Nomic

[gslamm]

<'jack>

If you get a game of gostack going, let me know.

</'jack>

[Fishbulb]

I'm kinda stuck here, too. I think it is too much to lose, and not very beneficial. As long as the front post is current, why do we need it repeated every page?

[CoolBot]

By concorrent, I just mean the rules that are currently in affect. No where is it indicated that we will keep track of the rules anywhere, so I think it's a good idea to have a rule mandating we do so. I find all the information being in the opening post to be slightly inconvient. Also, it places a burden on Polarboy with little gain. This rule trys to address both of those issues. I am willing to amend it so that we only post the 3xx rules that pass.

[PolarBoy]

Actually my initial plan was to run a "Master Book" in the opening post, in fact it is still my intention. But I thought it would be interesting for anyone reading afterward to be able to see the rules evolve over time as well, so being able to see where all the rules stood at a certain point in th game would be interesting.

[shadyforce]

Just out of curiosity, can I unvote?

[CoolBot]

I don't see anything in the rules that would preclude that. In fact, there really is nothing about how votes are counted.

How's this for clearing up the confusion: Instead of reading "the concurrent numbered rule set," proposal 301 reads "the numbered and currently active rules"

I believe I can make this ammendment by rule 111, since the word concurrent was unclear.

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.

If no one objects by 1:00 PM EST Friday, I'm going to go ahead and make this change.

[shadyforce]

I invoke judgement on your interpretation of rule 111.

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.

I claim that according to the wording of the above rule (111), and since voting has already started on the proposed rule (301), no amendments may be made to the rule and voting must continue until everyone has voted.

Further, and until such a time as someone points out where the rules as they stand specify otherwise, I am withdrawing my vote and

voting: NO

.

[Stewie]

Then:

nay

[Scalebane]

Who is judge in this case?

[massive]

It would be whoever is "to his left", i.e., before him in the queue, so Stewie would be the Judge for that one.

[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

[Stewie]

Well, before I judge we have to invoke judgement, but in a case like this I'd say that the people that already voted would have to either confirm their vote or change it, and the people that didn't vote should vote. If that's not against the rules, of course. afaik, it's not.

[CoolBot]

Stewie, shdayforce already invoked judgement.

I invoke judgement on your interpretation of rule 111.

On the issue of chaging votes, I'd invoke judgement, except it seems immaterial now. Since Stewie judged everyone would have to revote in the case of an ammendment, there's plenty of chance to change votes.

[shadyforce]

Ok, so scrap all votes, make your amendments and when everyone is happy that it makes sense, we'll vote on it.

[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

[CoolBot]

I like it, mathcam. Though I'd add a part about a mandatory discussion period before the first vote is cast. Not too long, maybe a day or two. As it is now, anyone can end discussion (and clarification) by casting a vote.

Anyway, here's the amended proposal:

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.

[shadyforce]

A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate.

There is alrady a mandatory time, it is just at the discression of the proposer or the judge if asked.

Anyway, by

the numbered and currently active rules

do you mean all of the rules currently in effect which is all the 1**, 2** and 3** rules?

[PolarBoy]

I think he means any rules that haven't been somehow overturned. I'm

still voting yes

for proposal 301.

[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

[Scalebane]

I would have to say that I am going to have to

Vote Yes

[Fishbulb]

Well, I don't have anything against it, so

Vote: Yes

on 301.

[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

[PolarBoy]

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

[CoolBot]

do you mean all of the rules currently in effect which is all the 1**, 2** and 3** rules?

Yes. Unfortunatly I didn't think about the length of the posts in the later stages of the game. Still, we can amend it later if it becomes a problem.

And just to make my implicit vote explicit,

vote: Yes

Oh, and please note that even if massive, shadyforce or Stewie votes no, the other two still have to vote as well so I can caculate how many points I receive.

Current Votes

CoolBot - Yes
FishBulb - Yes
massive - Unreported
Mathcam - Yes
PolarBoy - Yes
Scalebane - Yes
Shadyforce - Unreported
Stewie - Unreported

[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