Nomic

[PolarBoy]

I just found out about this game and it sounds fascinating. It's a game where changing the rules is a move and every rule is changable. In fact, the usually implicit rule "Players must play by the rules" is made explicit in rule 101 specifically so that it may be changed. I could go on, but this site does a much better job of explaining things.

Players

Coolbot, score: 120 + 1t, 6040 Gnomes
** massive, score: 27 + 1t, 9240 Gnomes
** Mathcam, score: 31 + 1t, 9240 Gnomes
PolarBoy, score: 45 + 1t, 9240 Gnomes

* Scalebane, score: 21 + 1t, 9240 Gnomes(proposal has been auctioned off to CoolBot)

Shadyforce, score: 10 + 1t, 9240 Gnomes
* Stewie, score: -20 + 1t, 9240 Gnomes

(asterisks next to names denote the number of turns missed, t = territory points)

The moon is currently over territory 1, Tyrannos.

Rules

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at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)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.

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.

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.

[PolarBoy]

There are a lot of rules but most of them are really pretty minor. Here's how it basically works. Once we have a complete set of players(I'm going for about five to keep the first game relatively simple) we'll take turns proposing rules. On your turn you can propose anything you want as a rule. The one major restriction is that it has to be accepted unanimously by the other players(Later in the game only a simple majority is required). Then at the end of your turn you get points based on how far through the game we are and how well recieved your proposals were. The game ends when somebody scores 200 points. Now there is one other detail. Since all rules are subject to change, the game could be completely different only a few turns after it begins.

[PolarBoy]

Alright, let's begin.

Players

CoolBot
FishBulb
massive
Mathcam
PolarBoy
Scalebane
Shadyforce
Stewie

CoolBot will go first. Since there's not really any way that anybody can shout anyone else down I suppose this means that everyone can talk, but only CoolBot may make a proposal(And everybody please make sure you've become familiar with the starting rules).

[PolarBoy]

Sounds reasonable.

Vote: Yes

[PolarBoy]

Actually my initial plan was to run a "Master Book" in the opening post, in fact it is still my intention. But I thought it would be interesting for anyone reading afterward to be able to see the rules evolve over time as well, so being able to see where all the rules stood at a certain point in th game would be interesting.

[PolarBoy]

I think he means any rules that haven't been somehow overturned. I'm

still voting yes

for proposal 301.

[PolarBoy]

I don't see why anyone should be able to vote no on their own proposal.

[PolarBoy]

CoolBot, I should point out that players receive points for the number of yes votes their proposal receeves.

[PolarBoy]

Proposal 301 has been accepted with unanimity, earning Coolbot 10 points.

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.

It is now Fishbulb's turn.

[PolarBoy]

I dunno, but unless judgement is invoked, that's it for discussion. I might spite-veto this one just to send a message. For now I'm withholding my vote.

[PolarBoy]

actually, you're right mathcam, it says "before the vote", not "before voting begins". One problem I see with this is that a player may cast a vote early and then ammendments would be made and the player may wish to change his vote. Do we allow vote changes? If you ask me the players are suggesting rather insignifigant rule-changes for this early in the game. There are a lot of holes in the initial set that need to be addressed.

[PolarBoy]

I don't see this as being multiple rule changes. Essentially we are dealing with absenteeism, be it on your turn or off. The fact that tallies for missed votes and missed turns are kept seperately does not change that fact.

I would like to point out, though, that fishbulbs most recent version of the rule is ambiguous on the point of whether missed turns and missed votes are counted seperately or together, and that it also does not mention the number 3 at all. This should be amended before we proceed.

[PolarBoy]

Also, the most recent formally proposed version of the rule is ambiguous. Also it is arguably of questionable value if one is given too many or not enough misses and therefore is still open for amendment. I would appreciate a formal proposal of the most recent version of the rule before voting though.

[PolarBoy]

alright, we'll have to deal with absenteeism during voting some other way. I can deal with that.

Vote: Yes on 302

.

[PolarBoy]

er...crap. I don't have time at this moment. I'll try to get on the ball this afternoon.

[PolarBoy]

Er...Actually discussion was not supposed to move forward as I had not voted at the time. I'm going to

Vote: Yes

and modify the master book accordingly. Fishbulb receive's 11 points and the game continues to massive's turn. I think that's all.

