Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 30  All

Author Topic: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): liopoil's turn  (Read 68740 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Voltaire

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 957
  • flavor text
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): Jimmmmm's turn
« Reply #525 on: April 06, 2014, 01:08:10 pm »

EFHW, that was vote 6. You just made a rule you think doesn't work pass.  :(
Logged

EFHW

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Shuffle iT Username: EFHW
  • EFHW="ee-foo". Really, how else would you say it?
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): Jimmmmm's turn
« Reply #526 on: April 06, 2014, 04:26:36 pm »

I passed it for the inventory concept.  Like the others, I found the other parts problematic and they will need revision before they are useful.
Logged

EFHW

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Shuffle iT Username: EFHW
  • EFHW="ee-foo". Really, how else would you say it?
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): Jimmmmm's turn
« Reply #527 on: April 06, 2014, 04:27:32 pm »

It's so long between turns, I didn't want to maybe have to wait until my own turn to create the concept.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): Jimmmmm's turn
« Reply #528 on: April 06, 2014, 10:37:32 pm »

Vote yes on Rule 361.  I voted yes to keep the inventory idea, but the rule as it stands doesn't really work.  first you say food is used automatically, and then you say an order needs to be placed.  perhaps the order could be to replenish the inventory, and you should be able to do that before the unit dies.  Also, there isn't much need for the Hungry attribute, since that state only lasts briefly between food being assessed and the unit being removed.  Perhaps the unit could be immobilized for a turn, and then Hungry units starve the next turn if they again don't get food.

Food IS used automatically at the end of each round. However if you have a Hungry unit, you must feed it manually in order to remove its Hungriness.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): Jimmmmm's turn
« Reply #529 on: April 07, 2014, 12:07:07 am »

So, proposal passes 6-2.

I pay N$10 for my unit.

It is now sudgy's turn.
Logged

EFHW

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Shuffle iT Username: EFHW
  • EFHW="ee-foo". Really, how else would you say it?
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): Jimmmmm's turn
« Reply #530 on: April 07, 2014, 09:16:45 am »

Vote yes on Rule 361.  I voted yes to keep the inventory idea, but the rule as it stands doesn't really work.  first you say food is used automatically, and then you say an order needs to be placed.  perhaps the order could be to replenish the inventory, and you should be able to do that before the unit dies.  Also, there isn't much need for the Hungry attribute, since that state only lasts briefly between food being assessed and the unit being removed.  Perhaps the unit could be immobilized for a turn, and then Hungry units starve the next turn if they again don't get food.

Food IS used automatically at the end of each round. However if you have a Hungry unit, you must feed it manually in order to remove its Hungriness.

Does feeding replenish the inventory, or just provide for that one turn?
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): Jimmmmm's turn
« Reply #531 on: April 07, 2014, 02:25:31 pm »

Vote yes on Rule 361.  I voted yes to keep the inventory idea, but the rule as it stands doesn't really work.  first you say food is used automatically, and then you say an order needs to be placed.  perhaps the order could be to replenish the inventory, and you should be able to do that before the unit dies.  Also, there isn't much need for the Hungry attribute, since that state only lasts briefly between food being assessed and the unit being removed.  Perhaps the unit could be immobilized for a turn, and then Hungry units starve the next turn if they again don't get food.

Food IS used automatically at the end of each round. However if you have a Hungry unit, you must feed it manually in order to remove its Hungriness.

Does feeding replenish the inventory, or just provide for that one turn?

