Nomic II - Moratorium Wins!!!

[dizardin]

too late to be /in ?
was debating whether this would be the game for me...

Not too late...

[dizardin]

Vote: P6 - Yay
Vote: P9 - Yay
Vote: P16 - Nay

Certainly, both of these are good regardless of other mechanics. I'm not entirely convinced of the 'game of corporations' game as yet. =)

As for P16, it's not likely to be sufficient, I feel. I'd be happy to accept a 'no more than 1 rule submitted per day per person' rule.

I'm all for a time-limit (game end) rule of some sort - it could exist independent of the other framework given.

[dizardin]

Game of Corporations -> Chief Financial Officer: The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) shall be responsible for maintaining all details related to the Game of Corporations as proposed by CEO Moratorium. This shall include, but not be limited to, currency ($$$), corporation name, chief officer's title, commodities, and such. This data shall be kept up-to-date as much as possible, with no less than one update per 3 calendar days. In recognition for this service, the CFO shall receive a wage of 10 $$$ every three calendar days. If a post is not made within the 3 calendar day limit, the corporation of the CFO is subject to a Grade 2 Offense. The first CFO shall be CEO Moratorium. A new CFO can be elected by a 50%+1 vote.

I need some clarification on this proposal before voting.

Is this a proposal to grant one of the 18 proposed CEO's a new responsibility? Or all of them?

The CFO would possibly also be called the Banker in any number of games. There is only one, and it is the job of the CFO to keep tabs on status. I would prefer this to be done via post to the thread, but also possibly in the proposals thread, so as to provide data appropriately.

Juls, is it possible to amend the rule to say 'Banker' rather than 'CFO'?

[dizardin]

Ok, let's discuss the proposals...

Moratorium:

P1-P6 are all good, they create a good basis for a game.

P7 has an interesting appendage at the end - you ought to define 'profit' in some sense, since I can think of a couple different possible interpretations. Specifically, are we talking profit as in making

$$$

, or are we talking receiving some benefit, tangible or otherwise? It makes a difference, and it maybe hard to determine at the time of an act.

P8 is good, except it doesn't address any assets other than current balance (call it 'cash on hand'). If I've got a dozen widgets, and 200

$$$

in the Bank, they should count for something, right?

P9: I already agree with that, eh? =)

P10 sets a time limit, which is generally good, but I'm curious about the dissolution clause - what was the purpose of that, if there's already a victory condition?

P11 has potential; I'm debating it with myself.

P12, well, hey, personal profit at the expense of the company is a time-honored tradition. =)

P13-14, all good.

Lawrencelot:

P19: I agree with a one-rule-at-a-time rule, but I'd prefer it weren't retroactive.

Rhinox:

P20-P21: I'm against outright banning anyone; at least, I am, until someone is proven to be an outright turd.

P22: It's a corp-laden version of my P15. Sure.

P23: Understand that a task, if this is voted it, may be rejected by the mod if the mod cannot assess the reward action has taken place.

Empking:

P24: Um, maybe.

xelada:

P25-P27: Um, no. Too silly, and difficult to deal with in the case of the last.

Lowell:

P28: Sure, sounds good.

farside22:

P29: I'd be willing to allow an opt-out with no penalty; there's nothing to prevent an alternate win condition.

So, thus reviewed, I vote:

Yay: P1-P6, P9, P13-P14, P22, P28-P29
Nay: P12, P19-21, P25-P27

Undecided on: P7-P8, P10-P11, P23-P24.

[dizardin]

@Juls:
Understood about the precedent -- would want to avoid that, and cause a problem with votes already being cast and such. It's a small issue, which is now hopefully resolved with the clarification given.

And so it goes...

[dizardin]

A small comment on rules:
SR3 currently states that there shall be no more than 25 rules in the game. Be aware that there are presently 9 rules in the game: GR1-GR5, SR1-SR3, and R1. By ratification of several rules, we'll be quickly pressed at the 25-rule limit; in fact, assuming that there are no major changes between now and the next vote count, there will be three new rules (my votes for P1-P3 would make the 11 presently necessary).

I'm proposing a removal of SR3 - it has been submitted. This will require a 2/3 majority vote (14 at present). This will allow sufficient legroom, so to speak, for other changes/modifications.

[dizardin]

Bleh - lots of action while I was working. =)

@Rhinox: P32 is about setting things up so they can be adjusted later. Specifically, I want to keep the 50% + 1 part of the original rule (SR1). I also want to assure every person gets a minimum of one vote (SR4). Later, we can introduce rules to give additional votes - and these new rules ought not require 2/3 majority, as they are not changing SR4.

