Nomic

[mathcam]

Yup, and being the first player alphabetically in the game, and I propose that mathcam automatically wins (i.e. is given 200 points).

Well, I've had enough time to debate it.

Vote: Yes

on Proposition "Cam wins".

No no votes? I guess it passes. Woo!

Anyone up for another?

Cam

p.s. \in.

[mathcam]

That's 4.... so we

Vote: Yes

or

Vote: No

on any particular rule proposal? Otherwise, we won't know when we should scrap a proposal and move on.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oops, I guess it was 5 already. I didn't realize PolarBoy himself was playing. Maybe PB'll stretch the limit?

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, I was going first ... grumble grumble

Unless I switch my username to

mashcam

....

Mwa ha ha ha!

Cam

[mathcam]

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.)

Cam

[mathcam]

I think we should adopt the following conventions. There is to be no amending of propositions once they have been made except to clarify (as it was in this case), and there is to be no unvoting unless there was confusion in the original amendment that was fixed by an amendment.

I think the rules are a little vauge on how to handle these situations. i'm happy to wait until my turn to propose this, but I think of it as an omitted immutable rule that should have been specified before the game.

If we don't allow unvotes, the game will move a lot faster. It just takes one person to say no to end a turn. Plus, this gives people incentive to understand all the ramifications of each amendment before voting.

Cam

[mathcam]

Agreed. Just re-post the entire thing.

What does everyone else think about the mechanisms for amending and unvoting that I give in my above post? It seems like a nice, concrete way of doing things. (Of course, this could always be amended)

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, I think it's an annoying but somehow still fun rule.

Vote: Yes

So, unless there are any objections, this proposition passes if everyone votes yes, fails as soon as anyone votes no, and there is no unvoting unless the proposition is formally re-amended.

Cam

[mathcam]

So just shadyforce and Stewie remaining? (I assume the proposer casts an auto-yes), or should would not have this be the case?

Cam

[mathcam]

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

Well, congressman can. Personally, I don't see any reason why anyone

shouldn't

be able to vote no on their own proposal, except for the possibliity that we just don't want that to be allowed.

Cam

[mathcam]

I thought we could discuss until the vote was concluded. I don't see how the rules prohibit it.

Cam

[mathcam]

I think basically I proposed a set of rules that governed this a few posts ago. Unless anyone disagrees, there is to be no amending of propositions unless a serious clarification is needed, in which case all votes are reset.

This way people have to make sure they unambiguously phrase their propositions the way they want them to before posting them.

Cam

[mathcam]

I agree with Fishbulb. Because it gives people points, I'll only be voting for things that make the game more fun (or, if possible, more advantageous for me). Prohibiting the possibility for lurkers is a good way to start in my opinion. But I haven't see other games...I could see how different instances of the same game could have had several drastically different game mechanics in place by now.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Yes.

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, are we going to count PolarBoy and Scalebane's votes as they occurred before the legal voting time?

Cam

[mathcam]

Fine with me. For the sake of fun-maximizing, we should not get too caught up in the technicalities.

Cam

[mathcam]

Why couldn't your proposal just change it from immutable to mutable

and[/u] "mutate" it.

Cam

[mathcam]

I was hoping for a continuous gradient between italics and underlines. This was just a test of the functionality of this board. That you would even imply that such an act were a "typo" is simply insulting.

Cam

[mathcam]

Cam

[mathcam]

Let's be clear that by virtue of our ability to make immutable rules mutable, that the immutable rules are not immutable. Twisted as that last sentence was, it makes sense. If we can change the rules, they are not immutable. So I too would be very very surprised if you can present a convincing example, Scalebane.

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, kind of. "Do you want fries or a coke?" doesn't mean you can only have one. The rule change has to "be any

one

of the following," if your interpretation is correct. If only we made "xor" a real word.

But even still, that rule itself can be modified. But I agree it is harder under that stipulation.

Cam

[mathcam]

I plan on voting yes. Did we set a deadline?

And I'm such an idiot. I keep checking back to page 1 to read the rules. We should make a rule about that or something.

Cam

[mathcam]

Uh. Oh. Spaghetti-O.

Cam

[mathcam]

Fair enough.

Vote: Yes

.

Cam

[mathcam]

Uh oh for Coolbot.

Cam

[mathcam]

Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Cam

[mathcam]

I think we need to spice the game up a little bit. I have 72 hours to come up with something, so I thought we could open discussion on this before being bogged down in the voting.

Unofficial Proposition

: 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).

