Nomic

CoolBot · Post Post #11 (isolation #1) » Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:40 am

I don't think six players will be that bad. He did say about five, after all.

CoolBot · Post Post #17 (isolation #2) » Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:53 am

301. If a player finds they posted the first post on a new page, he or she shall immediately post the concurrent numbered rule set. If the player does this before anyone else posts, he or she shall recieve 5 points. If the player does not do this before anyone else posts, he or she shall lose 10 points.

CoolBot · Post Post #27 (isolation #3) » Wed Dec 03, 2003 8:39 am

By concorrent, I just mean the rules that are currently in affect. No where is it indicated that we will keep track of the rules anywhere, so I think it's a good idea to have a rule mandating we do so. I find all the information being in the opening post to be slightly inconvient. Also, it places a burden on Polarboy with little gain. This rule trys to address both of those issues. I am willing to amend it so that we only post the 3xx rules that pass.

CoolBot · Post Post #30 (isolation #4) » Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:39 am

I don't see anything in the rules that would preclude that. In fact, there really is nothing about how votes are counted.

How's this for clearing up the confusion: Instead of reading "the concurrent numbered rule set," proposal 301 reads "the numbered and currently active rules"

I believe I can make this ammendment by rule 111, since the word concurrent was unclear.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

If no one objects by 1:00 PM EST Friday, I'm going to go ahead and make this change.

CoolBot · Post Post #37 (isolation #5) » Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:17 pm

Stewie, shdayforce already invoked judgement.

shadyforce wrote:I invoke judgement on your interpretation of rule 111.

On the issue of chaging votes, I'd invoke judgement, except it seems immaterial now. Since Stewie judged everyone would have to revote in the case of an ammendment, there's plenty of chance to change votes.

CoolBot · Post Post #40 (isolation #6) » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:53 am

I like it, mathcam. Though I'd add a part about a mandatory discussion period before the first vote is cast. Not too long, maybe a day or two. As it is now, anyone can end discussion (and clarification) by casting a vote.

Anyway, here's the amended proposal:

301. If a player finds they posted the first post on a new page, he or she shall immediately post the numbered and currently active rules. If the player does this before anyone else posts, he or she shall recieve 5 points. If the player does not do this before anyone else posts, he or she shall lose 10 points.

CoolBot · Post Post #48 (isolation #7) » Thu Dec 04, 2003 7:28 am

shadyforce wrote:do you mean all of the rules currently in effect which is all the 1**, 2** and 3** rules?

Yes. Unfortunatly I didn't think about the length of the posts in the later stages of the game. Still, we can amend it later if it becomes a problem.

And just to make my implicit vote explicit,

vote: Yes

Oh, and please note that even if massive, shadyforce or Stewie votes no, the other two still have to vote as well so I can caculate how many points I receive.

Current Votes

CoolBot - Yes
FishBulb - Yes
massive - Unreported
Mathcam - Yes
PolarBoy - Yes
Scalebane - Yes
Shadyforce - Unreported
Stewie - Unreported

CoolBot · Post Post #50 (isolation #8) » Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:43 am

Also, later when proposals don't need unanimity, the proponent may not want to, simply to get the extra ten points.

CoolBot · Post Post #55 (isolation #9) » Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:59 am

So that's ten points for me, if I got the math right: (301 - 291) * 8/8 = 10

fishbulb's next

PolarBoy, I was referring to the points you get when you vote against a successfully passed proposal, as outlined in Rule 204. So, hypothetically, someone could get ((P - 291) * y/8 + 10) points, where P is the proposal number and y is the number of yes votes by voting against their own proposal.

CoolBot · Post Post #62 (isolation #10) » Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:38 pm

Seems reasonable to me. I'm not so sure vacations will be that big of a problem with this rule. It took about two days to get my proposal passed, and using that as a guide, it'll be about two weeks before a player's turn comes up again.

CoolBot · Post Post #69 (isolation #11) » Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:30 am

I think Stewie judgement during the previous turn are a good rule of thumb until we get an actual rule to settle the issue. We're dealing gray are here, and have to muddle our way through it.

CoolBot · Post Post #72 (isolation #12) » Fri Dec 05, 2003 10:44 am

So, how long should we allow for reasonable discussion? No one seems to need clarification, so I don't think we need to wait much longer.

So, anyone else looking forward to the golden era of rule changes PolarBoy will lead us to?

CoolBot · Post Post #83 (isolation #13) » Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:21 pm

I hate to throw a monkey wrench in the proceedings, but the current rules don't allow such a drastic amendmant. The only rule that addresses amendments is quite clear they are only for clarification and the like.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is
unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference
, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

Well I sympathize with fishbulb's change, I don't see how the current rules allows it.

CoolBot · Post Post #87 (isolation #14) » Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:33 am

I still say the amended proposal is illegal. We are only allowed to change proposals for the reasons I bolded above. Fishbulb's' original proposal:

Fishbulb wrote:
Proposal 302:
Each player has 72 hours from the time their turn begins to submit a new proposal for voting. If he/she does not submit a proposal on time, the turn will move to the next player. If any player forfeits their turn three times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game

Is it unclear or ambigous? No.
Paradoxical? No.
Would this rule hurt the playing of the game? No, in fact, it protects it.
Does it consist of multiple rule changes? No.
Does it make no difference? No.
Is it of questionable value? No, clearly there is value to dissuading players from skipping their turns.

shadyforce, Prop 302 originally did not have several parts. It dealt with players be absent during their proposal turns. A proposal certainly can have multiple parts, but Prop 302 didn't.

To be clear, I'm in favor of regulating missed votes as well as missed proposals, but the current rules don't allow us to do so with prop 302. We can accomplish both in the following ways.

1. Fail 302. In some later proposal, we address both the issues of missed proposals and missed votes.
2. Pass 302. In some later proposal, we amend 302 to include the issue of missed votes.
3. Pass 302. In some later proposal, we pass a seperate rule to address missed votes.

I think I prefer option three best of all.

CoolBot · Post Post #90 (isolation #15) » Sat Dec 06, 2003 5:48 pm

The original proposition:

Each player has 72 hours from the time their turn begins to submit a new proposal for voting. If he/she does not submit a proposal on time, the turn will move to the next player. If any player forfeits their turn three times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game

which I will refer to as P.302a.

The amended proposition:

Each player has 72 hours from the time their turn begins to submit a new proposal for voting and 72 hours from the start of a voting period to submit their vote. If he/she does not submit a proposal on time, the turn will move to the next player. If he/she does not submit a vote on time, they do not have a vote and the proposal will need one less vote for "unanimity". If any player forfeits their turn or misses a vote ten times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game. The number of skips will be kept on a seperate tally on the first post.

which I will refer to as P.302b.

P.302a is not unclear, paradoxical, or questionable. R.111 only allows proposals to be amended for these reasons. Further, P.302b doesn't address anything like these reasons; instead, it adds a whole new dimension to the proposal. Thus, in my estimation, P.302b is an illegal proposal, and unless it is judged (as outlined by R.212) otherwise, I will vote against it or any variants of it. I will, however, vote for P.302a.

CoolBot · Post Post #94 (isolation #16) » Sun Dec 07, 2003 7:52 am

Fine by me.

My only contention was that one couldn't add new things to a proposal once it's made.

CoolBot · Post Post #100 (isolation #17) » Mon Dec 08, 2003 7:03 am

vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #101 (isolation #18) » Mon Dec 08, 2003 7:03 am

Immutable Rules

101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) 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.)

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

112. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

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.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Mutable Rules

201. Players shall alternate turns in alphabetical order by screenname.

202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.

In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)

203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.

204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

206. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

207. Each player always has exactly one vote.

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.

The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer.

211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

301. If a player finds they posted the first post on a new page, he or she shall immediately post the numbered and currently active rules. If the player does this before anyone else posts, he or she shall recieve 5 points. If the player does not do this before anyone else posts, he or she shall lose 10 points

CoolBot · Post Post #110 (isolation #19) » Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:55 am

Actually, since the proposal wasn't changed between their votes and the deadline, I don't see any reason to discount their votes. I say massive can go ahead and post his proposal.

CoolBot · Post Post #113 (isolation #20) » Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:57 am

Sounds good to me. If I understand the second half of R.108. this proposal implies that R.105 will be renumberd R.303. Do we need a specific clause in the proposition? Just to clear things up, maybe we should word it something like this:

Proposal 303: Rule 105 shall be mutable and be renumbered 303.

CoolBot · Post Post #123 (isolation #21) » Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:37 am

Well, the whole purpose of having immutable rules is to keep them from easily being changed. Since the immutable rules are those that form the bedrock of the game, it makes sense to make them harder to change. I would vote against any proposal to make all the immutable rules mutable.

mathcam wrote:Why couldn't your proposal just change it from immutable to mutable
and[/u] "mutate" it.

Rule 103 disallows it.

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

The use of the word "or" indicates a rule can only do 1 of the 3 options, not some combination of them.

CoolBot · Post Post #127 (isolation #22) » Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:20 am

I'll think about it, shady. Right now, I think we should be discussing the proposal on the floor. Does anyone have any objections to it?

CoolBot · Post Post #129 (isolation #23) » Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:59 am

Hey shadyforce, I just noticed in the ruleset you posted, you forgot to include R.302.

CoolBot · Post Post #135 (isolation #24) » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:12 am

PolarBoy wrote:alright, we'll have to deal with absenteeism during voting some other way. I can deal with that.
Vote: Yes on 302.