[PolarBoy]

I'd like to make some clarifications. The first one is that I am not the moderator. I am as much a player as anyone else and am not allowed any special privileges. That being said, I do not see any rules against one editting posts. That is part of why I encourage players to keep their own back-up of anything they find pertinent for later. As far as shadyforce is concerned, since his rulebook was technically current when posted, he should not be penalized per rule 301.

As far as 303 is concerned, I am all for the transmutation of 105 from an immutable to a mutable rule.

It appears that the rule book is, in fact, ambiguous as to whether a rule can be transmuted and altered on the same move or not. One would think this means that there is no actual distinction between mutable and immutable rules, but I would like to turn your attention to rule 109 which states that if a rule change tranmutes a rule, it must be accepted unanimously. Therefore there is an important distinction, albeit one that has not yet truly taken effect.

Unfortunately there are no grounds for ammending proposal 303.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: Yes

[PolarBoy]

proposal 303 to transmutate rule 105 from mutable to immutable passes and massive receive's 12 points. mathcam now has the floor.

[PolarBoy]

Sniper mathcam, congratulations on getting coolbot dinged 10 points on a technicality. Would you like to make proposal 304? it's worth 13 points.

[PolarBoy]

I thought of a better way of doing this. A player will create an account on this board(It's the return of the ten foot pole). Both players send their choices to that account. Then the player makes the password for that account public, so everyone can see, and also so that there was no way the two players involved could've known.

Although actually I don't see any way to prevent people from conspiring. I'd also like to point out that in a couple of rounds rule-changes will only need a simple majority to pass.

Although I do like the idea of trial by combat. And you do get more points if your rule-change passses unanimously. For instance, if one passed rule 325 with only the required five votes, he would receive 15 points. If he were to get his rule-change passed unanimously, he would receive 24.

[PolarBoy]

Well, here's where we get into meta-nomic mathcam. Can we trust each-other? Here's what I mean. I normally would not lie to people who trust me in order to get my way(at least, I should try not to. Whether I actually do resist the temptation is entirely beside the point). But when it's allowed or even required in a game, I have no qualms about telling someone I have an ice-cream palace on the moon.

So here we come to a game that has changable rules, and specifically states that anything that is not in the rules is unregulated, meaning that it is techinically not against the rules for me to intentionally misreport the rule-book or scores or even to use my pseudo-mod clout to confuse players so that they'll miss deadlines and lose points. Do you see the conundrum?

Of course we do run into the one loophole of this, that being that there is one very important pseudo-metagame rule, that being that the players are bound by the rules. Therefore as long as it is made expicit that a player must report results accurately we may actually be able to trust to honor. After all, a gamer's honor stands outside the game.

Curioser and curioser.

[PolarBoy]

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.

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.

[PolarBoy]

Oh yeah, if you want to know more about how culture, law, and religion develop from play, check out Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture, by Johann Huizinga. Fascinating book, probably available from your public library.

[PolarBoy]

Oh yeah, in your face sniper.

[PolarBoy]

Unless we change 203. At any rate there are unenforcable rules, like the one that says we can't have conpiracies. How the heck are we ever gonna stop two players from conspiring? Like I said, a gamer's honor stands outside the game.

[PolarBoy]

ah, you are correct. Probably because there would be no stinking way of regulating it. There's a load off of my mind. I thought I was actually gonna have to follow all of that "gamer's honor" crap I was spewing and...was that out loud?

Seriously though this does create a new precedent. It seems that honor is not implied by the rules(I'm beginning to think that nothing is. Brilliant design.) So, is there a way to make mathcam's proposal work?

[PolarBoy]

You have no idea massive.




Which I guess makes you really happy.

[PolarBoy]

What rule 203 states about "this rule" being changed is almost implicit. It could almost be read like this: "After the second circuit of turns is completed, only a simple majority is required." There's probably a reason for making "If this rule isn't changed" explicit, but I don't understand what it is.

[PolarBoy]

I don't think the change would be illegal as the rule, if adopted, would probably never be used after the first two rounds. Face it, a lot of us are going to vote against an obviously passed proposition for the points.

[PolarBoy]

Massive, I could be wrong but I believe we're waiting for you to judge between mathcam and CoolBot. Perhaps the two of you could summarize the case for the judge.

[PolarBoy]

I'll

Vote: Yes

with the hope that it will be ammended after the the two circuits are up.

[PolarBoy]

Proposal 304 passses unanimously earning mathcam 13 points.

Rule 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.

That makes it my turn. My proposal will be forthcoming.

