Nomic II - Moratorium Wins!!!

Lowell · Post Post #10 (isolation #0) » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:37 am

/in because i'm fundamentally a masochist

Lowell · Post Post #19 (isolation #1) » Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:58 am

Man I'm going to posit soooo many mandatory lurking rules...

Lowell · Post Post #21 (isolation #2) » Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:47 am

How about this one then. No one under the age of 30 is allowed to post rules.

Lowell · Post Post #22 (isolation #3) » Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:48 am

See? I'm full of good ideas.

Lowell · Post Post #73 (isolation #4) » Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:40 am

nay on all

I need to get my bearings first. The corporation idea is an interesting one, but I'm lazy and don't really understand it yet. Feel free to try again, possibly intertwined with some sort of win condition.

Lowell · Post Post #74 (isolation #5) » Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:40 am

I have a rule coming that will help the lurkers out there...

Lowell · Post Post #76 (isolation #6) » Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:42 am

no this is a safe one, don't worry. The insane ones come later when you're all in love with me.

Lowell · Post Post #86 (isolation #7) » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:31 pm

Moratorium is all business. I'm a little scared.

Lowell · Post Post #89 (isolation #8) » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:39 pm

vote YAY on 24

. Hilarious.

Lowell · Post Post #114 (isolation #9) » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:18 am

Let's get more YAYs on 28, please, it'll make things simpler.

NO on 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

YES on 29

NO on 30-32

Lowell · Post Post #115 (isolation #10) » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:23 am

transfer- k'scope- 10$$$
transfer- farside- 10$$$
transfer- xelada- 10$$$
transfer- popsofctown- 10$$$

I'm going to use my money to help kill these corporation rules. How's that for ironic socialism?

Lowell · Post Post #117 (isolation #11) » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:45 am

wouldn't you like to know... mwhawhawhawhwah

No.

It'll be easier to get the dead and dying ideas off the list if folks can leave for a few days and have someone else vote on their behalf.

Lowell · Post Post #118 (isolation #12) » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:48 am

NO on 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Lowell · Post Post #122 (isolation #13) » Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:24 am

Moratorium wrote:Proposals self-destruct after a week regardless.

I still voted yes.

Ah didn't realize this. Nevermind then.

Lowell · Post Post #152 (isolation #14) » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:28 am

I can't believe those rules passed. Democracy is retarded.

Lowell · Post Post #153 (isolation #15) » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:32 am

Yay on 38 and 40

Let's get yay votes on 39 and 41, please.

Lowell · Post Post #170 (isolation #16) » Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:19 pm

yes on 45

. Good idea.

Lowell · Post Post #188 (isolation #17) » Fri May 01, 2009 7:38 am

God this game has gotten insane. At least the mechanism for shutting people up passed.

Lowell · Post Post #190 (isolation #18) » Fri May 01, 2009 7:42 am

yes on 53

Lowell · Post Post #212 (isolation #19) » Sat May 02, 2009 4:13 am

I'll vote

yes on 42

. Huzzah it passed... hilariously, I STILL don't think it helps yabba, as it only refers to NEW players. mod, a ruling?

Also I have no idea what the commodities do or mean. I'm not voting on any of them until I understand the point.

Lowell · Post Post #215 (isolation #20) » Sat May 02, 2009 4:23 am

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???

Lowell · Post Post #227 (isolation #21) » Sat May 02, 2009 5:48 am

Oh god, unlimited rules? Pass.

Lowell · Post Post #230 (isolation #22) » Sat May 02, 2009 6:22 am

popsofctown wrote:
Moratorium wrote: P61: Anyone who isn't in the lead in money right now shouldn't be voting yes to give everyone money if they are truly playing to win.
psh, if everyone was playing to win i wouldn't be playing.

Or, I could be forming an alliance of players to change the rule at the last minute to whoever has the LEAST amount of money wins.

... think about

that

!

Lowell · Post Post #234 (isolation #23) » Sat May 02, 2009 6:38 am

No on 48-59

YES on 60-62

No on 63-69

Still not getting what commodities do.