Seems fun. Thoughts?

Cam

[mathcam]

No, you wouldn't do this to get more points. You would do it to get your rule passed. Right now, this is not incredibly important because (apologies) all of the rules so far have been relatively mundane. I'm envisioning something like the following scenario:

Scenario: Shadyforce has all but one point needed to win, and no one else is even close. Massive proposes that we raise the amount needed to win the game by 100 points, so that Shadyforce isn't quite so close. Clearly, everybody but Shadyforce votes yes. Shadyforce votes no. If we pass the proposition, Massive has a 50/50 shot at forcing Shady to overturn his vote. Does this make sense?

And you're right...rock-paper-scissors is stupid. If we want to do something like this, it should just be a coin flip or something.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, I wondered about that too. But we have the same problem with the "judging" aspect too, right? A judge could horribly mis-"judge" the scenario in order to get the result he wanted. Maybe we just have to assume an honor code of some kind?

Cam

[mathcam]

I don't see any problems with that, Stewie, although as you point out, it is someewhat time-consuming. If we wanted to bypass this, we could just make it a flip of a coin. We came up with a way of doing this in Intrigue Mafia early on...we simply look at the last digit (i.e. the hundredths digit) of the closing price of the NasDaq stock exchange. That's sufficiently unpredictable to be considered random, requires no work from anyone else, is easy to check, and unless anyone has powers of which I'm unaware, is unaffectable by the players.

I'm still got some time before my proposition is due. It sounds like I'm going to propose something to the extent of my last proposition. We just have to work out how this random thing is going to work. I'm fine with either Stewie's plan or the Nasdaq plan. In any case, I don't think it'll come up that often.

Cam

[mathcam]

Doesn't the fact that this

could

be done in theory mean that we, as civilied members of this board, can trust each other to report results accurately?

Would any of us really cheat to win a game? I think not, and I would trust anyone in this game to report my choices accurately. This is in the interest of

having more fun

...what greater cause is there than that? Trial by combat, as PB so nicely dubbed the proposition, would be a lot more fun if it were a simple matter of PMing people.

I'm decided. I'll post my proposition momentarily, and if you don't feel we can trust each other, then you're welcome to vote no.

Cam

[mathcam]

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.

I believe the floor is now open to debate.

Cam

p.s. I like the idea of naming all of our propositions.

[mathcam]

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.

Cam

[mathcam]

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?

Well, yes. We could do some painfully elaborate thing with the Nasdaq. But as I was saying before, the

existence

of a correct way of doing it means that we should be able to agree amongst ourselves to not cheat. If there were absolutely no way of making sure we could do this fairly, then by all means I would expect people to cheat when judging. But there

is

a way to do it, so the only reason to vote this down is to intentionally slow down the game.

So the choice is this:
a) Agree to be honest on your word as a gamer, or
b) Make us do the NASDAQ thing, thereby slowing down the game every time this occurs.

CoolBot has a good point about the unanimity clause eventually becoming worthless. I would like to amend the proposal to take care of this, and I believe this amendment to be legal as it was the original intent of the proposition: to address issues where one vote separates the passing or failing of the proposition. It is not a change in the proposition intended to improve the content, only to better state the intent of the author.

Cam

[mathcam]

I concede that I'm on slightly shaky ground, but "clarification" is permissible and I'm calrifying what I had intended when I wrote the rule. Plus, I'm not sure I understand the simple majority clause in the first place:

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.

It's not talking about other proposition needing a simple majority...it's talking about

this

proposition if it doesn't get passed for two rounds? I'm confused.

Frankly, I think the proposition will be fun whether or not we amend it, as most of the time, we'll be in the position where unanimity is required anyway. Plus, as CoolBot mentions, we can always amend the proposition later.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oh, I get it. "This rule" means Proposition 203, not the rule that's being referenced

in

the proposition. Is there any objections to me amending my proposition based on my claim that I'm clarifying the original intent of the proposition? If not, let's go to voting.

Cam

[mathcam]

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

That seems like a good way to do it. Massive?

Cam

[mathcam]

I agree with CoolBot, though I would have preferred the other version. I withdraw my request for arbitration, and suggest we move to vote.

It turns out the amendment I wanted to make barely affects it anyway, so I still like the proposition. Plus, anyone can always amend it later.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Yes

.

Cam

[mathcam]

Anyone want to just cut it short, and declares whoever has the most points as the winner? Seems fair.

