Nomic

[CoolBot]

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.

[CoolBot]

The Rule Report

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at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)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If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it.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 If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.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

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 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.

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.

Prop. 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.

[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

[CoolBot]

A veto is G$30000, when you consider that cost of getting to the moon in the first place. Basically, Player A is risking not quite an extra vote and Player B is risking a territory, which could be worth on upwards of 128 points!

[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.

[CoolBot]

Well, I did use the worst case scenario just to make a point. Acutally, it'd be hard for someone to lose 128 points, if only because holding all 9 territories gives 200 points.

The new prop looks nice, but I do wonder why you dropped the part about holding the Judge to his honor.

[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)

[CoolBot]

Looks good, but I'd like to note that there is a chance that the Core can't be reassigned, since that would mean someones territory points would drop below zero.

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.

[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

[CoolBot]

It's not contradictory; it just forbids players from taking the Core until they have at least 56 territorial points. Anyway, it's how I intended it, and I can's see any other internally consistent way of reading it.

[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

[CoolBot]

I don't really think we can ignore the second part of the line, since it's entire existence is to take care of the times when Player A has less than G$5000. Not to mention that no where does it say we can't have less than G$0 (something we should probably fix somewher down the line).

The whole debate is tangental, though, since your prop works with either interpetation (since player are not compelled to reassign the Core, but may do it if they'd like). If it ever comes up, we can simply send it to judgement.

[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

[Scalebane]

Vote: Yes

[shadyforce]

Vote: YES

[CoolBot]

vote: Yes

[Stewie]

vote: yes

[mathcam]

Massive and PB...

[CoolBot]

Actually, the deadline was 20 minutes after Stewie's vote, so we're waiting for the next prop now.

[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?

[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

[CoolBot]

I like the idea, but I think it's actually too expensive to launch an attack. Worse, its asymmetric, in that only the player with the Core can launch one. And since having the Core means already having serveral other territories, we're just giving someone who's leading one more advantage.

[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?

[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