Lowell · Post Post #235 (isolation #24) » Sat May 02, 2009 6:40 am

no on 33

MOTION TO CENSURE dizardin

. Too many rules!

MOTION TO CENSURE moratorium

. For shits and giggles, and until I understand the corporations.

Lowell · Post Post #243 (isolation #25) » Sat May 02, 2009 7:13 am

You guys are so little fun.

Lowell · Post Post #246 (isolation #26) » Sat May 02, 2009 7:18 am

I assumed that MY vote counted, but yes, I agree it's not necessary for people to specifically decline censure.

Lowell · Post Post #345 (isolation #27) » Tue May 05, 2009 5:34 am

It's clear that if I dont' do anything I'll win.

New Title: The Majestic One

As in:

I agree with what Lowell, The Majestic One, said about this. My, how he is truly majestic.

Lowell · Post Post #346 (isolation #28) » Tue May 05, 2009 5:41 am

There's a suffrage I would bid on, but I refuse to use the job title, so that person cost himself some mad bling.

- The Majestic One out

Lowell · Post Post #349 (isolation #29) » Tue May 05, 2009 9:06 am

^^^ who is the first part of 347 referring to?

Lowell · Post Post #351 (isolation #30) » Tue May 05, 2009 9:09 am

Dammit!

Lowell · Post Post #382 (isolation #31) » Wed May 06, 2009 9:32 am

I too think the corporations are clumsy and too all-consuming. If anyone wants to propose a way to either (a) kill them completely, or (b) tone them down, I'd gladly vote for it.

Lowell · Post Post #406 (isolation #32) » Thu May 07, 2009 4:32 am

I'm here.

vote to reset

No offense to the people who have made all these rules so far, and I'm glad you're all so eager. But I do think a lot of the proposals slipped through when some people absconded and made the majority lower. I'd prefer to start over.

Lowell · Post Post #415 (isolation #33) » Thu May 07, 2009 11:02 am

MOD, can I propose a rule to get rid of rules I don't like? Are there special procedures for that?

Lowell · Post Post #418 (isolation #34) » Thu May 07, 2009 12:15 pm

Okay I've posited a rule repealing all the rules. Let's start this again on an even playing field.

Lowell · Post Post #420 (isolation #35) » Thu May 07, 2009 12:41 pm

vote yes on rule 82!

Lowell · Post Post #444 (isolation #36) » Mon May 11, 2009 5:30 am

More yays on 82, please.

Lowell · Post Post #459 (isolation #37) » Tue May 12, 2009 3:54 am

yes to LT playing

MORE YESs on 82...

Lowell · Post Post #467 (isolation #38) » Tue May 12, 2009 1:11 pm

Yay we successfully achieved anarchy! Do I win?

Lowell · Post Post #473 (isolation #39) » Wed May 13, 2009 5:53 am

NO on 83-93

Lowell · Post Post #477 (isolation #40) » Wed May 13, 2009 9:39 am

I'm turned off by the monetary rules at the moment. When I see some good rules I'll vote on them.

I like the idea of a penalty for not voting on the rules, though obviously a non-monetary penalty would be preferable.

Lowell · Post Post #493 (isolation #41) » Thu May 14, 2009 3:29 am

I think the money issue ties our hands, and we all become CEOs again, which I don't want.

Lowell · Post Post #519 (isolation #42) » Sat May 16, 2009 2:34 am

no on 94-96

. I'm anti-everything. Plus this gives the wrong incentive to pass rules.

yes on 97

, why not.

no on 98

this is how the financial crisis started...

no on 99

, though I would support an amended version that (a) doesn't have such a short time limit, and (b) isn't all for all. (As is, there's no reason to try to earn money, because someone will just take it from you). Change it so a player can challenge another for a set number of $$$, so that there is balance.

yes on 100, 101

, though if

mod

could change "by" to "buy" it would be appreciated.

no on 102

. I prefer the incentive not to be set in stone, but flexible.

no on 103

. Don't care about this.

yes on 104-109

, I'll see what yabba has in mind.

no on 110-112

we have enough of this.