[PolarBoy]

Proposal 305 was to ammend Werebear into the game. Alas he has declined my invitation. Some of the other things I wanted to address have more or less sorted themselves out, so I'm left with very little to go on.

How about this:

Proposal 305: After every turn each player will receive x points in addition to any other points they may receive during that time.

Notice that this proposal is incomplete(x is not defined) and therefore may be ammended in the future. The floor is open for discussion.

[PolarBoy]

I'm sorry, I guess I was not totally clear. Several times we've had someone want to ammend a rule before it went to vote, but was unable to because of the rule concerning ammendments. I intentionally left a blank to allow myself to ammend and also because I wasn't sure about the precise value X would take on. My intention was actually no more esoteric than to replace X with a literal constant value. The idea was to give the game a sense of development and make the end more imminent. I think it would add to the tension. Considering that we each need 200 points to win(right now) and also considering the current rate of score increase, I think a good value for x would be 10. I was also considering only giving the rule effect on turns when no rule is passed. This could create some interesting endgame conflicts; something this game is sorely lacking at the moment.

[PolarBoy]

Look, this is a new game mechanism. It's what we usually refer to as a time limit. It forces us to think ahead. Note that the current game mechanics are broken. As soon as any player starts getting near to winning all we have to do is shoot down their ammendments and they don't get any points. This will add conflict of interest that allows for a winner to emerge, unless legislation stops him in his tracks. This way a player must do more than vote somebody down to stop him.

[PolarBoy]

That's what I was doing. This is going to create complication as even though getting a rule passed gets you points, others get points as well. It makes another factor to keep track of. It's something I think anyone in the game can exploit also. Following is my finalized proposal.

Proposal 305. Directly after the voting on a rule is completed, every player receives 10 points.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: Yes

[PolarBoy]

Fishbulb, that is amazing.

And here we have it. The first ever trial by combat. Coolbot and I are to send a choice to mathcam, who will judge the result.

[PolarBoy]

Coolbot earns 5 and I lose 5 from trial by combat. That means that now it is Scalebane's turn. He has 72 hours from the time mathcam announced the final results of trial by combat to make his initial proposal. That means he has until Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:01 pm GMT.

[PolarBoy]

You are correct sir. Updating the front post.

[PolarBoy]

The time now is Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:55 pm GMT

Scalebane has about an hour to post a proposal.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: No

[PolarBoy]

Technically Shadyforce's vote must be cast before the vote is final. I suggest that Stewie be ready to post his proposal when it happens.

[PolarBoy]

Alright, -10 points for shayforce an 306 does not pass. It is Stewie's trun, he has until 5:05 GMT January 26th to post a proposal.

[PolarBoy]

I really hate that rule, you know that?

[PolarBoy]

Stewie has missed his turn, receiving a deadly strike. Two more and he's out. CoolBot has until 5:05 GMT on January 29th to make his proposal.

[PolarBoy]

This all sounds well and good to me. I have nothing in particular to say abot alterations to this rule.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: yes

[PolarBoy]

Proposal 307 (Abstensions), passes, giving CoolBot 16 points.

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.

Massive loses 10 points for not accounting for this enactment, and it is FishBulb's turn. He has until 4:21 PM GMT February 1st to submit Proposal 308.

[PolarBoy]

Well if a hobo made a proposal we'd simply ignore it, as it wouldn't be his turn. The first clause conflicts with the existing rules though, as the rules only regulate the actions of players(this is explicit in rule 101) I don't see why it's necesary.

It's a good idea though. And Norinel, if you want to play, one of us could ammend the roster.

Oh yeah, my numbering of Rules 307 and 307 was not arbitrary. I went over the rules with a fine-toothed comb before arriving at that decision. Actually the other alternative I saw was to recommend putting Fishbulb in contempt of the rules and invoking judgement on appropriate punitive action for proposing the wrong proposal in violation of rule 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

.) I decided though that it was a clerical error and that 108, being a procedural and not a substantive rule, could not be violated in that way. Similarily to it not being a violation of any rules for me to put up an innaccurate master book.

Are we having fun yet?

[PolarBoy]

Ok, so about the playerlist thing. There are a few implicit rules based on this message board. One being that you are a player if you signed up for this game while sign-ups were running and were not rejected by the game moderator(Until the game started I was technically game moderator). Therefore removing your names from the playerlist posted would not alter the fact that you are a player, similarily to how altering your score on the post does not actually alter your score. Essentially the game now exists in a theoretical form completely independent of the message board.