Cam

[mathcam]

(You're talking about my proposition, right? I don't think voting has started on PolarBoy's yet).

Cam

[mathcam]

Hmm, I would have thought a proposition would be well defined. For example,

Proposition 306: Bananas pigeon breath monkey

would not be legal. Or maybe it is legal and just has no effect. I don't know. I guess there's no rule

against

it.

As for implementation, we could keep score by saying that after this round, I have "13+x" points, after next round, "13+2x," etc.

Is x a constant? Or can it depend on the player in question? Can x be "the number of times you've voted yes" or something like that? Or does it have to be a constant like 7? Pi? -2? (3i+5)?

I'll probably vote no on the proposition. I'm all up for messing with the scoring system, but this proposition is just trying to get us to throw 14 points into PolarBoy's lap while defering the creation of the

actual

rule until a subsequent turn.

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, I too now get it: amend "x" into something before voting on it. Got it.

I've been thinking about it...I'm not sure how anyone can win this game at all. Can't whoever's about to win be thwarted by a passing proposition from everyone else reducing their points to zero?

The only way I can see winning this game is if the rules become so technically complicated, that no one realizes that someone's about to win because of some unnoticed loophole in one of the propositions. This sounds fun and all, but we

could

be using our propositions to make the game more interesting.

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, I think we've had enough discussion.

Vote: Yes

.

Cam

[mathcam]

The reason I voted for it was simply for more complication...though I might have preferred something that depended on the turn number, or somethine like that. I'm sure the number of points needed will change at some point too.

Cam

[mathcam]

Mathematics dictates always pick rock.

Cam

[mathcam]

I have received choices from the following players:

PolayBoy.

These are the players who RPS choices have yet to be submitted:

CoolBot

Cam

[mathcam]

Tie game! Scissors for both (<--check out this judge's honesty)

resubmit.

Cam

[mathcam]

CoolBot (rocks) beats PolarBoy (scissors). Clearly sub-optimal play by PB. Tsk tsk.

Cam

[mathcam]

Isn't it 5 points in either case?

Cam

[mathcam]

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

Shady certainly had less than a minute, and came within 5 seconds or so of making, I'd say. By the time I went back to the forum after my post, Shady's post was already there.

I'm a lean, mean, posting machine.

Cam

[mathcam]

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.

So not only would the "max 25" rule not be made obsolete by your new rule, your proposition would be nullified. I think.

I'd be up for a proposition that changed 209 though....

Cam

[mathcam]

Seems okay to me. As far as I can tell, shady's proposition would have absolutely no effect. So why give him free points?

Vote: No

.

Cam

[mathcam]

So I guess we're just waiting on shadyforce then, eh?

Cam

[mathcam]

He did have an hour....I was waiting for him to post for like 10 minutes so I could snipe him.

Then I got bored and left.

Cam

[mathcam]

I really hate that rule, you know that?

Really? I don't see why.

Cam

[mathcam]

I like it too. I'm not sure I even see any points to discuss...I think this will interact nicely with my previous proposition, but we maybe CoolBot could change the word unanimous to be something like "unanimous among non-abstaining voters"?

Cam

[mathcam]

I was referring to the (Trial by Combat) proposition, CoolBot, which requires "all but one of the eligible voters..." blah blah blah. I wanted you to include in your proposition a clause that either amended my proposition to "eligible non-abstaining voters" or change your proposition to define eligible voters to be non-abstaining voters, or something like that.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Looks good to me.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: yes

Cam

[mathcam]

Hi, Norinel! Are you playing now? Or just following the thread?

Cam

[mathcam]

Very sneaky...I'll have to add you to my "Make sure they're not logged in while I'm posting something that might be the end of the page" list.

Cam

[mathcam]

Sorry, fishy.

Vote: No

Cam

[mathcam]

So Massive loses his turn?

Cam

[mathcam]

<--- Idiot.

I came up with what I thought would be a good proposal, ironed some kinks out, and then went home without actually posting it in the thread. Sigh.

Cam

[mathcam]

We could have randomly generated starting values somehow. I like the idea.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

I meant to mention that I missed sniping Scalebane at the top of this page by like 7 seconds. I hit preview before my taunting post, and he was already up. Tarnation!

Cam

[mathcam]

Leaving Fishbulb and PolarBoy, I think, to vote.

Cam

[mathcam]

How about the one on this page? Really, it's up to you. You propose what you want, and then we'll vote on it. I could unvote and revote if the game requires it.

Cam

[mathcam]

Mostly just the initial value of 0.