Lowell · Post Post #523 (isolation #43) » Sat May 16, 2009 6:08 am

yes on 113

. Very much yes.

Lowell · Post Post #543 (isolation #44) » Mon May 18, 2009 2:09 am

^^^ ugh 85 is really dumb

Lowell · Post Post #569 (isolation #45) » Tue May 19, 2009 10:16 am

no on 114-118

. I think I see where this is going, but make the rules make more sense and explain the game better. Better yet, make them all one rule, so we arent' stuck with the possibility of passing half the rules and not others.

yes on 120-122
no on 123
yes on 124
no on 125
no on 126

good rule, but change it to 0$$$ or less, not just less.

yes on 127-128

both good.

Lowell · Post Post #588 (isolation #46) » Wed May 20, 2009 9:30 am

no on 129

. Unnecessary.

Though I like the rule about penalizing people for not voting on rules, we do realize that it will by necessity eventually clip everyone down to zero, right? Unless every vote is a tie broken by the last player to vote, there will ALWAYS be some people who haven't voted on any given rule.

Lowell · Post Post #592 (isolation #47) » Wed May 20, 2009 9:44 am

can someone explain to me what the rule 8 grid does, exactly?

Lowell · Post Post #594 (isolation #48) » Wed May 20, 2009 9:54 am

so you're saying there's still time to pass a rule that says anyone who buys a square owes everyone else 100$$$. sweet.

Lowell · Post Post #604 (isolation #49) » Thu May 21, 2009 2:26 am

no on 130-134

Lowell · Post Post #639 (isolation #50) » Tue May 26, 2009 2:32 am

yes on 135
no on 136
yes on 137

Lowell · Post Post #650 (isolation #51) » Wed May 27, 2009 6:57 am

yes on 138
yes on 139

hey look I'm co-winning! I'm great at this as-yet-non-game!

Lowell · Post Post #670 (isolation #52) » Fri May 29, 2009 7:59 am

yes on 140, 141
no on 142, 143

Anyone willing to go 100$$$ for 100$$$ for as long as this nonsensical rule exists with me?

Lowell · Post Post #672 (isolation #53) » Fri May 29, 2009 8:57 am

okay, thanks.

Lowell · Post Post #683 (isolation #54) » Sat May 30, 2009 3:40 am

Lunar_Tick wrote:Skitzer, Lowell, it would be interesting to know where you see this game going. Would you like to propose a rule or something?

Yeah I dont' know. I'm just hanging on for now. I would have preferred not to have money at all, really. I think having money makes people too lazy in creating rules, and I feel like an f-ing banker the whole game.

Lowell · Post Post #684 (isolation #55) » Sat May 30, 2009 3:43 am

I think the mod has been waiting all game to propose this rule, watching as we trod through vague win conditions and monetary rules.

yes on 144

. I'll indulge.

Incidentally, I'm close to proposing a repeal all rules rule again... any support for that? Things are cluttered. And as well, thanks to whoever else gave me 100$$$.

Lowell · Post Post #713 (isolation #56) » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:10 am

Rhinox wrote:100$$$ sent to Lowell.

Right back at you. I'll continue this as long as you will.

Lowell · Post Post #714 (isolation #57) » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:11 am

yes on 145

thanks pops

no on 146-149

Lowell · Post Post #728 (isolation #58) » Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:29 am

no on 150, 151

. I really need to figure out what's going on in this game.

Lowell · Post Post #739 (isolation #59) » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:46 am

Can somone explain how the items work again? Is a certain item needed to stop a certain attack? I have no idea how this works and can't tell from the first post.

Lowell · Post Post #740 (isolation #60) » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:58 am

Here's what I dont' understand. Do I need two items to fend off a 40% chance of death? Or 5 to 100% fend it off?

Lowell · Post Post #741 (isolation #61) » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:01 am

no on 152
yes on 153
yes on 154
yes on 155
yes on 156
yes on 157
yes on 158

Lowell · Post Post #756 (isolation #62) » Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:49 am

Hmmm... fair enough.

Truthfully, at no point did I understand what was happening in this game, so that's what I deserve I guess.