As far as your definition of a player...the trouble is that the rules are not explicit about what is to be done with rule breakers, although your interpretation seems accurate(and scary) perhaps we could institute a criminal justice system.

[PolarBoy]

Well I am all about winning the game, so if by some freak chance I was able to get this rule passed now I would. But it won't work now that youve brought it to light.

I agree fully with your interpretation of the rules. I had forgotten that we were discussing proposal 308.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: No

Voting will continue until 11:49 PM GMT on February 5th.

[PolarBoy]

Ok, so the motion fails, and fishbulb loses 10 points. Massive has until 11:49 PM GMT on February 8th to submit a proposal.

[PolarBoy]

Yes cam, you have until 11:49 PM GMT on February 11th to submit a proposal.

[PolarBoy]

Proposal 309, An Additional Variable: 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. This value 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.

[PolarBoy]

Maybe I should've said an

attribute

called x, instead of a value. Anyway that's what I meant. I suppose we could give x an explicit starting value of 0. I just thought it would be cool to introduce another variable that would have no initial meaning. I was thinking it would be cool to use programming convention and call it player.x too. So I could rework the rule before putting it to a vote.

How about this:

[PolarBoy]

Proposal 309, An Additional Variable: Each player shall be assigned an absract attribute 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. This value 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.

[PolarBoy]

The fact that x was being defined as a value rather than an attribute wasn't a problem? Also, I just realized that I never put an explicit declaration of x's initial value. Cripes.

[PolarBoy]

X is not an undefined value or a constant. It's the name of an attribute which contains a value. If that isn't clear then the proposition still needs to be ammended. The propblem lies partly in that the initial value of zero is not made explicit in the rule.

Proposal 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.

There.

[PolarBoy]

er...which version of the proposal are we voting on?

[PolarBoy]

ok then.

Vote: yes

.

[PolarBoy]

oh yeah, I was the last vote. proposal 309, An Additional Variable, passes unanimously with one abstension.

Proposal 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.

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.

[PolarBoy]

I'm inclined to agree with Coolbot's interpretation of the rule. The vote was completed, then the rule came into effect. The action of raising x-values should've happened in between those two actions, and the rule may not be retro-active. So x will be reset to zero. I'll update the front post accordingly.

[PolarBoy]

It's really up to convention and possibly judgement to decide.

[PolarBoy]

After considering the alternatives, here is my judgement: Rule 309 does not specify precisely when x values are increased, in relationship to rules taking effect. Part of the problem lies also in that no rule-change so far has explicitly stated when it took effect, and no default timing is given in the rules. It is this judge's interpretation that a phrase stating that a given rule was effective immediately has been implied in every rule change thus far, and that that is how they have been carried out.

Also there is no statement in the rules that two events may not happen simultaneously, so it is this judge's ruling that this is exactly what happens with implementation of rules and increase of x-values, unless otherwise stated. Therefore there must also be arbitation in regards to whether x values remain at 0 for one turn, or are increased by 840. Since rule 309 was not in effect until after it took effect, it would seem that the time for increasing x values was already passed, and therefore never happened.

In summary, my judgements are:
1. Rules are effective immediately by default.
2. Events may happen simultaneously.
3. Rule changes come into effect and x values increase simultaneously unless otherwise stated.
4. All x values are currently set to 0.

[PolarBoy]

I'm fine with it. It's a pretty logical step.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: Yes

[PolarBoy]

Proposal 310 to transmute rule 112 from immutable to mutable has passed, earning ScaleBane 19 points. shadyforce has until 10:18 PM GMT on February 28th to submit proposal 311.

[PolarBoy]

So he does.

[PolarBoy]

Rules

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.

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.

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.

Rule 307. (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.

Rule 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.

Rule 310. (Transmuted from rule 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.

[PolarBoy]

Check me out mathcam, I look-a smart. And I get 5 points.

[PolarBoy]

right, I don't like this proposal.

[PolarBoy]

Actually, I misread it. I see now that at most it would only put 3 new points into the economy on a turn. I thought initially that it allowed a player to simply spam the current proposer to earn points. Sorry. I like it better now.

[PolarBoy]

mathcam has a point, especially when one considers that a player only has 72 hours to submit their proposal, meaning that by the time you know that they need reminding, their turn is already over. That's an argument for not waiting at all, which gives players an excuse to simply ignore the thread until they find a message in their inbox stating that it's their turn.