This was after the final form of 302 was declared, of course, so that counted as your vote. We're on 303 now.

Also, I have 15 points (10 for passing R.301 & 5 for posting the ruleset on page 5)and shadyforce has -5 (5 for posting the ruleset on page 4 & -10 for incorrectly posting the ruleset on page 6)

CoolBot · Post Post #137 (isolation #25) » Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:31 am

PolarBoy, your early vote was legal, so R.302 was an active rule at the beginning of this page. Thus, shadyforce posted an incorrect rule set.

Oh, and I understand you're not the mod; in fact, I'd like this to be game as independent from a mod as possible; hence, R.301. I just wanted everyone to be aware of the point tally and didn't mean to imply you should've been on top of it.

As for the proposed rule, I'm not so sure anymore we need an amendment. R.108 clearly mandates a renumbering and R.110 clearly gives R.108 the authority to do that.

CoolBot · Post Post #139 (isolation #26) » Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:14 am

Discussion seems to have come to a halt here. Should we begin to vote?

CoolBot · Post Post #146 (isolation #27) » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:47 am

vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #150 (isolation #28) » Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:40 am

So, are we going to count rule 303 as 105 renumbered?

CoolBot · Post Post #152 (isolation #29) » Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:41 am

101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) 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.)

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

112. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

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.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Mutable Rules

201. Players shall alternate turns in alphabetical order by screenname.

202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.

In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)

203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.

204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

206. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

207. Each player always has exactly one vote.

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.

The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer.

211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

301. If a player finds they posted the first post on a new page, he or she shall immediately post the numbered and currently active rules. If the player does this before anyone else posts, he or she shall recieve 5 points. If the player does not do this before anyone else posts, he or she shall lose 10 points.

302. Each player has 72 hours from the time their turn begins to submit a new proposal for voting. If he/she does not submit a proposal on time, the turn will move to the next player. If any player forfeits their turn three times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game.

303. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes

CoolBot · Post Post #154 (isolation #30) » Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:41 am

grr, I was afraid of that.

CoolBot · Post Post #160 (isolation #31) » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:46 am

I actually like the Rock-Paper-Scissors idea. It'd be hard as hell to verify anything like a coin flip. RPS is (sort of) a randomness that can verified.

Scalebane, unaminous votes are worth more. The second half of R.202:

Code: Select all

In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)

CoolBot · Post Post #164 (isolation #32) » Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:07 pm

A judge can be overruled, however, in the case of an egregious ruling. There's nothing similiar in the case of P.304. Even if there was, no one would ever disagree with a judge ruling in favor of passing the proposal since the only player voting against a proposal would Player B.

I like the idea of this rule, but unless we can figure out a way to minimize the judge misreporting the results, I don't think we should pass the proposal.

Here's an idea:
Player A sends his choice to the judge and another player, Player Y. Player B sends his choice to the judge and another player, Player Z. The judge posts he received both choices. Next, Z reports B's choice. Then, Y reports A's choice. Finally, the judge certifies they reported the choices correctly.

The key part is Z reports before Y does. This prevents both the judge and Z from tailoring their reports without outside help. Still, A, Y, and the judge can still conspire to pass the proposal. It is less likely three would conspire than two, though.

CoolBot · Post Post #166 (isolation #33) » Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:36 pm

Do you mean each player would have their own board?

CoolBot · Post Post #168 (isolation #34) » Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:48 pm

Ok, that's what I figured; I just wanted to be sure. That does seem less complicated and I can't see a hole in it.

CoolBot · Post Post #173 (isolation #35) » Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:50 am

I like the NasDaq idea the best. Mathcam, do you know of a web site that posts the closing price reliably?

Instead of requiring one less vote than unamity, maybe the rule should require one less vote than passage. If the purpose is to help get rules passed rathe than to help a player get points, this change makes sense.

CoolBot · Post Post #181 (isolation #36) » Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:51 am

Well, R.101 specifically bounds us to act according to the rules. Still, there is a problem with making rules which are only enforcable through the honor system. In a way, unenforcable rules aren't really rules at all since they cannot constrain our actions. Since, in this prop's orignal form, there is no way to distinguish between a judge & a proponent from conspiring and a judge accuratly reporteing the proponents choice, the propositon is unenforcable. I think by using the NasDaq coin flip method would be much better.

Mathcam, what were you trying to say by posting R.203? I know that proposals need unamity right now, but that doesn't mean it will be so in the future. R.203 itself allows for non-unanimous passage eventually and I think it would be short sighted not to take that into account.

CoolBot · Post Post #183 (isolation #37) » Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:23 am

Actually, the conspiring rule doesn't apply to this game. I'm not quite sure why, but that's what it says:

R.210 wrote:Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.

The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer.

Of course, it can be enforced if you're playing around a table since players conspiring often can be seen. Over the computer or through mail, it's just to hard to enforce.

CoolBot · Post Post #185 (isolation #38) » Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:56 am

I think the NASDAQ idea is a sound one. If I understand it, this is how it would work: Player A challenges Player B. Then, we wait until the next time NASDAQ closes. We take a look at the final digit. If it's 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, then A wins; if it's 6, 7, 8, 9, or 0, B wins (or vice versa). Since everyone knows what day we're looking at, it's easily verifiable (assuming we can find a web site that keeps a record of these things).

CoolBot · Post Post #189 (isolation #39) » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:41 am

Hmm, I just realized mathcam had made an official proposition.

Forget everything I said about the NASDAQ, then. If we find it's a problem, we can always change it later. I certainly don't have any reason not to trust any of the players in this game.

As for amending P.304, I don't see any way we can. The only rule regulating amendments, R.111, doesn't mention anything about allowing an amendment if it maintains intent. R.111 only allows non-substantive amendments, and changing the unanimity requirement would, IMO, be substantive.

I do believe this would be a good amendment, though, so I'm torn. Right now, we don't have to worry about the unanimity requirement, so I don't think it's that critical we do it right now.

BTW, I like the idea of naming rules as well. Consider R.301 to be named "The Rule Report" if I may be so bold.

CoolBot · Post Post #193 (isolation #40) » Sun Dec 21, 2003 12:10 pm

I'd like the change, but I think it's illegal. I'd probably invoke judgement on it if Mathcam made the change.

CoolBot · Post Post #198 (isolation #41) » Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:07 pm

Alright, here's the arguement against:

R.111 is the only rule regulating amendments; thus, a proposal can only be amended if it is "unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value." Examing the allowed reasons as related to P.304:

P.304 is not unclear, ambiguous, or paradoxical.
P.304 is not distructive of play.
P.304 does not consist of mulitiple rules.
The amendment does make a difference in play; namely, it alters the conditions needed to invoke the proposal.
P.304 is not of questionable value. Since the amendment doesn't change the operation of the rule, only the conditions to invoke the rule, this should be obvious.

The only reason for amending P.304 is to maintain mathcam's intent. Unfortunaly, this is not a valid reason to amend a proposition, so P.304 cannot be amended.

For reference:

mathcam wrote:
Proposition 304 (Trial by Combat)
: After any vote (proposed, say, by Player A) in which all but one of the eligible voters votes yes (say, Player B), Player A may challenge Player B to a game of Paper-Rock-Scissors (conducted via PM to the current Judge, or the next player up that is not Player A or B). If Player A wins, Player B must change his vote to yes and the proposition pases. If Player B wins, Player A must give Player B one tenth (rounded up) of his current points, with a minimum of five points (this can make Player A go negative). The only bond preventing the game's judge from cheating is his honor at mafiascum.

CoolBot · Post Post #203 (isolation #42) » Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:01 am

Though if you notice, there's a ten hour lag time.

I guess I'll kick off the voting.

vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #209 (isolation #43) » Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:32 am

Vote Count

Yes - 6 (mathcam, Fishbulb, massive, Scalebane, PolorBoy, CoolBot)
No - 0
Unreported - 2 (shadyforce, Stewie)

CoolBot · Post Post #216 (isolation #44) » Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:17 am

PolarBoy better hurry up, then. He has until 12:25 AM GMT to make his proposal.

CoolBot · Post Post #218 (isolation #45) » Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:16 am

I guess I don't really see much of a point to it, except to get free points. On the other hand, I do believe a mechinism to introduce new players in general would be beneficial.

CoolBot · Post Post #221 (isolation #46) » Thu Jan 08, 2004 4:28 pm

I think PolarBoy's intention was to amend

x

into a number before we vote on it.

CoolBot · Post Post #223 (isolation #47) » Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:40 am

I see, since x is unclear, you, with our input, want to amend it to a number using R.111. That looks like a valid amendment.

I'm a little torn on this rule. Gaining points is a little slow right now, but I'm not sure it won't be faster in the future. I guess I'd like a new game mechinism rather than automatic free points.

CoolBot · Post Post #225 (isolation #48) » Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:46 am

There are other way of getting points than passing amendments:

Vote against a successful proposal (R.204)
Post the rule set at the beginning of a page (R.301)
Win a Trial by Combat as Player B (R.304)

To gain points so far, a player must do

something

that affects the game. If P.305 passes with any value of x, players don't have to do anything but finish turns, which is going to happen anyway.

CoolBot · Post Post #226 (isolation #49) » Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:47 am

The Rule Set

101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) 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.)

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

112. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

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.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Mutable Rules

201. Players shall alternate turns in alphabetical order by screenname.

202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.

In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)

203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.