So, back to things left over, I haven't voted on P7-P8, P10-P11, P23-P24, nor the new batch. Let's talk about those:

P7-P8, P11: Ok, I'll bite.

P23: I'm not convinced that tasks are all that great. How bout some more info? =)

P24: Sure, an alternate win condition is good.

Now, as far as having a constant value for cash in the game... When you played Monopoly as a kid, more money was injected every time someone went round the board, some was taken away if you landed on Luxury Tax or had to pay a fine to Get Out Of Jail. It wasn't constant - the variability added an element of fun.

In the rules as proposed thus far, there are possibilities for the money in the system to be leaked out -- which causes problems unless there's also an influx of cash, as well. That's the idea behind the CFO (or 'Banker'), and the Salary rules.

Now, let's talk about everything folks posted after I went to bed and work.

P30-P31: HP for players is another interesting game mechanic; I think I looked briefly at the other Nomic game, or maybe it was one elsewhere, and saw something similar. Lots of stuff about double posts being punches, similar stuff. Not so sure I like that. Some more context is necessary first before I'll vote this.

P32-P36: Great rules -- everyone should vote for them. =)

P37: I'm against any rule that targets a specific person. That's sucky.

P38: Random death. Not so fun. No sport in that.

P39: Hm. Not so sure about allowing new players after a certain point. I'd rather have people not be able to joint any longer (which is why I made my proposal P15).

P40: Um, no, not sharing a win with someone who has no desire to play. =)

P41: I like the way it's worded. Very solid. I'm scared of it. =)

P42: Sounds good.

Summary:

Yay - P7-P8, P11, P24, P42
Nay - P37, P38, P39, P40, P41

Undecided: P23, P30-P31

[dizardin]

@Moratorium: Why on earth would you ever vote Yes to P38? That's crazy talk, that is... =)

As for P18, a favorite of mine, I notice it hasn't passed yet.

Drench, Max, populartajo, ortolan, yabbaguy: How bout a vote on P18?

[dizardin]

@chenhsi:
WRT P32, the current SR1 states two things: 50%+1 and One Vote Only. This is really two rules, IMO, and should be broken apart. This provides two benefitis:

1) We have a single 2/3 vote to make the break and clarify wording. Future actions on the current SR1 would then be targetted to either SR1 or SR4, allowing people to more easily make their case and create good verbage.
2) SR4 gives everyone

at least

one vote. This does no preclude regular rules (again, IMO) that grant additional votes. It also assures everyone that everyone has at least some say in what happens.

So, P32 opens up things a bit for us, and makes the rules less intertwined, IMO. BTW, I'll confess that I have an engineer's mind (it's stored on my 24th century optical storage device affixed to my computer via Bluetooth - cool, huh?).

[dizardin]

@chenhsi:
WRT P36, I didn't think it necessary to state that the CEO is an employee - assuming passage of P5, it becomes implicit in the structure of the rules.

[dizardin]

And things keep on rollin...

I left a few things undecided, and there's a batch of new props to vote

down

on.

P23: Still not sure bout that one.
P30-31: Sure, I'll give those a chance. Not thrilled about a hp-based game (means lots of fighting in some form or fashion), but hey, give some folks a chance.

About P41: This is a seriously powerful thing... locking someone out for three days, and reducing the threshold for a vote. Actually,

hey Mod

: How bout a ruling on majority if P41 passes? If X cannot vote, does X still count for majority? I'd prefer that X still counts, but cannot vote, so it's simply a mechanism to gag someone temporarily. If it reduces majority (X doesn't count), then it's seriously powerful - possibly even Silver or Gold rule powerful. Just sayin.

P43: I assume it's simply a max 2000

$$$

that a corp/player can withdraw as a loan. What happens if you don't pay it back? Dissolution? Not specified in the rule - interesting idea, but need to fully qualify it.

P44: Eh, no, not wasting a rule on this. =)

P45: This one infringes on SR1. It's gonna need a 2/3 majority,

right, Mod?

P46-47: (AKA

The Paperwork Reduction Act

) Nice thought, but I like to post my thoughts, debate, etc. Plus if we limit the size of the rule, someone's likely to use words that people don't know.

Thus:

Yay to P30, P31
Nay to P43, P44, P45, P46, P47

As an aside, it seems we haven't made much progress toward anyone actually winning just yet... just an observation.

[dizardin]

P45: This one infringes on SR1. It's gonna need a 2/3 majority,

right, Mod?

I had not thought about this. I think I will allow it though. Because the rule says that every 2 neutral votes reduces the votes needed to pass/fail by 1 it is essentially the same as saying whichever side gets to the "new majority" wins all the neutral votes and the majority is still maintained. The rule just allows people to make their intentions clear (that they don't care if it passes or not but don't want to hold it up).