[PolarBoy]

Stewie's assurance of points only being given when a prod was "needed" does not impress me. The criteria is entirely too subjective to constitute a rule.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: No

Other players have until 5:21 PM GMT on March 6th to vote.

[PolarBoy]

Proposal 311 fails. Stewie loses 10 points for making a failing proposal. All players' x increase by 840. It is now CoolBot's turn to make proposal 312, which he has. Also note that from now on proposals not transmuting an immutable rule into a mutable one will require only a simple majority of votes to pass.

[PolarBoy]

I concur with mathcam(whose score drops by 10). I'm going to review the proposal and think on potential flaws(especially those leading to an easy win for CoolBot) before deciding on it.

[PolarBoy]

If, in calculating bordering terriotries, a territory number less than 1 is calculated, add 9.

This should read "a territory number less than

0

is calculated". Otherwise you get some funky borders.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: Yes

Players have until Fri Mar 13, 2004 3:30 pm GMT to submit their votes.

[PolarBoy]

Alright, Proposal 312, Nomic Land, passes with a 6/7 majority, earning CoolBot 18 points. shadyforce, the sly devil, recieves 10 points for voting against a passed proposal. Fishbulb has forfeited the game, and is no longer a player. Also, every player's x increases by 840.

All players, starting with CoolBot and going in alphabetical order, are to now claim a territory and name it.

Massive has until 1:28 am on Monday, March 12 to submit proposal 313.

I'll update the front post accordingly tommorow.

[PolarBoy]

by the way, Nomic land has weird topological properties. It's like some sort of mobian torus. I like.

[PolarBoy]

CoolBot scores 5 points for posting rules. Massive has passed his turn. mathcam has until 1:28 AM GMT on Thursday, March 18th to submit proposal 313. Also, it is mathcam's turn to choose a territory.

[PolarBoy]

mathcam has passed his turn, PolarBoy has until 1:28 AM GMT on March 21st to submit proposal 313.

Also, it is mathcam's turn to select a territory as his own.

I'll post a proposal later.

[PolarBoy]

Proposal 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. This rule overrides Rule 207.

[PolarBoy]

Mathcam is still required to name territory 2.

Right, I'll ammend to acommodate the issue raised by Scalebane and clarify one or two other things.

Proposal 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.

[PolarBoy]

I think I'll claim 3 and call it "The West Pole"

[PolarBoy]

I'll name Territory 2 PBAJ.

People can think it stands for Peanut Better And Jelly if you want, but it really stands for PolarBoy is A Jerkface.

Check it out, there's a territory named after me! And

I

didn't have to name it myself.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: Yes

It is now Stewie's turn to claim a territory.

[PolarBoy]

Actually there are currently something like 21 mutable rules. Perhaps we should make one or two immutable.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: No

[PolarBoy]

Just to make this clear. If someone states explicitly that they are abstaining from a vote, they lose no points. Correct?

[PolarBoy]

The people who voted against this proposal have a win-win situation. If I vote yes, the proposal passes, and they all get 10 points. If I vote no, the proposal fails, which is what they wanted in the first place.

Vote: No

And proposal 315 fails 3-4-0. Shadyforce loses 10 points for making a failed proposition, but receives 10 points for making a proposal of 3/7 popularity.

All players receive 840 gnomes, giving each player 5040 gnomes, enough to buy an additional vote.

It is now Stewie's turn to make a proposal. He has until Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:51 pm to present proposal 316.

The moon is over territory 8, Sharkland.

[PolarBoy]

oops. You're right, I remember now.

[PolarBoy]

One isue with this proposal is that it has not been made clear yet precisely when the moon moves. Right now players earn G$ when a vote has been completed, which is also technically the end of a turn. But the moon moves at the same time. So do we calculate G$ earnings based on the moons old position or new?

[PolarBoy]

oh, ok. That covers that then, I guess.

[PolarBoy]

I had always kind of thought it was an action analogous to voting. Like a player can say, "I'll vote in favor, and buy an additional vote in favor.". I suppose a player could make one of his votes and then buy the other after he had seen how others voted. I hadn't really thought about it.

[PolarBoy]

Stewie also loses 10 points for failing to post the rules on the new page.

[PolarBoy]

Indeed. It's a lot more fun than just kicking people out who don't show up.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: no

Because I have no principles and want points. Hah!

[PolarBoy]

The proposal passes 5-2-0, And I don't have the time to work out the exact effect that has on the scores or update the front post at the moment. I'll probably do that tommorow.