204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

206. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

207. Each player always has exactly one vote.

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.

The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer.

211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

301. If a player finds they posted the first post on a new page, he or she shall immediately post the numbered and currently active rules. If the player does this before anyone else posts, he or she shall recieve 5 points. If the player does not do this before anyone else posts, he or she shall lose 10 points.

302. Each player has 72 hours from the time their turn begins to submit a new proposal for voting. If he/she does not submit a proposal on time, the turn will move to the next player. If any player forfeits their turn three times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game.

303. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

304. (Trial by Combat) After any vote (proposed, say, by Player A) in which all but one of the eligible voters votes yes (say, Player B), Player A may challenge Player B to a game of Paper-Rock-Scissors (conducted via PM to the current Judge, or the next player up that is not Player A or B). If Player A wins, Player B must change his vote to yes and the proposition pases. If Player B wins, Player A must give Player B one tenth (rounded up) of his current points, with a minimum of five points (this can make Player A go negative). The only bond preventing the game's judge from cheating is his honor at mafiascum.

CoolBot · Post Post #236 (isolation #50) » Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:57 am

I've gone back and forth on this proposition. I like the idea of some sort of clock, but I don't really like it being tied in with points, and think it's set too quick anyway. So,

vote: No

Guess I better brush up on my Rock-Paper-Scissors skills...

CoolBot · Post Post #242 (isolation #51) » Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:30 pm

Sent.

CoolBot · Post Post #246 (isolation #52) » Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:08 am

So when I'm calculating the points I get, do I do so before or after PolarBoy gets his points from this turn?

CoolBot · Post Post #249 (isolation #53) » Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:10 am

mathcam wrote:Isn't it 5 points in either case?

You're right; that's what I get for overthinking things.

Oh, and I have 20 points, not 10. I gained ten from posting the rule set on this page.

CoolBot · Post Post #255 (isolation #54) » Fri Jan 16, 2004 3:16 am

Polarboy, I think you may of calculated your points for the last round wrong.

Polarboy Points Turn 5

+12 - R.202 - (305-291)(7/8) = 12.125
-10 - R.206
-5 - R.304

For a grand total of -3, not -5

shadyforce wrote:Yeah, as I recall correctly, Mathcam tried to catch me out within seconds.

And he was successful with me.

CoolBot · Post Post #258 (isolation #55) » Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:58 am

So it's Shadyforce's turn now, and he has until Tuesady :7:55 PM GMT to post.

CoolBot · Post Post #260 (isolation #56) » Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:12 am

There are 15 immutable rules & 15 mutable rules. By making the immutable rules mutable, that gives us 30 mutable rules. This exceeds the limit set by R.209.

R.209 wrote:At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

That aside, I think by making all the rules mutable will make the game too unstable. While I wouldn't mind making any individual rule mutable, I'm hesitant to make all mutable.

CoolBot · Post Post #264 (isolation #57) » Wed Jan 21, 2004 7:38 am

It's been more than 48 hours since shady made his proposal. Shall we start voting now?

CoolBot · Post Post #267 (isolation #58) » Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:38 am

vote: no

CoolBot · Post Post #276 (isolation #59) » Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:09 am

This is almost unfair to PB

CoolBot · Post Post #279 (isolation #60) » Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:33 am

Stewie has until 5:05 GMT today to post his proposal.

CoolBot · Post Post #282 (isolation #61) » Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:39 am

306: Abstentions

A. Players may abstain from any vote.
B. Rule 303 shall be amended to read "Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote."
C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, an abstaining vote does not count towards the required number of yes votes to pass.
D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.
E. If Proposal 306 passes, it shall take the number 307, and Clause E shall be deleted.

CoolBot · Post Post #283 (isolation #62) » Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:45 am

My intention with the second part of Clause C was to ensure that unaminous votes are still able to pass when someone abstains. I believe this is the practice in Parli Pro, and I don't see any reason why it can't be here, either.

Clause D was to set some sort of quorum. It hasn't been an issue, but with abstentions, it can be.

Clause E was only inserted to resolve a numbering issue. R.303 would become R.306, since the prop amends it.

CoolBot · Post Post #286 (isolation #63) » Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:25 am

I don't think I understand, Cam. My prop doesn't even use the word unanimous in it.

CoolBot · Post Post #290 (isolation #64) » Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:02 am

That is, in fact, what I was trying to do with clause C. In affect, I wanted unanimous votes to be all non-abstaining votes; simple majority to be 50% + 1 of non-abstaining votes; etc. If that's not clear, I'd be happy to amend it.

CoolBot · Post Post #291 (isolation #65) » Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:45 am

How's this change to clause C?

C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, when counting votes for any reason, only count non-abstaining votes.

I think such a change doesn't change the thrust of the clause, but does go some way to clarifying what I meant.

CoolBot · Post Post #293 (isolation #66) » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:01 am

Well, it looks like no one has any objection to the change, so here's the proposal:

306: Abstentions

A. Players may abstain from any vote.
B. Rule 303 shall be amended to read "Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote."
C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, when counting votes for any reason, only count non-abstaining votes.
D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.
E. If Proposal 306 passes, it shall take the number 307, and Clause E shall be deleted.

And I'll kick off the voting.

vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #303 (isolation #67) » Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:31 am

A few things...

It was proposal 306, so I get 15 points.
Rule 303 is now 306 and reads "Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote."
Role 307 reads :

Abstentions
- A. Players may abstain from any vote.
  B. Rule 303 shall be amended to read "Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote."
  C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, an abstaining vote does not count towards the required number of yes votes to pass.
  D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.

In retrospect, I guess I should've deleted Clause B, too. Also, I didn't really solve the numbering issue afterall. Fishbulb now has to contend with P.307 when there's already a Rule 307.

CoolBot · Post Post #304 (isolation #68) » Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:34 am

Wait, nevermind. I just realized it was proposal 307, as shady's actually was 306.

CoolBot · Post Post #306 (isolation #69) » Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:06 am

Nori, I don't really know what bearing Rule 116 has on anything at this point. Are you talking about R.103?

Rule 116 wrote:Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Rule 103 wrote: A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

If so, I brought this issue up earlier, and Mathcam argued against the xor interpation. After thinking about it a bit, I agree with him. Otherwies, it'd take to long and be too hard to do things like my proposition.

Anyway, we now have two Rule 307's and I've thought of a way to address that without having to waste a proposition. By the 2nd paragraph of R.108,

Rule 108 wrote:Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

an amended rule take the number of the proposal amending it. Well, in the case of my proposition, only a clause of the proposition amended R.303. So it takes the number of the proposition and the letter of the clause. Thus, R.307 would be:

Rule 307: Absentions

A. Players may abstain from any vote.
B. Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote.
C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, an abstaining vote does not count towards the required number of yes votes to pass.
D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.
E. If Proposal 306 passes, it shall take the number 307, and Clause E shall be deleted.

E stays because P.306 (shady's) wasn't passed.

Can we get a judgement on this to clear things up? It falls to Stewie, since, even though it's fishbulb's turn, I brought it up.

CoolBot · Post Post #311 (isolation #70) » Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:33 am

I'm for it. I wouldn't want some random hobo to come in and make proposals.

CoolBot · Post Post #314 (isolation #71) » Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:19 am

I agree and think your interpetation was accurate. I also feel my interpetation can be accurate when one considers the similarity and not just the differences between a proposal and a clause of a proposal. Further, having two rules with the same number is confusing. By R.106,

Rule 106 wrote:All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

it doesn't appear the rules don't have to be exact word for word from the proposal. By combining rules 307 & 307, I feel we're maintaining form & action. This should be clear when you consider the second 307 is just replacing the clause of the first 307 that creates the second 307! (Confused yet?)

So we have two interpetations & both may be equally accurate. I figured the best way to choose was to have Stewie Judge the numbering. (Really, I guess I should have convinced someone else to call for Judgement, so I could Judge it.

)

Anyway, whatever the Judgement is, Fishbulb's proposal is 308.

On the proposal at hand, I noticed it sorta allows us a mechanism for new players. If PolarBoy changes the roster in the first page to include a new player, than we have a new player for all pratical purposes.

This proposal also opens a dangerous loophole Polarboy could exploit. He could take everyone off of the roster except himself. This would effectively make him the only player and the only Judge. It'd be pretty trivial at that point for PB to win. Because of this, before I vote yes, I'll need PolarBoy's assurance he won't do this until we can fix it the loophole.

BTW, I'm starting to think much of the fun of this game is finding all these loopholes and arguing whether they're legit or not. So I guess you can expect more of this sort of stuff from me.

CoolBot · Post Post #316 (isolation #72) » Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:56 am

In regards to Norinel or other non-players sniping or something else, I'm now of the opinion that it wouldn't work. R.101 is pretty clear that players have to follow the rules. Thus, if someone isn't following the rules, they not a player, and they can't snipe. Any who didn't vote on a rule before we passed R.307 (the second one), has violated the old form of R.303.

Rule 303, old form wrote:Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

CoolBot · Post Post #318 (isolation #73) » Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:22 am

Well, Rule 101 defines a player (anyone who follows the rules is a player). Thus, those who don't follow the rules aren't players and rules that refer to players don't apply to someone who didn't vote before we changed R.303. Thus, Norinel or any other interloper can't snipe, take a turn, etc. (Interestingly, it appears they can still vote.)

