Nomic

[CoolBot]

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

[mathcam]

Uh oh for Coolbot.

Cam

[CoolBot]

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at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)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If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it.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 If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.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

[mathcam]

Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Cam

[CoolBot]

grr, I was afraid of that.

[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.

[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

[shadyforce]

Rock-paper-scissors... *sigh*

I agree completely. No ambiguity there. Straight to vote?

[Scalebane]

Actually, this rule really isn't terrilbly interesting, unless I missed something which says a player gets more points if their rule is passed unanimously. I really would like to spice the game up a bit, but right now, I would have to vote no.

[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

[CoolBot]

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

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

Code: Select all

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

[Scalebane]

Yes, but they are not required (at least after the first two times around.)

[Stewie]

Can't that be abused though? Imagine, player a and b send their choices to player c. Player c wants the proposal to be passed, so player c changes player a's choice if necessary, so he beats player b, and the proposal is passed.

[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

[CoolBot]

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

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

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

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

[Stewie]

or we can make it like this, which would be fool proof, in my opinion:

both player a and b make an account in www.invisionfree.com , a site that gives free boards. They then make a post there, saying either rocks, papers, or scisors. When both players are done posting their choice, they post here telling everyone so. When both players did so, they give the links to their boards (which by the way, they didn't do before, so the board was private) and then we check the boards timetag to confirm that the post was done before he or she came here to say that they posted. THis way we get a impartial judge, and a fair desicion. Unless someone wants to point out it's problems (other than the fct that it's time consuming)

[CoolBot]

Do you mean each player would have their own board?

[Stewie]

yes, and after that the boards would be deleted, so if there's a need to use them again, the players can make one with a different url, so the opponent can't see their choice.

[CoolBot]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[CoolBot]

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

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

[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