You can only feed if you have Food in your inventory. Other than the initial 2 Food, the rules provides no way of gaining Food.
Logged

EFHW

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Shuffle iT Username: EFHW
  • EFHW="ee-foo". Really, how else would you say it?
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #532 on: April 08, 2014, 02:32:08 pm »

Now I'm confused again.  Why would you use the feed command?  If there is food in the inventory, the feeding happens immediately.  In your last post, I thought you were saying you could use the feed command if the unit was Hungry, presumably b/c you somehow have more food in your possession that you could put into the unit's inventory.  But now you seem to be saying the feed command is only if there already is food in the inventory, but wouldn't that feeding be automatic?
Logged

florrat

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: florrat
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #533 on: April 08, 2014, 02:39:47 pm »

At the end of the turn of the last player, every unit automatically eats 1 unit of food. If you don't have any food left, your unit becomes hungry. You cannot do anything with a hungry unit, except feeding it, and that it why the feeding command is there. If you want to do anything else with your unit, you somehow have to gain 1 food (currently impossible), and then feed it to your unit. Re-read the rule again, and think when what happens. It does make sense if you read it correctly.
Logged

EFHW

  • Spy
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Shuffle iT Username: EFHW
  • EFHW="ee-foo". Really, how else would you say it?
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #534 on: April 08, 2014, 03:22:29 pm »

At the end of the turn of the last player, every unit automatically eats 1 unit of food. If you don't have any food left, your unit becomes hungry. You cannot do anything with a hungry unit, except feeding it, and that it why the feeding command is there. If you want to do anything else with your unit, you somehow have to gain 1 food (currently impossible), and then feed it to your unit. Re-read the rule again, and think when what happens. It does make sense if you read it correctly.

Jimmmmm says you can only feed if you have food in your inventory.  The only entity with an inventory is the unit.  If it already has food, then you don't need to feed it.  Do you see the problem?  Your interpretation is what I had also come to after his first response to me, but when he added this in his last post it is back to not making sense.
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #535 on: April 08, 2014, 03:29:21 pm »

Where's the rule that says what a turn consists of?  I couldn't find it.  I'm going to open a can of worms and suggest changing it to "one or more related rule changes".
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

florrat

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
  • Shuffle iT Username: florrat
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #536 on: April 08, 2014, 04:54:02 pm »

Jimmmmm says you can only feed if you have food in your inventory.  The only entity with an inventory is the unit.  If it already has food, then you don't need to feed it.  Do you see the problem?  Your interpretation is what I had also come to after his first response to me, but when he added this in his last post it is back to not making sense.
I am working under the assumption that with a future rule we have ways to add food to our inventory (otherwise units will only live for a few rounds, which sounds dull). In that case, you might not have food in your inventory when you're forced to consume food, and instead you get hungry. Then you somehow add food to your inventory (using that future rule), and then you can feed your unit to make it usable again.

@sudgy: rules 329-331 cover what happens during a turn. If you want to allow for more than one rule change, then you probably want to amend rule 331. I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with this proposal, though.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #537 on: April 08, 2014, 09:46:10 pm »

At the end of the turn of the last player, every unit automatically eats 1 unit of food. If you don't have any food left, your unit becomes hungry. You cannot do anything with a hungry unit, except feeding it, and that it why the feeding command is there. If you want to do anything else with your unit, you somehow have to gain 1 food (currently impossible), and then feed it to your unit. Re-read the rule again, and think when what happens. It does make sense if you read it correctly.

Jimmmmm says you can only feed if you have food in your inventory.  The only entity with an inventory is the unit.  If it already has food, then you don't need to feed it.  Do you see the problem?  Your interpretation is what I had also come to after his first response to me, but when he added this in his last post it is back to not making sense.

If one of your units becomes Hungry then it has no Food, and currently no way of obtaining Food. Even when there is a way of obtaining Food, that particular unit will be unable to get Food on its own, and so much rely on some other unit to bring Food to it (once we've made a way to transfer items from one unit to another).
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #538 on: April 09, 2014, 02:52:54 pm »

Draft Proposal:

Amend rule 331 to:

Quote
A player may propose one or more related rule changes on their turn.  All proposed rule changes are voted on as one.  Cases where it is not certain if the rule changes are related may be solved by Judgment.  A player is not allowed to propose more than one non-related rule change per turn, except when explicitly allowed by some rule.  Proposing one or more rule-changes is a "mandatory" action during the turn.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #539 on: April 10, 2014, 12:53:42 am »