If everyone agrees with this interpetation, P.308 becomes fairly meaningless, except it gives PolarBoy the power to prevent the rest of us from posting in this thread though we'll still be players. As players, we wouldn't be able to vote or take turns, so the game comes to a halt. By R.213, whomever's turn it is would win. If PB carries through with this, he'd almost certainly do it on his turn, so by passing this rule, we'd effectivly be giving him the means to become the winner whenever it's his turn.

I'll probably vote against this unless two conditions hold:

1. The above interpetation of players isn't agreed upon
2. PB gives us his assurance he won't pull such a scam

CoolBot · Post Post #323 (isolation #74) » Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:42 am

Hmm, I'd say it be worth judgement. The phrase "anyone else" can mean either anyone else in the world or anyone else in the game. I meant the latter, but of course, that's immaterial. But there's no need to go through the judgement until a non-player trys to snipe someone.

Since PB basically has said he will take advantage of this rule, I'll have to vote against P.308. I'd vote now, but I'd like to hear Stewie's judgemnent re: the numbering issue first. Don't feel too bad, fishbulb. Would rather lose the points or hand the keys of victory to PB?

CoolBot · Post Post #327 (isolation #75) » Sun Feb 01, 2004 6:18 pm

Stewie, maybe I wasn't quite clear. It isn't whether my proposal is rule 307 or not; I agree it is. It's whether we use PolarBoy's interpetation,

PolarBoy wrote:Rule 307. (Abstentions)

A. Players may abstain from any vote.
B. Rule 303 shall be amended to read "Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote."
C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, an abstaining vote does not count towards the required number of yes votes to pass.
D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.
E. If Proposal 306 passes, it shall take the number 307, and Clause E shall be deleted.

Rule 307. Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote.

Or mine,

CoolBot wrote:
Rule 307: Absentions

A. Players may abstain from any vote.
B. Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote.
C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, an abstaining vote does not count towards the required number of yes votes to pass.
D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.
E. If Proposal 306 passes, it shall take the number 307, and Clause E shall be deleted.

Both of these are an attempt to reconcile Rule 108 with Proposal 307, which amended R.303 and was a new rule in it's own right. I contend that, similiar to what we did for P.303, we only need replace the amending clause with the amended rule. I figure we can do this since a clause is essentially the same in action as a proposal. PolarBoy's interpetation seems to be that we can't do this, leading to the odd system of dual R.307's.

BTW, whichever forms holds, your ruleset is inaccurate, as R.303 is still in it when it quite clearly needs to be numbered 307 in some way.

CoolBot · Post Post #329 (isolation #76) » Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:49 pm

With that taken care of, I guess we only need to vote on fishbulb's proposal.

vote: no

CoolBot · Post Post #333 (isolation #77) » Wed Feb 04, 2004 9:13 am

If fishbulb was going to get one vote, there it went.

CoolBot · Post Post #338 (isolation #78) » Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:09 am

Looks that way. Now it's yours.

CoolBot · Post Post #340 (isolation #79) » Thu Feb 12, 2004 3:10 am

Sigh, another deadline passed. Polarboy's turn, correct?

CoolBot · Post Post #343 (isolation #80) » Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:08 am

Hmm, interesting. One problem I see is since there's no numerical value to x yet, we'll have to list players as player(x), players(x+840), players(x+1680), ect. as turns progress. That's no big deal, though. I like this proposal.

CoolBot · Post Post #347 (isolation #81) » Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:58 am

I don't really see a severe problem with the initial proposal.

CoolBot · Post Post #349 (isolation #82) » Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:30 am

Of course x is a value. It may not be known at the moment, but it's still a value. If we find we need a known value, we can just declare it later. All we need is to keep track of the value of x as compared to the initial value of x.

CoolBot · Post Post #352 (isolation #83) » Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:40 pm

I suppose there's not much more to say on this proposal.

vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #354 (isolation #84) » Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:18 pm

Only to begin with; x will change with further rules.

CoolBot · Post Post #357 (isolation #85) » Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:56 pm

If you read the proposal carefully, you'll see x isn't really a varible, but a name of a category of values:

Proposal 309 wrote:Each player shall be assigned a value called x, which may be referred to as player(x) or player's x, where player is the name of the player which x belongs to.

Thus, each player can have a different value, eventually.

CoolBot · Post Post #368 (isolation #86) » Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:48 am

I don't really care which; there doesn't seem to be any substainal difference between the two.

CoolBot · Post Post #370 (isolation #87) » Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:30 am

How did I miss that? I guess that can fall under clarification, so I don't mind the 2nd prop.

CoolBot · Post Post #376 (isolation #88) » Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:32 am

Sounds good to me. And oh look, a new page.

PolarBoy wrote:PolarBoy recieves 18 points, and all players' x increase by 840. It is now Scalebane's turn, he has until 10:26 PM GMT on February 23 to submit proposal 310.

No, are x values are still at 0, since the rule doesn't come into affect until

after

it was passed.

Rule 107 wrote:107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

Since R.309 didn't come into being until after it passed, attribute x doesn't exist until after P.309 is passed.

CoolBot · Post Post #384 (isolation #89) » Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:05 am

Does anyone have anything to say about Scalebane's proposal?

CoolBot · Post Post #390 (isolation #90) » Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:51 pm

vote: yes

CoolBot · Post Post #397 (isolation #91) » Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:07 am

Well, that passes then. It's shady's turn.

CoolBot · Post Post #399 (isolation #92) » Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:06 am

Hmm, shady missed his turn & it's now Stewie's. He has until 10:18 PM GMT March 2nd.

CoolBot · Post Post #407 (isolation #93) » Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:46 pm

Why not, PB? I think it might help in speeding up the game.

CoolBot · Post Post #413 (isolation #94) » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:31 am

Hey, I wouldn't mind the points.

Besides, I've missed a few players.

CoolBot · Post Post #418 (isolation #95) » Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:43 am

vote: No

CoolBot · Post Post #420 (isolation #96) » Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:45 pm

312:

Nomic Land

A. There exist nine territories.
- 1. Each territory is uniquely designated by a number 0 through 8.
  2. Every territory
  t
  borders territories
  t
  -1,
  t
  +1,
  t
  -3, and
  t
  +3. If, in calculating bordering territories, a territory number larger than 8 is calculated, subtract 9. If, in calculating bordering terriotries, a territory number less than 1 is calculated, add 9.
B. There exists a moon that is always above a territory.
- 1. The territory the moon is above is the territory with a number equal to the remainder of (
  P
  -2)/9, where
  P
  is the proposal number.
  2. If any player has no territories, that player is in exile on the moon.
C. Territory Disbursment
- 1. When Proposal 312 is passed, each player, taking turns in playing order, will claim a territory number. Players may not claim territory 4.
  2. After claiming a territory, a player must name the territory.
  3. Territory 4 shall be named The Core.
  4. Once all players have claimed and named a territory, Clause "Territory Disbursment" of Rule 312 is deleted, and replaced by a Clause "Territory Names." This Clause will have a subclause listing the choosen name of the territories. Another subclause will be added reading "Territory names may not be changed."
D. Territory Points
- 1. Every player has territory points equal to 2^(
  m
  -1), where
  m
  is the number of territories owned.
  2. If a player has territory 4, subtract 56 points from his or her territory points.
  3. A player may not have negative territory points.
  4. When determing a winner, territory points are added to a player's points.

CoolBot · Post Post #421 (isolation #97) » Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:53 pm

Here's a graphical representation of the territories:

Code: Select all

+---+---+---+
|   |   |   |
| 0 | 1 | 2 |
|   |   |   |
+---+---+---+
|   |   |   |
| 3 | 4 | 5 |
|   |   |   |
+---+---+---+
|   |   |   |
| 6 | 7 | 8 |
|   |   |   |
+---+---+---+

0, 1, & 2 border 6, 7, & 8 respectivly. 2 & 3, 5 & 6, and 8 & 0 border each other.

CoolBot · Post Post #426 (isolation #98) » Mon Mar 08, 2004 5:05 am

Of everyone, I'm surprised mathcam's falling to sniping.

CoolBot · Post Post #430 (isolation #99) » Mon Mar 08, 2004 9:22 am

Well, IMO, the most abusable part of the prop is the points. If someone gains all 9 territories, they have 200 points (

m

=9 and the 56 point penalty from Terr. 4), and win the game. But, as it stands now, the only way to gain territories is the initial dispursement, and players can only gain 1 territory that way. Really, it's later proposals that deal with taking territories that pose a danger.

If you're worried about breaking the game so that I win by R.211, I can't see any way that would happen and I didn't structure P.313 to do so.

CoolBot · Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:00 am

You're right. When I wrote the first draft of the proposal, I had them numbered 1-9, and I guess I forgot to change that part. So, if there are no objections, I'd like to change P.312 Clause A2 to:

Every territory t borders territories t-1, t+1, t-3, and t+3. If, in calculating bordering territories, a territory number larger than 8 is calculated, subtract 9. If, in calculating bordering terriotries, a territory number less than 0 is calculated, add 9.

CoolBot · Post Post #434 (isolation #101) » Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:48 pm

Alright, I humor the non-player.

Norinel wrote:by "proposal number", I assume you mean the number of the proposal currently being made/discussed?

Assuming you're talking about B1, I thought that was implied. I certainly wouldn't be against inserting the word "curren" before "proposal number."

Norinel wrote:Also, the Territory Disbursement clause's self-destruct statement deletes the definition of territory 4's name as The Core but doesn't explicitly put it into the new Territory Names clause. (If you want to interpret "chosen name" as the name chosen by the player in the disbursement.)