SR1. A proposed rule must reach a 50% + 1 vote majority of yay votes before it is added to the rule set. Every player has exactly one yay or nay vote. It is assumed that the person who proposes the rule has submitted a yay vote for the rule.

SR1 say explicitly:
1) 50% +1 majority of Yay votes. P45 modifies that to something else.
2) Yay or Nay votes - no Neutral vote granted. Can I vote 'Fish'? How is it counted?

Your call, Mod, but this looks like a 2/3 majority change to SR1 to me.

[dizardin]

P50, P51: Um, what do those commodities do? Thought any ability of it had to be included in the proposal.
P52: I'm curious to know what Empking plans to do with that 8x8 grid - play Checkers? No rules given for method to change it.
P53: I'm surprised there's a following for this rule, given the propensity of some to have no cash inflow...
P54: Not sure what this one means -- care to elaborate, farside?

Nay to P50, P51, P52
Yay to P53

P54 I'll abstain on, until we get more info.

[dizardin]

As a general note to the

Mod

, P32 is effectively dead, given that:
a) it requires 2/3 majority to pass,
b) there are 15 players at present, and
c) there are 6 votes against.

This is unfortunate, since it is my opinion that no one may have more or less than one vote unless SR1 is broken in two and then modified. Further, it guaranteed a minimum of one vote - it would suck to be unable to vote, wouldn't it?

Ah well; guess I'll have to try again another way. Bunch of proposals on the way. And, yes, I'm a rules lawyer. =)

[dizardin]

@dizardin: P32 is not dead yet because votes are allowed to be changed. If nothing else changes it will go away on its expiration date.

Hm. We've 'defeated' several proposals already. Should they remain until their expiration, then? Specifically, P10, P15, P16, P17, P20, P24, P25, P26, P27, P36, P40. Not trying to cause trouble, but figure out which way voting works.

[dizardin]

@Empking: Ok, sounds like the board rule is good; need some rules to make it do stuff. =)

Yay to P5

I can't believe you voted no to my proposals 55-59 -- mind sharing your thoughts?

[dizardin]

Oops, sorry, no idea how I got P5 in there...

Yay to P52

[dizardin]

yabba I'd support a one-time correction for YOU personally. propose it as an amendment or something, it'll pass.

If not I'll give you 10 $$$ instead. How's that sound???

Count me as a vote, too. I would hate for someone to get shafted by not being in quite early enough.

[dizardin]

I don't like 59 and I don't like the thought of you having three commodities when I have 0.

Hey, go propose three of your own! =) Seriously, just trying to put some ideas out there. If they don't pass, ah well. Just trying to be helpful.

[dizardin]

P55: There's no stipulation as to how many times this can be used (I hereby gavel 12 times on proposal 99 which states I automatically win, yay!).

Actually, since there's no invocation described with it, it wouldn't provide extra votes beyond the one that it provides normally. This was certainly the intent, and how I'd hope the Mod would rule it functions.

[dizardin]

MOTION TO CENSURE dizardin

. Too many rules!

That sucks. Obviously not voting for that.

[dizardin]

With regard to the proposed censure of Moratorium and myself:

1:

Lowell has proposed censure, per the guidelines of R11. This means he has posted in thread the motion, appropriately following the syntax of R11.

2:

Censure is

not

a Rule, given it is posted in thread per R11, it is not PM'd to the Mod, and it does not show up in the Proposed Rules list.

3:

SR1 states, with regard to Rules:

It is assumed that the person who proposes the rule has submitted a yay vote for the rule.

4:

R11 states that:

To support the motion of censure, other players must post
vote to CENSURE {player name}

5:

R11 states nothing about any implicit vote being cast in favor of censure, unlike SR1.

Therefore, it is my conjecture that there are 0 votes for censure of anyone, from what I've seen.

-- your friendly neighborhood Rules Lawyer

Fixed.

[dizardin]

Yay to P60, P68, P64, P68, P69
Nay to P61, P62, P65, P66, P67

Like the P64 'commodity', which I assume it is. Nicely done.

As for P65-P67, I don't like the idea of someone stealin my stuff.

P68 -- good catch.

[dizardin]

New Job Title: OFMIC

A has a title X; B has a title A's boss. Any reference to B by B's proper title instantly invokes a penalty, as is a reference to A without proper title. Addressing B as X A's boss, however, is also a penalty, since B is being referenced without proper title.

THUS, we cannot ever address B directly. =) Unless, of course, B chooses to change title.