[PolarBoy]

Wait, wait, wait. We can't buy vetoes when in exile? Why the crap not? It'd add some balance if players in exile got some perks, considering they have no territory points.

[PolarBoy]

But I love the comment about 'balance', especially when both territory points AND being in exile have no impact on the game yet.

Actually territory points get added to your base score. Admittedly there is no direct significance to exile yet, except that it means that you have no territory points. So it can be assumed that one in exile has a disadvantage in score. If such a player were given an extra ability, it would give him a chance to come back. This introduces balance by making it not necessarily a good idea to take someone's one last territory point.

[PolarBoy]

Fascinating. Perhaps there should be a cutoff after which a challenge is no longer allowed.

[PolarBoy]

CoolBot is correct. I'm fairly certain the front post is accurate now, but I'm not really sure what to propose. I was thinking maybe some sort of military factors for territorial control, but not sure what. How about this:

Proposal 320. Guns, Lots of guns.
A player who has control of the core may launch an attack on any territory, provided he has explicit consent from any other player, at a cost of G$ 20,000. This attack will leave the attacked territory in a state of civil disorder for the next 3 turns.

Admittedly at the moment this does not actually change anything. It does, however, lay the groundwork for military action. Is that the sort of game we want to play?

[PolarBoy]

Hmm...Forgot about how a player has to be owning so many territories to own the core. 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. Also the rule doesn't actually do anything yet. Civil disorder is an undefined state completely lacking in meaning.

By the way mathcam, factions were the idea. It occurs to me that right now you could create a rule that blatantly screws 3 other players and get it passed. Something along the lines of...

Proposal 367. Screw you!
CoolBot, mathcam, and Stewie shall all be ejected from the game and considered losers.

But nobody's done that yet. very odd if you ask me.

I considered proposing something like that this turn, but ran into a paradox of sorts. It's like playing as mafia in a group of players who mostly don't post. All other things being equal, the best strategy is to kill the most active posters. But then the game becomes completely devoid of playability as half the town is left and nothing is happening. If I were to successfully eliminate my greatest threats once and for all, the game would cease to have meaning.

Curious, isn't it?

[PolarBoy]

Actually the goal of Nomic, it would seem, is to make the game too complicated for the other players, as I doubt that they would knowingly pass a rule that allowed another player to win. My theoretical proposal from earlier works, but such a maneuver cannot be extended to win the game, only to force certain players to lose. Further it is bad strategy, as it eliminates complexity from the game that a player needs to shroud himself in in order to win.

At any rate I mainly proposed this rule as a test of the game's direction. We don't have to play a military oriented game. That was just an idea that naturally sprang from the ownership of territory.

[PolarBoy]

Well it has the all the makings of an official proposal presented in a timely manner. The problem with this proposal, I suppose, is that it's thinking too far ahead. Assuming military action becomes part of the game, this would basically set up a "death star" of sorts that greater powers could take advantage of. Bear in mind that weaker players would band together and establish a balance of power. At any rate, it doesn't look like players even want military action within the game. Which is fine by me really.

[PolarBoy]

no other bids were received. Please make your proposal.

[PolarBoy]

A mutable rule may not supercede an immutable rule.

[PolarBoy]

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.

...

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.

110 takes precedence over 211, so 211 is void anyway.

[PolarBoy]

I'm ok with the interpretation since we've ruled it legal by loophole to do multiple actions with the same proposal.

I'd like it made explicit how many points and gnomes a probationary player begins with, but I like this proposal.

[PolarBoy]

Vote: Yes

[PolarBoy]

I've been wanting out myself. I've just been having trouble staying interested in this game.

[PolarBoy]

Norinel and mathcam, one should note that games have an implicit agreement associated with them that the player not be affected by the game in any scope beyond his own consent. That means that if one wishes to forfeit, he can, whether the game has provisions for it or not. These implications exist in the metagame sphere and therefore cannot be overridden by the game itself unless the players specifically agree to it. That would put the rules in the social sphere and therefore give them more weight in the ethics of the situation.

In short, any player can forfeit at any time, because this is, after all, only a game.

[PolarBoy]

Actually I didn't bother reading 113 because I thought I remembered it saying that no penalty worse than forfeiture could be incurred, but without mentioning any particular mechanism for forfeit. Ah, well, it wasn't vital to my point anyway. I keep forgetting that there's basically nothing implicit in these rules.

[PolarBoy]

Actually I was resigning too. Sorry.