The proposal chooses the name of territory 4; I don't see a problem.

Norinel wrote:And if I were rewriting D4, I'd probably say "For the purposes of win conditions involving points, a player's score is considered to be the sum of his/her score for other game purposes and the number of territory points he/she possesses."

That looks like a distinction without difference. If someone wins by a different way from points, any other player's territorial points won't be high enough to win anyway. Else, they would've counted them before the winning event.

Norinel wrote:If you want it be possessive, it's just w-h-o-s-e, but if it's a contraction, it's w-h-o-apostrophe-s... scalawag.

Now, why haven't we let you in the game yet? At least you missed my choosen/chosen typo in C4.

CoolBot · Post Post #435 (isolation #102) » Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:30 am

So this is my changed proposal:

312: Nomic Land

A. There exist nine territories.
- 1. Each territory is uniquely designated by a number 0 through 8.
  2. Every territory,
  t
  , borders territories
  t
  -1,
  t
  +1,
  t
  -3, and
  t
  +3. If, in calculating bordering territories, a territory number larger than 8 is calculated, subtract 9. If, in calculating bordering terriotries, a territory number less than 0 is calculated, add 9.
B. There exists a moon that is always above a territory.
- 1. The territory the moon is above is the territory with a number equal to the remainder of (
  P
  -2)/9, where
  P
  is the current proposal number.
  2. If any player has no territories, that player is in exile on the moon.
C. Territory Disbursment
- 1. When Proposal 312 is passed, each player, taking turns in playing order, will claim a territory number. Players may not claim territory 4.
  2. After claiming a territory, a player must name the territory.
  3. Territory 4 shall be named The Core.
  4. Once all players have claimed and named a territory, Clause "Territory Disbursment" of Rule 312 is deleted, and replaced by a Clause "Territory Names." This Clause will have a subclause listing the chosen name of the territories. Another subclause will be added reading "Territory names may not be changed."
D. Territory Points
- 1. Every player has territory points equal to 2^(
  m
  -1), where
  m
  is the number of territories owned.
  2. If a player has territory 4, subtract 56 points from his or her territory points.
  3. A player may not have negative territory points.
  4. When determing a winner, territory points are added to a player's points.

Since everyone's had a chance to commit on the P.312, I'm going to start the voting.

vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #439 (isolation #103) » Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:20 am

Er, don't you mean Friday?

CoolBot · Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:40 pm

No Trial by Combat needed, since we're in the thrid round. Only a simple majority is needed.

CoolBot · Post Post #448 (isolation #105) » Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:03 pm

I'll take territory 7 and name it Botia.

Sorry to see you go, Fish

CoolBot · Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:57 am

I prefer twisted torus.

The usual cylinder is so boring.

Anyway, one of our territories won't be named. I think we should informally call it the Nameless Land.

CoolBot · Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:58 am

The Rule Report

101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) 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.)

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

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.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

201. Players shall alternate turns in alphabetical order by screenname.

202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.

In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)

203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.

204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

206. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

207. Each player always has exactly one vote.

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.

The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer.

211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

301. If a player finds they posted the first post on a new page, he or she shall immediately post the numbered and currently active rules. If the player does this before anyone else posts, he or she shall recieve 5 points. If the player does not do this before anyone else posts, he or she shall lose 10 points.

302. Each player has 72 hours from the time their turn begins to submit a new proposal for voting. If he/she does not submit a proposal on time, the turn will move to the next player. If any player forfeits their turn three times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game.

304. (Trial by Combat) After any vote (proposed, say, by Player A) in which all but one of the eligible voters votes yes (say, Player B), Player A may challenge Player B to a game of Paper-Rock-Scissors (conducted via PM to the current Judge, or the next player up that is not Player A or B). If Player A wins, Player B must change his vote to yes and the proposition pases. If Player B wins, Player A must give Player B one tenth (rounded up) of his current points, with a minimum of five points (this can make Player A go negative). The only bond preventing the game's judge from cheating is his honor at mafiascum.

305.

Abstentions

A. Players may abstain from any vote.
B. Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote.
C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, an abstaining vote does not count towards the required number of yes votes to pass.
D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.
E. If Proposal 306 passes, it shall take the number 307, and Clause E shall be deleted.

309. (An Additional Variable) Each player shall be assigned an absract attribute called x, which has an initial value of 0 and may be referred to as player.x or player's x, where player is the name of the player which x belongs to. This attribute may be manipulated by other rules. Also, after every vote on a rule is completed, each player's x value shall be increased by 840.

310. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

312.

Nomic Land

A. There exist nine territories.
- 1. Each territory is uniquely designated by a number 0 through 8.
  2. Every territory,
  t
  , borders territories
  t
  -1,
  t
  +1,
  t
  -3, and
  t
  +3. If, in calculating bordering territories, a territory number larger than 8 is calculated, subtract 9. If, in calculating bordering terriotries, a territory number less than 0 is calculated, add 9.
B. There exists a moon that is always above a territory.
- 1. The territory the moon is above is the territory with a number equal to the remainder of (
  P
  -2)/9, where
  P
  is the current proposal number.
  2. If any player has no territories, that player is in exile on the moon.
C. Territory Disbursment
- 1. When Proposal 312 is passed, each player, taking turns in playing order, will claim a territory number. Players may not claim territory 4.
  2. After claiming a territory, a player must name the territory.
  3. Territory 4 shall be named The Core.
  4. Once all players have claimed and named a territory, Clause "Territory Disbursment" of Rule 312 is deleted, and replaced by a Clause "Territory Names." This Clause will have a subclause listing the chosen name of the territories. Another subclause will be added reading "Territory names may not be changed."
D. Territory Points
- 1. Every player has territory points equal to 2^(
  m
  -1), where
  m
  is the number of territories owned.
  2. If a player has territory 4, subtract 56 points from his or her territory points.
  3. A player may not have negative territory points.
  4. When determing a winner, territory points are added to a player's points.

CoolBot · Post Post #458 (isolation #108) » Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:14 pm

I don't see any problems with this prop, except way may want to disallow negative values for Gnomes.

I think if anyone bought a vote, it would increase the total amounts of votes by one vote. So if there are 7 players and one player buys a vote, there are 8 votes, and 5 yes votes would be needed for majority.

CoolBot · Post Post #463 (isolation #109) » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:12 am

It's the same as the turn order so it's alphabetical. PolarBoy's next.

Here's a summery of the territories so far:

0. Unclaimed
1. Massive - Tyrannos
2. Mathcam - PBAJ
3. Unclaimed
4. Unclaimable - The Core
5. Unclaimed
6. Unclaimed
7. CoolBot - Botia
8. Unclaimed

CoolBot · Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:42 am

Does anyone have anything else to say about the proposal? And it's Scalebane turn to claim a territory.

CoolBot · Post Post #467 (isolation #111) » Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:31 pm

vote: Yes

, since no one's saying anything.

And it's Scalbane's turn to claim a territory.

CoolBot · Post Post #475 (isolation #112) » Sun Mar 28, 2004 2:55 pm

Well, Proposal 313 passed, 5-0-2. PolarBoy receives 24 points. It's Scalebane's turn. He has until Thursday 12:31 am GMT

CoolBot · Post Post #476 (isolation #113) » Sun Mar 28, 2004 2:56 pm

The Rule Report

101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) 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.)

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

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.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

201. Players shall alternate turns in alphabetical order by screenname.

202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.

In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)

203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.

204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

206. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

207. Each player always has exactly one vote.

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.

The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer.

211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

301. If a player finds they posted the first post on a new page, he or she shall immediately post the numbered and currently active rules. If the player does this before anyone else posts, he or she shall recieve 5 points. If the player does not do this before anyone else posts, he or she shall lose 10 points.

302. Each player has 72 hours from the time their turn begins to submit a new proposal for voting. If he/she does not submit a proposal on time, the turn will move to the next player. If any player forfeits their turn three times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game.

304. (Trial by Combat) After any vote (proposed, say, by Player A) in which all but one of the eligible voters votes yes (say, Player B), Player A may challenge Player B to a game of Paper-Rock-Scissors (conducted via PM to the current Judge, or the next player up that is not Player A or B). If Player A wins, Player B must change his vote to yes and the proposition pases. If Player B wins, Player A must give Player B one tenth (rounded up) of his current points, with a minimum of five points (this can make Player A go negative). The only bond preventing the game's judge from cheating is his honor at mafiascum.

305.

Abstentions

A. Players may abstain from any vote.
B. Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote.
C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, an abstaining vote does not count towards the required number of yes votes to pass.
D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.
E. If Proposal 306 passes, it shall take the number 307, and Clause E shall be deleted.

309. (An Additional Variable) Each player shall be assigned an absract attribute called x, which has an initial value of 0 and may be referred to as player.x or player's x, where player is the name of the player which x belongs to. This attribute may be manipulated by other rules. Also, after every vote on a rule is completed, each player's x value shall be increased by 840.

310. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

312

Nomic Land

A. There exist nine territories.
- 1. Each territory is uniquely designated by a number 0 through 8.
  2. Every territory,
  t
  , borders territories
  t
  -1,
  t
  +1,
  t
  -3, and
  t
  +3. If, in calculating bordering territories, a territory number larger than 8 is calculated, subtract 9. If, in calculating bordering terriotries, a territory number less than 0 is calculated, add 9.
B. There exists a moon that is always above a territory.
- 1. The territory the moon is above is the territory with a number equal to the remainder of (
  P
  -2)/9, where
  P
  is the current proposal number.
  2. If any player has no territories, that player is in exile on the moon.
C. Territory Disbursment
- 1. When Proposal 312 is passed, each player, taking turns in playing order, will claim a territory number. Players may not claim territory 4.
  2. After claiming a territory, a player must name the territory.
  3. Territory 4 shall be named The Core.
  4. Once all players have claimed and named a territory, Clause "Territory Disbursment" of Rule 312 is deleted, and replaced by a Clause "Territory Names." This Clause will have a subclause listing the chosen name of the territories. Another subclause will be added reading "Territory names may not be changed."
D. Territory Points
- 1. Every player has territory points equal to 2^(
  m
  -1), where
  m
  is the number of territories owned.
  2. If a player has territory 4, subtract 56 points from his or her territory points.
  3. A player may not have negative territory points.
  4. When determing a winner, territory points are added to a player's points.

313. (Currency) The variable x shall be renamed "Gnomes", or G$ for short. During a voting round, a player may choose to lose 5000 Gnomes in order to receive an additional vote for that voting round. A player may only gain one extra vote per round in this way. Also he may not do this if all players have voted for a turn or doing so would give him a negative value for gnomes. Buying a vote increases the total number of votes by one, increasing the number required for majority accordingly. This rule overrides Rule 207.

CoolBot · Post Post #480 (isolation #114) » Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:15 am

Here's a list of territory names and who owns them:

0. Stewie - New Quahog
1. Massive - Tyrannos
2. Mathcam - PBAJ
3. PolarBoy - The West Pole
4. Unclaimable - The Core
5. Unclaimed - unnamed
6. Scalebane - pi
7. CoolBot - Botia
8. Shadyforce - Sharkland

Everyone has 1 Territory point.
Clause C of Rule 312 becomes:

C. Territory Names
- 1. Names
  - 0 - New Quahog
    1 - Tyrannos
    2 - PBAJ
    3 - The West Pole
    4 - The Core
    6 - pi
    7 - Botia
    8 - Sharkland
  2. Territory names may not be changed

The moon is over territory 6, pi.

CoolBot · Post Post #482 (isolation #115) » Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:19 pm

I agree we need to do something about the mutable rule limit, but I'd prefer something a little more creative, I guess. The limit does keep the rules from becoming too complicated, after all.

CoolBot · Post Post #488 (isolation #116) » Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:58 am

Proposal 305 ammended a rule and was a new rule in its own right. So we have already acted as if the "or" in R.103 means "or," not "xor." All the parts of P.305 were related, though.

Rule 111 implies, but doesn't mandate, that proposals can be two or more entirely seperate parts.

R.111 wrote:111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or
if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded
or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote.

CoolBot · Post Post #491 (isolation #117) » Sun Apr 04, 2004 6:57 am

vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #494 (isolation #118) » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:20 am

We need one more vote in a little more than an hour to meet quorum.

CoolBot · Post Post #496 (isolation #119) » Mon Apr 05, 2004 6:08 am

And Proposal 314 passes, 3-1-3. Rule 209 is repealed. Scalebane receives 17 points and PolarBoy receives 10 points. It's now shadyforces turn, and the moon is over Botia.

CoolBot · Post Post #498 (isolation #120) » Mon Apr 05, 2004 7:53 am

I was thinking of proposing something along the same lines, so I'm happy with the change.

CoolBot · Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:35 am

Forget something, Scale?

CoolBot · Post Post #504 (isolation #122) » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:23 am

That's fine by me; the sooner that reminder of my clumsy attempt at rule making is gone, the better.

CoolBot · Post Post #512 (isolation #123) » Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:59 am

Being self-centered is A-OK with me, Stewie

vote: No

It's all up to you, PolarBoy.

CoolBot · Post Post #514 (isolation #124) » Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:20 am

PolarBoy, I think you already added a territorial point to everyone's score on the front page and didn't subtract when you started to keep track of them seperatly.

CoolBot · Post Post #518 (isolation #125) » Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:57 am

1. The territory the moon is above is the territory with a number equal to the remainder of (P-2)/9, where P is the current proposal number.

So is guess the moon doesn't move until the proposal number changes. This is at the beginning of a turn.

CoolBot · Post Post #522 (isolation #126) » Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:52 am

It's something we may have to address in the future, but there's nothing we can do about it now.

Anyone have anything else to say on the proposal?

CoolBot · Post Post #524 (isolation #127) » Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:36 am

vote: No

I don't really like all this vote inflation, and want to limit it before it gets rediculus.

CoolBot · Post Post #528 (isolation #128) » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:58 am

No vote, shady?

CoolBot · Post Post #530 (isolation #129) » Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:13 am

I guess the proposal fails, then 2-3-2. Stewie receives 0 points ((2/5)(316-291)-10). Everyone receives 840 gnomes. The moon is over terriotory 0, New Quahog.

I'll make my proposal later when I get out of work.

CoolBot · Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:31 pm

Prop. 317.

Going Once! Going Twice!

A. A player has 72 hours to make a proposal.
- 1. If a player does not make a proposal, the proposal will immediatly go to auction. Further, the player will receive a strike.
  2. If a player accumalates three or more strikes, that player will lose 25 points. Further, the player lose three strikes.
B. Auctions
- 1. When an auction occurs, the player who made the last proposal will be the Auctioneer.
  2. Players may bid Gnomes by PMing the Auctioneer their bid. Players may not make a larger bid than the number of Gnomes they posess. The Auctioneer may not bid during an Auction.
  3. 48 hours after the Auction begins, the Auctioneer will declare the winner and post all the bids and the time they were received.
  - a. The winner is the player who bid the highest number of Gnomes.
    b. In the event of a tie, the player with the earliest high bid is the winner.
    c. If there is still a tie, the player with the least amount of points is the winner.
C. Winning an Auction
- 1. A number of Gnomes equal the the winner's bid is deducted from the winner.
  2. The winner of an auction will make a proposal within 48 hours.
  3. If the winner of an auction does not make a proposal, he or she will receive two strikes and the turn ends.
  4. The winner of an auction will receive all points for the made proposal, unless the points are negative. If the points are negative, the player whose turn it is will receive the points.
D. Rule 302 is repealed.
- 1. Clause D of Rule 317 is deleted.

CoolBot · Post Post #542 (isolation #131) » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:49 am

Vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #545 (isolation #132) » Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:18 am

Well, massive, just say you were afraid PB and Stewie were both boing to buy extra no votes. Besides, I won't complain whenever anyone gives me extra points by taking some away from themselves.

CoolBot · Post Post #552 (isolation #133) » Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:31 am

A veto, eh? I'll have to think about this. It's pretty expensive, so I don't think it's imbalancing, but I'm not sure I vetoes.

CoolBot · Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:01 am

It's not too complicated. You pay 20k Gnomes to go to the moon, and then have the option of paying an additional 10k to veto a proposal. One objection I have is even though massive was careful to make a distinction between just visiting & being in exile, the prop doesn't require one to be just visiting to buy the veto or receive the double points; anyone in exile would gain the same benefits.

CoolBot · Post Post #557 (isolation #135) » Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:35 am

massive wrote:I'd certainly be willing to re-word the prop to reflect that B and C only pertain to "Just Visiting"; that was the intent of the prop, after all.

That'd be great. I think if we do have a veto, it should be rather expensive, and I was worried about any loophole. I'm still not sure about this prop, but I'm leaning towards it.

CoolBot · Post Post #564 (isolation #136) » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:17 am

A player in exile is not copmetely lacking in territory points; they still have 2^-1, or 1/2, territory points. I doubt the difference between owning one territory and no territories is going to decide this game, so I don't think that's such a problem at the moment.

The veto is rather expensive at 30 kiloGnomes. It'd take 36 turns of not spending to save up enough gnomes to use the veto, so unless a new mechanism for acquiring gnomes is introduced, I don't think the veto will be happening all that often. I'm warming up to this proposal.

CoolBot · Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 am

vote: no

CoolBot · Post Post #569 (isolation #138) » Mon May 03, 2004 4:08 am

So, Prop. 318 passes with a vote of 3-1-3. Massive receives 20 points, and I receive 10 points.

The moon is over PBAJ. It's Cam's turn to make a proposal.

CoolBot · Post Post #575 (isolation #139) » Wed May 05, 2004 9:48 am

So Player B will be risking a territory

and

10 points while Player A will only be risking G$4000 and no points? That's pretty unbalanced for an action Player A iniates.

CoolBot · Post Post #576 (isolation #140) » Wed May 05, 2004 9:50 am

The Rule Report

101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) 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.)

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

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.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

201. Players shall alternate turns in alphabetical order by screenname.

202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.

In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)

203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.

204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

206. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

207. Each player always has exactly one vote.

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.

The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer.

211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

301. If a player finds they posted the first post on a new page, he or she shall immediately post the numbered and currently active rules. If the player does this before anyone else posts, he or she shall recieve 5 points. If the player does not do this before anyone else posts, he or she shall lose 10 points.

304. (Trial by Combat) After any vote (proposed, say, by Player A) in which all but one of the eligible voters votes yes (say, Player B), Player A may challenge Player B to a game of Paper-Rock-Scissors (conducted via PM to the current Judge, or the next player up that is not Player A or B). If Player A wins, Player B must change his vote to yes and the proposition pases. If Player B wins, Player A must give Player B one tenth (rounded up) of his current points, with a minimum of five points (this can make Player A go negative). The only bond preventing the game's judge from cheating is his honor at mafiascum.

