Nomic

[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

[CoolBot]

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

[shadyforce]

That's not sniping, he had 3/4 of an hour. Shame on you Cam!

[mathcam]

How embarassing.

Cam

[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.

[CoolBot]

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

m

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

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

[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.

[CoolBot]

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

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

[Norinel]

I certainly don't obect, not that it matters.

On several nitpicky notes, by "proposal number", I assume you mean the number of the proposal currently being made/discussed? That could be reworded. Also, the Territory Disbursement clause's self-destruct statement deletes the definition of territory 4's name as The Core but doesn't explicitly put it into the new Territory Names clause. (If you want to interpret "chosen name" as the name chosen by the player in the disbursement.) Also note that the normal rule proposal process probably continues during disbursement. And if I were rewriting D4, I'd probably say "For the purposes of win conditions involving points, a player's score is considered to be the sum of his/her score for other game purposes and the number of territory points he/she possesses."

(who's score drops by 10)

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

If anyone doesn't have any good proposal ideas, make one about non-players pointing out heinous grammatical errors. (And if you want a serious idea, don't listen to me.)

[CoolBot]

Alright, I humor the non-player.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CoolBot]

So this is my changed proposal:

312: Nomic Land

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

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

vote: Yes

[shadyforce]

Vote: No

[mathcam]

Vote: Yes

Cam

[PolarBoy]

Vote: Yes

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

[CoolBot]

Er, don't you mean Friday?

[Scalebane]

Vote yes

[massive]

vote yes

if only to see Trial By Combat

[Stewie]

Vote: yes

[CoolBot]

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

[Norinel]

On that matter, you might want to amend the Trial by Combat rules so that they work for nonunanimous rule passage. Maybe something like "After any vote (proposed, say, by Player A) in which exactly one more yes vote would be required to pass, Player A may challenge one player voting no (say, Player B) to a game of Paper-Rock-Scissors..."

[mathcam]

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

Cam

[Fishbulb]

Sorry, folks. I'm going to have to withdrawl from this game. I kept thinking I'd have time to catch up and get back into the game, but unfortunately I never did.

[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.

[CoolBot]

I'll take territory 7 and name it Botia.

Sorry to see you go, Fish

[PolarBoy]

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