[dizardin]

Point of Order on R13:

From

R13

:
All fines are paid to the corporation infringed by the violation, in the same manner as a transfer. If the violation did not infringe a specific corporation, the fine is simply a deduction from the offending corporation’s balance entry

From

R18

:
Failure by any player entity to include a player’s title when referring to another player entity in any post in the thread is a violation of corporate standards.

I'd think that failure under R18 to properly address a player/CEO would be an offense against that player/CEO, and not a non-specific infringement.

My two bits.

[dizardin]

Oh, by the way, two rules are listed as R19.

[dizardin]

Bleh. Guess I spent too much time doing a couple other things instead of updating while I'm writing a post. =)

Interesting how things move... for example, GR11 is a surprise. Reasonable, and shuts up folks like me. =)

[dizardin]

The main purpose behind P71 is to make folks stop lurking and start paying attention. There are at least four players who have yet to vote on over 20 propositions. It's a bit frustrating, to me. If this fails, it'll be fine - I'm proposing an alternative to this rule. Hm... may have to propose a rule for most proposals, too. =)

[dizardin]

Nay to P54, P70.
Yay to P63.

[dizardin]

Ok...

Yay to P70

[dizardin]

Ok, folks, time to put up or shut up: we have 23 rules active, with a max of 25. Either:
a) we pass P33,
b) we stop passing rules, or
c) we start killing existing rules.
Let me note that there are at present 0 rules stating win conditions.
Have a nice day. =)

[dizardin]

Nay to P72

[dizardin]

@Moratorium: No on P73? Aw, come on... the Aussies have got it right: if ya don't vote, you pay a fine. Sounds good to me. =)

[dizardin]

I tell ya, a Grade 3 Offense is a serious kick in the teeth. Dang. Now I gotta sit on my hands for two weeks. Expect a lot of 'Nay' votes here. =)

[dizardin]

BTW, Post 328 appears to refer to a player without title. Man, talk about losing money left and right...

[dizardin]

A few votes, without name or title:

Yea - P74, P61, P58, P57, P56, P55, P43

[dizardin]

My two votes:

Nay to 75-81

[dizardin]

With my two votes:

Vote to Reset

To be honest, I've enjoyed things thus far -- it's been fun and interesting. =)

[dizardin]

I assume that Post 401 wasn't directed at me... who was it for?

[dizardin]

Yea - P82

Of course, I'd vote for it given the idea in post 423, as well.

[dizardin]

Sure, I'll vote

Yes to LT

.
Hey, wait, we playin a game here? =)

[dizardin]

Big red reset button punched - chaos ensues.
Personally, not a big gambler myself. I'm interested to see other ideas, though. Maybe I'll have a few tomorrow - today it's too hard.

[dizardin]

Hm. Interesting stuff. I'm not so sure I'm into currency as a way of counting coup - though I don't have any good suggestion on alternatives yet.

Nay to all

[dizardin]

Yea to P104-P110

[dizardin]

Nay to all I have not voted as yet
Yay to P119

[dizardin]

I'm currently out of ideas, looking for brains in my other trousers, so hopefully I'll have some rule proposals soon. =)

[dizardin]

Yea on P129, P128
Nay on all others I've not previously voted

[dizardin]

Nay to all unvoted
Yea to P133, P131, P130

Not so sure about P134 yet; we don't have any way to make cash yet (and I'm still without a good way to insta-win the game).

[dizardin]

Nay to all props I've not yet voted.
Yea to P136.

[dizardin]

Nay to P137

As for voting 'nay' on various rules based on not liking them, it's not that I'm not knowledgable of Nomic (though this is my first game), it's that I don't think the proposed rules would be very beneficial to me personally. After all, it's all about me, right? =)

[dizardin]

Nay to all I've not voted
Yea to P139

The Prisoner's Dilemma rule appeals to me. =)

[dizardin]

By the way, with 13 active, only 7 need to pass a prop (as opposed to the 8 listed on the prop page). Methinks P139 passes.

[dizardin]

Nay to all I've not voted

[dizardin]

Yea on P144

As for the money exchange, I'm open to discuss exchanges with others. Seems some folks have already paired up. Anyone willing to pair?

[dizardin]

Nay on P145

Inactives can reap what they sow - nothing! =)

[dizardin]

@yabba: 100$$$ on the way.

Sell 1 bat's blood @ 379$$$
Sell 1 button @ 583$$$
Sell 1 power supply @ 509$$$
Buy 5 toothpick @ 51$$$
Buy 5 walkie talkie @ 64$$$
Buy 5 ash lumber @ 83$$$
Buy 1 wool cloth @ 279$$$
Buy 1 debit card @ 216$$$

Total sale: 1471$$$
Total buy: 1485$$$

[dizardin]

Yea to P138

Just re-read it and understand the purpose; would really suck if you can't vote and end up getting fined as a result.