305.

Abstentions

A. Players may abstain from any vote.
B. Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote.
C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, an abstaining vote does not count towards the required number of yes votes to pass.
D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.
E. If Proposal 306 passes, it shall take the number 307, and Clause E shall be deleted.

309. (An Additional Variable) Each player shall be assigned an absract attribute called x, which has an initial value of 0 and may be referred to as player.x or player's x, where player is the name of the player which x belongs to. This attribute may be manipulated by other rules. Also, after every vote on a rule is completed, each player's x value shall be increased by 840.

310. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

312

Nomic Land

A. There exist nine territories.
- 1. Each territory is uniquely designated by a number 0 through 8.
  2. Every territory,
  t
  , borders territories
  t
  -1,
  t
  +1,
  t
  -3, and
  t
  +3. If, in calculating bordering territories, a territory number larger than 8 is calculated, subtract 9. If, in calculating bordering terriotries, a territory number less than 0 is calculated, add 9.
B. There exists a moon that is always above a territory.
- 1. The territory the moon is above is the territory with a number equal to the remainder of (
  P
  -2)/9, where
  P
  is the current proposal number.
  2. If any player has no territories, that player is in exile on the moon.
C. Territory Names
- 1. Names
  - 0 - New Quahog
    1 - Tyrannos
    2 - PBAJ
    3 - The West Pole
    4 - The Core
    6 - pi
    7 - Botia
    8 - Sharkland
  2. Territory names may not be changed
D. Territory Points
- 1. Every player has territory points equal to 2^(
  m
  -1), where
  m
  is the number of territories owned.
  2. If a player has territory 4, subtract 56 points from his or her territory points.
  3. A player may not have negative territory points.
  4. When determing a winner, territory points are added to a player's points.

313. (Currency) The variable x shall be renamed "Gnomes", or G$ for short. During a voting round, a player may choose to lose 5000 Gnomes in order to receive an additional vote for that voting round. A player may only gain one extra vote per round in this way. Also he may not do this if all players have voted for a turn or doing so would give him a negative value for gnomes. Buying a vote increases the total number of votes by one, increasing the number required for majority accordingly. This rule overrides Rule 207.

317.

Going Once! Going Twice!

A. A player has 72 hours to make a proposal.
- 1. If a player does not make a proposal, the proposal will immediatly go to auction. Further, the player will receive a strike.
  2. If a player accumalates three or more strikes, that player will lose 25 points. Further, the player lose three strikes.
B. Auctions
- 1. When an auction occurs, the player who made the last proposal will be the Auctioneer.
  2. Players may bid Gnomes by PMing the Auctioneer their bid. Players may not make a larger bid than the number of Gnomes they posess. The Auctioneer may not bid during an Auction.
  3. 48 hours after the Auction begins, the Auctioneer will declare the winner and post all the bids and the time they were received.
  - a. The winner is the player who bid the highest number of Gnomes.
    b. In the event of a tie, the player with the earliest high bid is the winner.
    c. If there is still a tie, the player with the least amount of points is the winner.
C. Winning an Auction
- 1. A number of Gnomes equal the the winner's bid is deducted from the winner.
  2. The winner of an auction will make a proposal within 48 hours.
  3. If the winner of an auction does not make a proposal, he or she will receive two strikes and the turn ends.
  4. The winner of an auction will receive all points for the made proposal, unless the points are negative. If the points are negative, the player whose turn it is will receive the points.

Prop. 318. To The Moon, Alice!

A. There exists a categorization of players known as "Visiting the Moon". Any number of players may be a member of this category at any given time.

A. When the moon is over a player's territory, that player may choose to forfeit his vote on the current proposal and lose G$20000 to travel to the moon.
1. The player must make public the decision to travel to the moon before the voting deadline.
2. The visit to the moon begins immediately after the voting period on the current proposal ends.
3. While on the moon, the player is assigned to the "Visiting the Moon" category of players.
4. After seven consecutive proposals, the player is removed from the "Visiting the Moon" category of players.
B. While in the "Visitng the Moon" category of players, a player has the following changes made to his gameplay.
1. Any purchased vote costs G$10000, but if used to vote no on a proposal, automatically causes the proposal to fail. The player must state his intent to use this vote to vote no at the time of purchase.
2. Any points gained are doubled.

CoolBot · Wed May 05, 2004 10:01 am

A veto is G$30000, when you consider that cost of getting to the moon in the first place. Basically, Player A is risking not quite an extra vote and Player B is risking a territory, which could be worth on upwards of 128 points!

CoolBot · Wed May 05, 2004 11:47 am

Well, I did use the worst case scenario just to make a point. Acutally, it'd be hard for someone to lose 128 points, if only because holding all 9 territories gives 200 points.

The new prop looks nice, but I do wonder why you dropped the part about holding the Judge to his honor.

CoolBot · Post Post #583 (isolation #143) » Thu May 06, 2004 1:45 am

Looks good, but I'd like to note that there is a chance that the Core can't be reassigned, since that would mean someones territory points would drop below zero.

Rule 312, Clause D wrote:D. Territory Points
1. Every player has territory points equal to 2^(m-1), where m is the number of territories owned.
2. If a player has territory 4, subtract 56 points from his or her territory points.
3. A player may not have negative territory points.
4. When determing a winner, territory points are added to a player's points.

CoolBot · Post Post #585 (isolation #144) » Thu May 06, 2004 5:04 am

It's not contradictory; it just forbids players from taking the Core until they have at least 56 territorial points. Anyway, it's how I intended it, and I can's see any other internally consistent way of reading it.

CoolBot · Post Post #587 (isolation #145) » Thu May 06, 2004 8:24 am

I don't really think we can ignore the second part of the line, since it's entire existence is to take care of the times when Player A has less than G$5000. Not to mention that no where does it say we can't have less than G$0 (something we should probably fix somewher down the line).

The whole debate is tangental, though, since your prop works with either interpetation (since player are not compelled to reassign the Core, but may do it if they'd like). If it ever comes up, we can simply send it to judgement.

CoolBot · Post Post #591 (isolation #146) » Fri May 07, 2004 5:34 pm

vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #594 (isolation #147) » Tue May 11, 2004 6:17 am

Actually, the deadline was 20 minutes after Stewie's vote, so we're waiting for the next prop now.

CoolBot · Post Post #597 (isolation #148) » Tue May 11, 2004 3:44 pm

I like the idea, but I think it's actually too expensive to launch an attack. Worse, its asymmetric, in that only the player with the Core can launch one. And since having the Core means already having serveral other territories, we're just giving someone who's leading one more advantage.

CoolBot · Post Post #603 (isolation #149) » Wed May 12, 2004 7:40 am

PolarBoy wrote:Something I don't entirely understand, though, is how something can be too expensive and at the same time give an unfair advantage to the player doing it.

I suppose I wasn't to clear. On it's own, I think G$20,000 is too much as long as we can only get G$840 a turn, because it means it's an option that will hardly ever be used. Seperate from that issue, I think it's unbalanced in that it only allows one person who happens to control many territories to do it.

I agree that we shouldn't be afraid of over complicating the game. Besides, all we're doing now is keeping track of several different values (points, gnomes, territories, etc.) without doing much with them.

CoolBot · Post Post #605 (isolation #150) » Wed May 12, 2004 8:41 am

The very same rule.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Further, since teammates aren't defined, I figure it'd be easy to define teammate as faction members, so we don't really ahve to worry about a faction making favorable judgements.

CoolBot · Post Post #607 (isolation #151) » Wed May 12, 2004 3:42 pm

You can't just claim to be a winner anyway. Pule 101 makes sure that any player can only win by a rule stating how to win. Further, Rule 212 binds the Judge to make decisions based only on the rules. Since winning conditions are set in the rules, a Judge would have to throw out any random win declaration. If the Judge doesn't, he's not following the rules. Thus, he's not a player, and thus, cannot win or be a Judge anyway.

CoolBot · Thu May 13, 2004 11:20 am

I think some sort of militar action would be nice, but this particular implementation is a bit unbalanced.

vote: No

CoolBot · Mon May 24, 2004 11:44 am

So I bid for shady's prop. PolarBoy should be able to confirm that I bid G$3200. Anyone bid anything higher?

CoolBot · Tue May 25, 2004 10:06 am

320.

New Blood

A. Any player may nominate a non-player to become a player. If another player seconds, and the non-player posts an agreement within 72 hours, the non-player becomes probationary player at the beginning of the next turn.
B. Probationary players play the games the same as players in all respects, excepting point distribution..
- 1. When a probationary player begins playing, he or she shall be added to the end of the player list.
  2. If any territory, except the Core, is unclaimed, the probationary player may claim it. It the claimed territory is unnamed, the probationary player may name it. Rule 312 is ammended acordingly. Rule 312 is not renumbered; this takes precedence over Rule 198.
C. At any time, a probationary player may pay G$4000 to become a player by declaring so in the Nomic thread. Then, G$4000 is deducted from the player; a player may not have negative gnomes.
D. Anytime a probationary player receives points, the probationary player must divide the points equally amoung all players. Fractional points are allowed. This rule takes precedence over all rules dealing with points.

