistake or misunderstanding we can look back to what was done before.

See the link in the OP.

[EFHW]

The reason for the language in my suggestion is that if color selection is overlooked for some reason, it can be taken care of immediately by the first person to notice. Then we don't have to worry about keeping track of skipped turns etc., and possible oversights due to not having a central authority are accounted for.

[Voltaire]

OK, here's a new draft with some tweaks/fixes from our discussion. I've decided against using the A-F system as that could create more problems than it solves. Motion to Suspend is current at 7 votes. We need 8 (2/3rds of 12) for it to pass.

Also note that since I'm now trying to transmute rule 103 as part of this omnibus set of changes, I will need universal approval from all voters. If you have a problem with something I'm doing, please say so NOW so we can address your concerns instead of torpedoing this whole package in the voting stage.

New Draft of Rule Changes: (explanations are in red italics, and changes since the first draft are blue)

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: When a player joins the game, he or she must choose a color which will personally represent him or her in this game (referred to as "your color", "player's color", etc.) in the same post that contains his or her request to join.

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.!

*Any player without a color at the time this rule passes may choose colors in any post. They must chose a color prior to their next turn ending or they will lose N$100. The portion of this rule contained between the asterisks will be removed after mail-mi and EFHW have chosen colors.*
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.

347: (mutable) Transmute rule 103.

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

(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) !This is Rule will be numbered 103 and be immutable. The portion of this rule contained between the exclamation points will be removed after this rule has gone into effect.!
Removing part 2 and renaming part 3 to part 2 as a result (see discussion between me and Jimmmmm)

Anyone with an opinion, double-check and make sure what I'm doing with 103 is a kosher way to go about it.

Also, I made the part of the color rule just that mail-mi and EFHW need to pick colors because it's going to delete itself and we'll never have this situation again, so why not, it's easier.

[sudgy]

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.

What about this?

Other than that, I'm fine with everything.

[EFHW]

Should you transmute 103 back to immutable when you are done?

[Voltaire]

re: rule 341, I think there should be an un-tidied version somewhere that keeps track of all changes, and a tidied version to work with for future changes.  This way if there is a mistake or misunderstanding we can look back to what was done before.

That's the current system, and because some people (understandably) don't like reading through paragraphs of obsolete rules, Kirian started a second list of "Rules in Effect". This scares me greatly as "Rules in Effect" is something we all might not agree on. Hence me proposing the rule making the original list keep itself in order, so we only need one list.

If an error is made, we do have the Rule History in the spreadsheet to consult. Re-creating the rules at any given point would still be a nightmare, but probably not necessary to source most mistakes/contested points.

As far as a moderator, there is none, and I think that's a key feature of this game. In reality, the thread OP has kinda been keeping stuff together (first mail-mi, then Kirian, now me) but I view that more as a bug than a feature.

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.

What about this?

Other than that, I'm fine with everything.

Oh god that too god god. Yeah, it's good to deal with it now. I'll do that after lunch, I'm getting dizzy from so much minutia and that one will be big (since for cleanliness's sake I'll want to delete that clause from all rules that currently have it).

Should you transmute 103 back to immutable when you are done?

Actually I already am, see the part in bold blue. If you think that doesn't work, let me know and I'll make a third rule about it putting it back.

[EFHW]

Maybe immutable rules should have to be transmuted before they can be suspended.  That seems more in keeping with the purpose of having a rule be immutable.

PPE So you are proposing to do away with future use of the the original list that shows all changes, is that right?

[Voltaire]

Crap, I forgot to fix the "This is Rule will be..." error. I'll do that when I do sudgy's thing later.

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.

I like it.

I like it too, but I view that as too big a lift for my current turn with everything else it's already doing. It'd be a great thing to put together for your own turn if you wanted!

My goal, with my monstrous turn, is to help get the game to a point where everyone can just do fun new mechanics and stuff.

[EFHW]

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.

What about this?

Other than that, I'm fine with everything.

Do we have a definition for "game construct"?

[Voltaire]

Maybe immutable rules should have to be transmuted before they can be suspended.  That seems more in keeping with the purpose of having a rule be immutable.

PPE So you are proposing to do away with future use of the the original list that shows all changes, is that right?

Well, maybe they should be, but they aren't right now.

Yes, I am. If you read my rule 341, it will make it so that in the future, if someone proposes Rule B amending rule A, rule A will be stricken from the record and only Rule B will be on the books (since Rule B is simply the updated version of Rule A).

As a one-time-only thing, it's deleted all of the crossed-out repealed and amended rules that are currently on the books, as though this rule had been in effect the whole time.

[Voltaire]

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.

What about this?

Other than that, I'm fine with everything.

Do we have a definition for "game construct"?

No, and I'd create one as part of this universal rule.

[Jimmmmm]

The colour rule doesn't make sense as it says it must be done as they join the game, but then talk about their turn.

I think you should amend 307 to add that a colour must be selected, rather than adding it to 342. You could keep the specifics of colour -choosing in 342 or ditch 342 altogether and put it all in 307. I think it's better to have only 1 rule specifying how to join the game instead of 2.

Also, I don't think you need to keep the note in 103. Maybe it's helpful for newer players, I'm not sure, but to me everything it says seems obvious from simply reading the rule itself.