[dizardin]

Yea to P146
Nay to all I've not voted

@yabba: and another 100$$$ on the way

[dizardin]

Nay on all props I've not yet voted
Yea on P153, P156, P157

[dizardin]

Re: P155
I'm thinking the mod has lots of stuff to keep up with already. =) Otherwise, I don't care so much. You could just as easily use "1d6 comes up 1" or something similar... it's a little less deterministic.

[dizardin]

100$$$ to yabba

[dizardin]

Yea on P159

[dizardin]

Nay to P160

Not so sure I like bandwagon/piling on.

[dizardin]

@Lowell -- game ain't over; someone could repeat the rules, again, and you'd be back in. =)

[dizardin]

Urm, repeal, that was...

[dizardin]

Yea on P161, P162

[dizardin]

Yea on P163, P164, P165

And I'm looking for some water (thirsty); PM for trade.

[dizardin]

Call it laziness on my part; I've been working through several options, but none has come fully to fruition.

[dizardin]

Nay to P166

[dizardin]

Given that I have approximately 30 minutes per day to look here, and about 24 hours between looks, I'm a bit taken aback by the fact two new proposals I've never seen are now already rules... and one with an 'auto-silver' clause, to boot.

Dang.

Nay to P175

Protest to R27/P175:

GR8 states that "Silver rules can be

added

, changed, and deleted, by a vote of 2/3 majority + 1." (emphasis mine)
R27 states "... This, P172 (if passed), P169 (if passed) and the win condition portion of Rule 15 will become a Silver Rule exactly 3 weeks after this rule is passed. "
I would assert that R27 is or will be, therefore, an

added

Silver rule, and therefore must meet GR8 -- 2/3 + 1. With 8 active players, this would be 6 votes. It had only 5 votes at the time it passed.

[dizardin]

Now, as for other business...

Yea to P167, P181
Nay to all other proposals I've not yet voted, through P181

I agree with the sentiments that a) random luck games aren't very interesting to me, and b) no money for free.

[dizardin]

@Moratorium: Yes, concur. Some mechanics for changing this would be good.

Nay to P182-P188

Guess I'd better get to writing rules. =)

[dizardin]

Nay to P189

[dizardin]

Nay to P190, P191

[dizardin]

As an aside, I believe P169 fails, since the 2/3+1 majority isn't possible, given the current Nay count.

[dizardin]

/stare at chenshi.

Yah, well, it could be a misdirect -- though it certainly looks fishy.

[dizardin]

Yea to P192, P195

[dizardin]

Nay to P196
Yea to P197, P198, P199

@yabba -- why vote against P197, unless you're the one involved?

As for P199, I think this is simply hilarious. =)

[dizardin]

@Juls: Boo! =)

[dizardin]

Yea on P200

[dizardin]

Hmph. Thanks, chenhsi.

[dizardin]

Bleh. Ain't worth the effort.
/out

[dizardin]

Well, it's not like I'm going to successfully defend against 15 separate 20% hits... not possible given my current funds and items. Try running the stats. =)

It's not like the game wasn't worth the effort -- no slight to the mod -- just the effort to try to survive was too great, and would have certainly caused my loss financially, if not due to being whacked. Good end-game strategy has taken me out -- sorry to be so, um, abrupt.

At any rate, I may /in for the next, assuming work isn't to demanding.

[dizardin]

Heh. Yeah, I'm a rules lawyer, certainly. I'll think about it, Juls. (would give you a chance to play)

Not naming anyone should help push closer to a 'finish', I believe -- get us closer to a new game. Not naming also helps avoid any sort of bias, and allows the current players a somewhat even footing to slug it out to the very end.

[dizardin]

My guess is that you weren't viewed as a serious thread, chenhsi -- others had bigger targets on them.

[dizardin]

Not me.

[dizardin]

Yeah, the rule by which he proceeded to pummel the rest were written by Juls. =)

It was a righteous kill, nonetheless.

[dizardin]

@yabba -- actually, I didn't know if you'd stopped funding me; I couldn't tell, since I had so much cash and items, it was a bit hard to track. If I'd gotten a notice from the mod about getting the funds, that would have let me track it; ah well, lesson learned. =)

BTW, Moratorium, I actually thought of the quick-kill ability just after it was rendered useless -- less than 24 hours to the kill attempts on me. Given my funding, I'd have had a good chance to take out everyone else (had about 25k worth of goods on hand).