So, uh, anybody want to comment?
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #540 on: April 10, 2014, 01:09:30 am »

I don't think I would vote for any rule that allows us to propose more than one rule per turn.  I also think requiring that they be "related" is asking for trouble...
Logged

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #541 on: April 10, 2014, 01:37:49 am »

I'd vote for it. I say drop the pretense and remove 'related' altogether. A proposal should pass or fail entirely based on its merits and popular consensus. You can propose a whole encyclopedia if you think people will vote for it. No need to impose a subjective and artificial constraint.

As it stands right now, either you contort your idea to fit in one rule, or else suspend the rule, which is annoying and slow. I mean I'm glad the rule suspension system exists, but I don't think it needs to be used every time a meatier proposal comes around. Just vote it down if you don't like it, or discuss what parts you don't like.

To summarize, allowing multiple rule changes will promote free expression, democracy, and cute puppies throughout the world
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #542 on: April 10, 2014, 02:02:21 am »

I'd vote for it. I say drop the pretense and remove 'related' altogether. A proposal should pass or fail entirely based on its merits and popular consensus. You can propose a whole encyclopedia if you think people will vote for it. No need to impose a subjective and artificial constraint.

As it stands right now, either you contort your idea to fit in one rule, or else suspend the rule, which is annoying and slow. I mean I'm glad the rule suspension system exists, but I don't think it needs to be used every time a meatier proposal comes around. Just vote it down if you don't like it, or discuss what parts you don't like.

To summarize, allowing multiple rule changes will promote free expression, democracy, and cute puppies throughout the world

Agreed. I'd just allow multiple rule-changes (regardless of relatedness) to require say two-thirds approval.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #543 on: April 10, 2014, 02:03:08 am »

I don't think I would vote for any rule that allows us to propose more than one rule per turn.  I also think requiring that they be "related" is asking for trouble...

I think multiple rule-changes per turn is necessary. My last proposal, for example, really should have been split into multiple rules.
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #544 on: April 10, 2014, 12:34:44 pm »

New Draft Proposal:

Amend rule 331 to:

Quote
A player may propose one or more rule changes on their turn.  All proposed rule changes are voted on as one.  Proposing one or more rule-changes is a "mandatory" action during the turn.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #545 on: April 10, 2014, 01:11:57 pm »

I don't think I would vote for any rule that allows us to propose more than one rule per turn.  I also think requiring that they be "related" is asking for trouble...

I think multiple rule-changes per turn is necessary. My last proposal, for example, really should have been split into multiple rules.

This is the big issue that I think a rule like this should be made to fix: You have an idea, and it really should be more than 1 rule, but you fit it in one rule to comfort to the rules, which makes it very sloppy.
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #546 on: April 10, 2014, 01:12:50 pm »

I am also quite fine with one rule change needing 1/2, and 2+ needing 2/3.
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1325
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #547 on: April 10, 2014, 01:23:39 pm »

Sudgy - does "voted on as one" mean "voted on simultaneously" or "voted on as a group, as if just one proposal were on the table"?
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #548 on: April 10, 2014, 01:24:36 pm »

I think the latter.
Logged

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
    • View Profile
Re: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): sudgy's turn
« Reply #549 on: April 10, 2014, 01:26:58 pm »

I'd vote for either simple or 2/3 majority, although I prefer simple. First of all, it's faster and consistent. With 2/3, people might be again incentivized to try to cram everything in one rule if they don't think they have the votes for 2/3. And if each rule within the proposal has the support to pass individually, why shouldn't they be allowed to pass as a group, instead of over multiple turns? I guess there's the concern that rapid rule changes might unbalance things or lead to contradictions, but I think that can really be determined on a proposal-by-proposal basis.
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 30  All
 

Page created in 0.167 seconds with 16 queries.