Cam

[mathcam]

Looks good to me.

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

Just PB and Stewie, methinks.

Cam

[mathcam]

Fine, fine. Shadyforce too. No need to whine.



Cam

[mathcam]

Nicely done...I missed my chance at sniping. Shame on me.

Cam

[mathcam]

I still somewhat dislike the proposal. Can players be "reminded" as soon as it's their turn? If so, this proposal simply gives 3 points to whoever can manage to be the last voter of the previous round. People will hold off their vote in order to do so, so the game would actually

slow down

.If not, the proposal is way too ambiguous in terms of how long you have to wait before something's considered a reminder.

Cam

[mathcam]

I see. Okay, I'll think about that for a while. I'm not sure why we need the proposal, though, CoolBot does it for free anyway.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, sorry Stewie, but

Vote: No

Cam

[mathcam]

I definitely like the idea and think we should have more proposals like this. I want to think about the specific rules and make sure I don't see anything that jumps out as being flawed before I vote.

Cam

[mathcam]

How embarassing.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, that was the original intent, but then I proposed it and it was too late to amend. Oh, well.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'll claim territory 2. I also would prefer the proposal if there were no negative values allowed.

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, la di frikkin' dah.

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.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oh, I didn't realize that that was the final version. I like it.

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

Hmm...though I agree with this in sentiment, we're not really that close to breaking the limit (who knows? Someone might win before we even get there), and I can't help but feel this is an attempt to gain some points without actually putting any effort into enhancing gameplay.

Cam

[mathcam]

There's also nothing stopping you from proposing a 2-part rule:

Part I: Repeal the mutable rule limit.
Part II: Amazingly cool addition to the game.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yes, your rule could be the enactment of the mutable rule which repeals the mutable rule limit and adds an addition to the game.

At least, that's

my

take on it. It's not like it's a great advantage to be able to propose multiple rules in one. It makes it all the more likely that

someone

isn't going to like some part of it, and get it vetoed. What do others think? Can rules be multi-part (where the different parts are vastly different)?

Cam

[mathcam]

It also seems pretty clear to me that it should be allowed simply by semantics: If your rule can only do one thing, make that one thing to be to do two things. It's like wishing for more wishes.

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, if we have 21 or 22 already, then I guess this does seem kind of useful. I'm still a little hesitant to reward people for coming up with easy fixes, though. The more we make people think to constructively improve the game, the more fun it is for all. I guess...

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

Nervously....*bumps*

Cam

[mathcam]

Agreed. I'm even pretty ready to vote, though we might as well make sure no one has any good points against the proposal.

Cam

[mathcam]

Few=2, right?

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

I have a question about using $G to buy votes...when does this happen? When someone votes? Or can they decide to use their vote some time later, after say a couple of other people have voted? The timing seems particularly tricky...makes me wonder if we should't

vote

in turn order as well.

I like the new proposal, though.

Cam

[mathcam]

So I guess we leave it to the arbiter if the above case does come up before it's resolved. I like PB's original interpretation best myself. In any case,

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

Why did shady post the rules? That's weird.

Cam

[mathcam]

Ummm...yes, you've totally ruined the game. I hope you're happy.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, you can't win just by having principles....

hm, unless someone makes that the new rule....

hmmm.....

Cam

[mathcam]

I'd like it to be phrased a little more clearly about the timing of everything too. When, exactly, does a player have to decide whether or not he goes to the moon? And when does he declare his intent to use his veto?

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

Excellent. I should have it up by this afternoon.

Cam

[mathcam]

Proposal

:

Proposal 304 shall be amended to read:

Proposition 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 the next player up that is neither Player A nor Player B). If Player A wins, Player B forfits all points earned directly from voting no and Player B must choose one of Player B's territories to cede to Player A. If Player B wins, Player B earns G$4000.

For reference, here's the original proposition 304:

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.

In short, the proposition will make it less advantageous (or at least more risky) to continually hover around the end and attempt to put on a sole no vote to gain some points.

Any feedback before I make it official?

Incidentally, according to the original proposition 304, anyone who's proposal has been voted no on by exactly one person is still entitle to challenge someone (usually CoolBot) to a game. The proposition only specifies "After any vote..." So for example, Massive can challenge CoolBot to a game right now. If Massive wins, CoolBot loses his ten points, and if CoolBot wins, Massive gives CoolBot 5. It's up to massive.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, in the new proposal I limit it to 48 hours. This was one motivation for the amendment in the first place.