CoolBot · Tue May 25, 2004 11:44 am

Erm, there's a typo in the prop. Cluase B.2 refers to Rule 108, not 198

CoolBot · Post Post #625 (isolation #156) » Wed May 26, 2004 1:17 pm

Acutally, I can't seem to find that anywhere in the rules. Could you point it out for me?

That aside, I think we'll be fine if I just delete "this takes precedence over Rule 108." Examing Rule 108,

Rule 108 wrote:Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

it only refers to proposals ammending rules. But by the time such an ammendment is needed, the prop will be a full fleched rule, and so we don't have to renumber Rule 312

CoolBot · Post Post #626 (isolation #157) » Wed May 26, 2004 1:18 pm

101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) 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.)

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

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.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Mutable Rules

201. Players shall alternate turns in alphabetical order by screenname.

202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.

In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)

203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.

204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.

205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

206. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

207. Each player always has exactly one vote.

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates.

The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer.

211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

New Rules

301. If a player finds they posted the first post on a new page, he or she shall immediately post the numbered and currently active rules. If the player does this before anyone else posts, he or she shall recieve 5 points. If the player does not do this before anyone else posts, he or she shall lose 10 points.

304. (Trial by Combat) After any vote (proposed, say, by Player A) in which all but one of the non-abstaining voters (say, Player B) votes yes, Player A has 48 hours after the completion of the vote to challenge Player B to a game of Paper-Rock-Scissors (conducted via PM to the current Judge, or in the case that Player B is the judge, the next player up that is neither Player A nor Player B). The only bond preventing the game's judge from cheating is his honor at mafiascum.

- If Player A wins, Player B forfeits all points earned directly from voting no and Player B must choose one of Player B's territories (if one exists) to cede to Player A. If Player A wins and Player B has no territories, Player A may immediately assign/change ownership of the territory "The Core" to any player, including himself.
- If Player B wins, Player A loses G$5,000 (not to go below 0) and Player B gains G$10,000. If Player A does not have G$5,000, Player B may immediately assign/change ownership of the territory "The Core" to any player, including himself.

305. Abstentions

A. Players may abstain from any vote.
B. Every player is an eligible voter. Any player who does not vote within 72 hours of the first vote cast shall abstain from the vote.
C. If a player abstains from a vote, then his or her vote does not count for or against the proposal. Further, an abstaining vote does not count towards the required number of yes votes to pass.
D. If more than 50% of the players abstain, the vote fails due to lack of interest.
E. If Proposal 306 passes, it shall take the number 307, and Clause E shall be deleted.

309. (An Additional Variable) Each player shall be assigned an absract attribute called x, which has an initial value of 0 and may be referred to as player.x or player's x, where player is the name of the player which x belongs to. This attribute may be manipulated by other rules. Also, after every vote on a rule is completed, each player's x value shall be increased by 840.

310. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

312 Nomic Land
A. There exist nine territories.
1. Each territory is uniquely designated by a number 0 through 8.
2. Every territory, t, borders territories t-1, t+1, t-3, and t+3. If, in calculating bordering territories, a territory number larger than 8 is calculated, subtract 9. If, in calculating bordering terriotries, a territory number less than 0 is calculated, add 9.
B. There exists a moon that is always above a territory.
1. The territory the moon is above is the territory with a number equal to the remainder of (P-2)/9, where P is the current proposal number.
2. If any player has no territories, that player is in exile on the moon.
C. Territory Names
1. Names
0 - New Quahog
1 - Tyrannos
2 - PBAJ
3 - The West Pole
4 - The Core
6 - pi
7 - Botia
8 - Sharkland

2. Territory names may not be changed
D. Territory Points
1. Every player has territory points equal to 2^(m-1), where m is the number of territories owned.
2. If a player has territory 4, subtract 56 points from his or her territory points.
3. A player may not have negative territory points.
4. When determing a winner, territory points are added to a player's points.

313. (Currency) The variable x shall be renamed "Gnomes", or G$ for short. During a voting round, a player may choose to lose 5000 Gnomes in order to receive an additional vote for that voting round. A player may only gain one extra vote per round in this way. Also he may not do this if all players have voted for a turn or doing so would give him a negative value for gnomes. Buying a vote increases the total number of votes by one, increasing the number required for majority accordingly. This rule overrides Rule 207.

317. Going Once! Going Twice!
A. A player has 72 hours to make a proposal.
1. If a player does not make a proposal, the proposal will immediatly go to auction. Further, the player will receive a strike.
2. If a player accumalates three or more strikes, that player will lose 25 points. Further, the player lose three strikes.

B. Auctions
1. When an auction occurs, the player who made the last proposal will be the Auctioneer.
2. Players may bid Gnomes by PMing the Auctioneer their bid. Players may not make a larger bid than the number of Gnomes they posess. The Auctioneer may not bid during an Auction.
3. 48 hours after the Auction begins, the Auctioneer will declare the winner and post all the bids and the time they were received.
a. The winner is the player who bid the highest number of Gnomes.
b. In the event of a tie, the player with the earliest high bid is the winner.
c. If there is still a tie, the player with the least amount of points is the winner.

C. Winning an Auction
1. A number of Gnomes equal the the winner's bid is deducted from the winner.
2. The winner of an auction will make a proposal within 48 hours.
3. If the winner of an auction does not make a proposal, he or she will receive two strikes and the turn ends.
4. The winner of an auction will receive all points for the made proposal, unless the points are negative. If the points are negative, the player whose turn it is will receive the points.

318. To The Moon, Alice!

A. There exists a categorization of players known as "Visiting the Moon". Any number of players may be a member of this category at any given time.

A. When the moon is over a player's territory, that player may choose to forfeit his vote on the current proposal and lose G$20000 to travel to the moon.
1. The player must make public the decision to travel to the moon before the voting deadline.
2. The visit to the moon begins immediately after the voting period on the current proposal ends.
3. While on the moon, the player is assigned to the "Visiting the Moon" category of players.
4. After seven consecutive proposals, the player is removed from the "Visiting the Moon" category of players.
B. While in the "Visitng the Moon" category of players, a player has the following changes made to his gameplay.
1. Any purchased vote costs G$10000, but if used to vote no on a proposal, automatically causes the proposal to fail. The player must state his intent to use this vote to vote no at the time of purchase.
2. Any points gained are doubled.

CoolBot · Post Post #629 (isolation #158) » Mon May 31, 2004 2:37 pm

Eh, I still don't think it's a problem since we're talking about a rule amending another rule, not a proposal. How's this for the new verision:

320.

New Blood

A. Any player may nominate a non-player to become a player. If another player seconds, and the non-player posts an agreement within 72 hours, the non-player becomes probationary player at the beginning of the next turn.
B. Probationary players play the games the same as players in all respects, excepting point distribution..
- 1. When a probationary player begins playing, he or she shall be added to the end of the player list.
  2. If any territory, except the Core, is unclaimed, the probationary player may claim it. It the claimed territory is unnamed, the probationary player may name it. Rule 312 is ammended acordingly. Rule 312 is not renumbered.
C. At any time, a probationary player may pay G$4000 to become a player by declaring so in the Nomic thread. Then, G$4000 is deducted from the player; a player may not have negative gnomes.
D. Anytime a probationary player receives points, the probationary player must divide the points equally amoung all players. Fractional points are allowed. This rule takes precedence over all rules dealing with points.

CoolBot · Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:03 am

Ack, I meant to add that, but since it's not in there, I think zero of both would be proper.

CoolBot · Post Post #634 (isolation #160) » Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:30 am

Since no one else seems to have an objection,

vote: Yes

CoolBot · Post Post #638 (isolation #161) » Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:35 am

Proposal 320 passes, 4-0-3.
CoolBot receives 31 points.
Shadyforce receives a strike.
It is Stewie's turn; he has until 12:30 pm GMT to make a proposal.
The moon is over The Core.

Since Stewie's MIA, you might want to get your bids ready.

CoolBot · Post Post #641 (isolation #162) » Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:05 am

Alright, I'm taking bids on Stewie's turn now. The deadline is Friday 12:30 pm GMT.

CoolBot · Post Post #645 (isolation #163) » Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:34 am

I'd rather finish the game, but since participation is flagging, I can see why some would like to end it.

I still haven't got any bids. Remember, auctioned proposals are a risk free chance to get points.

CoolBot · Post Post #651 (isolation #164) » Fri Jun 11, 2004 8:23 am

Also, R.113 clearly allows forfeits with no further impact anyway.

Rule 113 wrote:113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

Further, fishbulb forfeited with relavtive ease, so we do have a precident here.

And that's ten points, PB.

CoolBot · Post Post #654 (isolation #165) » Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:38 pm

My new prop:

321.

Suspension

A. If a player does not post on mafiascum.net for a week or more, he or she becomes a suspended player.
B. For the purposes of any rule but those that explicitly refer to suspended players, suspended players are not treated as players.
C. A suspended player becomes a player by posting in the Nomic thread. The player retains all points, gnomes, territories, and other game values during the suspension.
D. Stewie is a suspended player
- 1. If Stewie posts in the Nomic thread, Clause D of Rule 321 is repealed.

Oh, and if you think this game is complicated, check this out.

CoolBot · Post Post #656 (isolation #166) » Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:05 am

No thoughts on the prop?

CoolBot · Post Post #659 (isolation #167) » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:33 am

Sorry to hear that, shady.

Since no one seems to have much to say, I think we should move on to voting.

vote: Yes