[Voltaire]

The colour rule doesn't make sense as it says it must be done as they join the game, but then talk about their turn.

I think you should amend 307 to add that a colour must be selected, rather than adding it to 342. You could keep the specifics of colour -choosing in 342 or ditch 342 altogether and put it all in 307. I think it's better to have only 1 rule specifying how to join the game instead of 2.

Also, I don't think you need to keep the note in 103. Maybe it's helpful for newer players, I'm not sure, but to me everything it says seems obvious from simply reading the rule itself.

I think I'll put it all in 307, good catch and thanks. I'll delete the note from 103 then too.

[EFHW]

When is my turn, BTW?

[Jimmmmm]

Turn Order. Player - Score
1. mail-mi
2. liopoil - 4
3. Jack Rudd - 3
4. EFHW
5. Jimmmmm - 2
6. sudgy - 13
7. Voltaire
8. heron
9. Grujah - 10
10. Florrat
11. WalrusMcFishSir
12. scott_pilgrim

[Jimmmmm]

When is my turn, BTW?

As you joined after my turn, you were placed before me in the player order.

[Jimmmmm]

The colour rule doesn't make sense as it says it must be done as they join the game, but then talk about their turn.

I think you should amend 307 to add that a colour must be selected, rather than adding it to 342. You could keep the specifics of colour -choosing in 342 or ditch 342 altogether and put it all in 307. I think it's better to have only 1 rule specifying how to join the game instead of 2.

Also, I don't think you need to keep the note in 103. Maybe it's helpful for newer players, I'm not sure, but to me everything it says seems obvious from simply reading the rule itself.

I think I'll put it all in 307, good catch and thanks. I'll delete the note from 103 then too.

As you're changing 307, you could specify all initial attributes of new players. The only other thing I can think of is that they receive N$1000. But I think it'd be good to include everything that happens when a new player joins in the one rule. You could repeal 318 then.

Also, in the OP it says "ammended", and there are some which say (mutable) while others don't.

Sorry for adding more and more work for you.

[Voltaire]

Also, in the OP it says "ammended", and there are some which say (mutable) while others don't.

Can you clarify/expand on this? Just that ammended is misspelled somewhere, or that some are lacking (mutable)? (I thought I'd already caught and fixed that last one, dammit)

[Jimmmmm]

Also, in the OP it says "ammended", and there are some which say (mutable) while others don't.

Can you clarify/expand on this? Just that ammended is misspelled somewhere, or that some are lacking (mutable)? (I thought I'd already caught and fixed that last one, dammit)

Amended should only have 1 'm'. It's misspelt twice in the OP, just ctrl-f it. In the Rules in Effect quote under Mutable Rules, 205-324 do not have (mutable) after the number, which I think is right, but 326-340 do.

[Voltaire]

Amended should only have 1 'm'. It's misspelt twice in the OP, just ctrl-f it. In the Rules in Effect quote under Mutable Rules, 205-324 do not have (mutable) after the number, which I think is right, but 326-340 do.

Gotcha. That happened because of a mistake in keeping both lists at once - I fixed it in the All Rules, but not Rules in Effect. What happened was, we were adding (mutable) to some rules and not others. This is not actually part of the rules, just a reminder that new rules are mutable. I was going on precedent set by mail-mi and Kirian. If you check Thread 2, Kirian was adding (mutable) until 323, when he stopped. I believe this was an oversight and not rules-related, so I fixed this mistake and have kept going.

If we think it's more correct not to have this (mutable) reminder, I'll delete it from my draft and from all rules, since as far as I know nobody has ever put it in their official rules proposals.

[Jimmmmm]

Amended should only have 1 'm'. It's misspelt twice in the OP, just ctrl-f it. In the Rules in Effect quote under Mutable Rules, 205-324 do not have (mutable) after the number, which I think is right, but 326-340 do.

Gotcha. That happened because of a mistake in keeping both lists at once - I fixed it in the All Rules, but not Rules in Effect. What happened was, we were adding (mutable) to some rules and not others. This is not actually part of the rules, just a reminder that new rules are mutable. I was going on precedent set by mail-mi and Kirian. If you check Thread 2, Kirian was adding (mutable) until 323, when he stopped. I believe this was an oversight and not rules-related, so I fixed this mistake and have kept going.

If we think it's more correct not to have this (mutable) reminder, I'll delete it from my draft and from all rules, since as far as I know nobody has ever put it in their official rules proposals.

If the rules are divided between mutable and immutable, there's no need to state that they are immutable for each rule.

[Voltaire]

If the rules are divided between mutable and immutable, there's no need to state that they are immutable for each rule.

Right, but we're talking about a third category, Rule Changes and Amendments. At the time, I was just trying to be consistent with that we'd been doing.

Since the rules say anything listed in Rule Changes and Amendments is mutable unless stated otherwise, I can get rid of them and we'll just state it explicitly if we create a new immutable rule (which I don't see happening anytime soon). I won't do this immediately to let other people weigh in if they want to.

[Voltaire]

As you're changing 307, you could specify all initial attributes of new players. The only other thing I can think of is that they receive N$1000. But I think it'd be good to include everything that happens when a new player joins in the one rule. You could repeal 318 then.

FYI, I don't think I'm going to do this since we might add more attributes later. I think it's better if each rule introducing an attribute explains what happens to a player who joins/leaves & rejoins.