Cam

[mathcam]

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.

And thus providing disincentive to being the

only

person to vote no on any given proposal. But G$4,000 is also almost half a veto.

Cam

[mathcam]

Ah, right. I was thinking it was just the $10,000 purchase price...I forgot it cost money to

get

to the moon. But you're right. The proposal is far too skewed, though I think Player A should definitely get the better of it, but not by that much. Let me think about this.

Cam

[mathcam]

Still unofficial revised proposal is below. I don't think it's as bad as you implied, CoolBot. First, it's vary rarely 128 points, and depending on how territories start moving, it will probable be rarely more than 2 or 4. Plus, there's also the possibility that the property being ceded is the core itself, which could be interesting. More feedback!

Proposal 319 (Amendment of Proposal 304).

Proposal 304 shall be amended to read:

Proposition 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).

- 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.

[mathcam]

It was unintentional...thanks for pointing that out.

Official

Proposal 319

(Amendment of Proposal 304).

Proposal 304 shall be amended to read:

Proposition 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.

(I'm in a hurry and have to run, so we'll make this official, but with no objections, we can pretend I wrote in a "Delete this proposal if it's passed" kind of thing. Or not)

[mathcam]

I interpret that as saying that a person's territory points cannot be below zero even if they have the core. I don't think that would stop a player from

getting

the core.

Thus, if a person had one territory and was given the core, they would then have 0 territory points...it wouldn't be that the person couldn't get the core in the first place.

According to the interpretation your present, subclauses D.2 or D.3 are essentially contradictory. If a player has the core, than a playyer's points

could

go below 0, thus violating D.3.

Cam

[mathcam]

Pretty simple: A player who owns the core territory and m territories has a territory score of

min(0, 2^(m-1)-56)

For example, in my line

If Player B wins, Player A loses G$5,000 (not to go below 0) and Player B gains G$10,000.

this does not mean that Player B is not allowed to win if Player A has less than G$5,000. (Ignoring the second clause of a line temporarily). I feel like there's only way to possibly read this line, as any interpretation is not consistent with the rule that if Player B beats Player a at a game of RPS, then Player B wins.

Cam

[mathcam]

It's not true that it's entire existence is to take care of the times when Player A has less than G$5000. It is an

additional

clause that occurs only in the case when Player A has less than G$5000. The intent of that addition was to make sure that there was a potential loss for Player A in playing this game in the case where A had G$0.

I agree with your last paragraph.

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

Massive and PB...

[mathcam]

Personally, not really. I'm intrigued but wary of the idea of introducing proposal into the game that could form factions within the players.

Cam

[mathcam]

By the way mathcam, factions were the idea

Yeah, I understood. You asked

Is that the sort of game we want to play?

And my response was "Intrigued, but wary."

Cam

[mathcam]

One reason for attempting to avoid factions is the process of invoking judgment. Now that I think about it, consider the following:

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.

I claim that an immediate consequence of rule 107 (chosen at random) is that mathcam automatically and immediately wins the game. Does anyone disagree? If so, I'll have to invoke judgment. Let's see...who is the current judge...player before PolarBoy...oh, whadda ya know, it's mathcam...I wonder how

that

decision will come out.

What's to stop me?

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, I missed that. Then this goes back to what I was originally thinking about factions. Next turn, I could claim that PolarBoy and I should be declared automatic winners. Judge PolarBoy is very likely to accept this.

As to your proposed fix, I don't think factions will ever be a solid well-defined partitioning of the people. But there will be de facto alliances. Those are very hard to keep track of.

Cam

[mathcam]

In any case, I'm willing to drop it. The rest of this debate would be a mindless exercise in semantics anyway.

Has PB missed his turn? Or was that previous proposal official?

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: No

[mathcam]

Nope.

Cam

[mathcam]

[mathcam]

I'm happy interpreting it that way. I'll probably vote yes after some discussion, presuming we have some.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Yes

Cam

[mathcam]

I think I might as well throw it out there that while I'm happy to keep playing, I'm also happy to concede the game to CoolBot. He's killing us all in total score and has put way more effort into this than anyone else, so deserves the win. Maybe the next proposition you win with your bid should be a way people can resign.

Cam

[mathcam]

There already is a way people can resign- forfeiting as per rule 113.

While this is true, simply ignoring the thread until you auto-forfeit isn't really a courteous way to treat fellow players.

Cam

[mathcam]

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

Wow.

[mathcam]

Sounds fine to me.

Cam