Nomic

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at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)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

[shadyforce]

lol, well done mate.

[shadyforce]

Why don't we just pm the choices to the particular judge in the situation. We could also having a rule that states the judge must make his decision as consistent with the rules as he can, or something like that. In other words a rule that states the judge can't make a judgement based on personal gain, and must judge fairly.

[CoolBot]

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

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

[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.

[CoolBot]

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

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

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

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

[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?

[CoolBot]

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

[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

[massive]

Certainly sounds fine to me. However, I wish you guys hadn't brought up the idea of cheating, as now I'm going to be wondering every time something like this occurs.

I was so happy being naive! Ignorance really is bliss!

No?

[PolarBoy]

You have no idea massive.




Which I guess makes you really happy.

[CoolBot]

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

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

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

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

[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

[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.

[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

[CoolBot]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[massive]

That would be excellent, as my brain is mush thanks to the holidays and playing "Apples to Apples" with people with no subjective interpretation skills whatsoever.

[CoolBot]

Alright, here's the arguement against:

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

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

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

For reference:

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.

[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