Nomic

[shadyforce]

Yes, pick a time, preferrably GMT. (everyone knows how far they are from GMT, not everyone knows how far they are from CET, PST, or HADT.

Anyway, I feel your proposal needs to deal with the problem of voting. As it stands, everyone must vote on a proposal, and there is no allowance for people absent... the game simply can't proceed.

Perhaps if people fail make their proposal or people fail to vote after 72 hours, then the game proceeds without them and they are docked 10 points, and 3 hits -> their out or something.

I don't think there should be any allowance for pre-warned absenteesm. I think if they are going to be away, then they are still disrupting the game, and if they are going to be away 3 seperate times then they really shouldn't be in the game at all.

It's only going to create more complications and grey areas.

[shadyforce]

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at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)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

105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

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.

[Fishbulb]

Yeah, I think we could add a proposal to allow for recess, but I don't like the idea of the game being held up any time someone is out. That's what the two grace skips are for.

I see your point about extending it to voting. But I don't want to have anyone lose points for being skipped. Just make sure it doesn't happen three times.

Alright, a current version of

Proposal 302

:
Each player has 72 hours from the time their turn begins to submit a new proposal for voting and 72 hours from the start of a voting period to submit their vote. If he/she does not submit a proposal on time, the turn will move to the next player. If he/she does not submit a vote on time, they do not have a vote and the proposal will need one less vote for "unanimity". If any player forfeits their turn or misses a vote ten times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game. The number of skips will be kept on a seperate tally on the first post.

I think ten vote skips is pretty reasonable. So if someone does one or the other, their out. Their might be a better way to handle the voting part, so make sure and let me know what you think. And the last part about it being on the first post is, of course, up to PolarBoy. If he declines, I will change the last sentence to read: The number of skips will be kept on a seperate tally on Fishbulb's first post.

Alright, discuss.

(Discussion to end Monday 5:00 PM GMT)

[Stewie]

I think it's reasonable.

[shadyforce]

I think with 3 days grace period, 10 'lives' is far too much. I think we should be harder on inactives. It's not going to be that often any of us miss more than 72 hours that often do I say 3 lives is reasonable.

[Stewie]

I have a small vacation 2 or 3 times a year, plus unexpected blackouts, or internet problems. 6 is a much better number, but adding 4 chances more will pretty much eliminate the fact that someone might have problems for longer than 3 days, and therefore miss 3 turns in a row. 10 is good.

[Fishbulb]

Well, it is three for proposals. The ten is for votes. That's because a turn only comes after a week or two, but voting would be more frequent. Someone might miss several votes in a row.

[Fishbulb]

And I'll reiterate the 3 and 10 part again...

The numbers are not related. You can miss 2 proposals and 9 votes and still be in the game. But even if you have 0 missed proposals, when you hit 10 votes you're out, and vice versa. And the main reason is, if you have to be gone so much, even with forewarning, this game would take forever. Sure we could give unlimited skips, but then you'd be a tag-along, not even participating. I don't want the game to slow to boring level, and all of us are on enough to make these deadlines, so the graces are for any necessary absences, just don't make it commonplace.

[CoolBot]

I hate to throw a monkey wrench in the proceedings, but the current rules don't allow such a drastic amendmant. The only rule that addresses amendments is quite clear they are only for clarification and the like.

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.

Well I sympathize with fishbulb's change, I don't see how the current rules allows it.

[PolarBoy]

I don't see this as being multiple rule changes. Essentially we are dealing with absenteeism, be it on your turn or off. The fact that tallies for missed votes and missed turns are kept seperately does not change that fact.

I would like to point out, though, that fishbulbs most recent version of the rule is ambiguous on the point of whether missed turns and missed votes are counted seperately or together, and that it also does not mention the number 3 at all. This should be amended before we proceed.

[shadyforce]

CoolBot: Compare it with rule 111 itself. Rule 111 deals with questionable proposals, precedures for amending those, time limits for voting, who decides time limits, etc. But it deals with one general area: precedure for voting on proposals.

Just like proposal 302, which may have several parts, but deals with the one area: absenteeism.

[Fishbulb]

I would like to point out, though, that fishbulbs most recent version of the rule is ambiguous on the point of whether missed turns and missed votes are counted seperately or together, and that it also does not mention the number 3 at all. This should be amended before we proceed.

Oops, somehow I mistyped that part. "If any player forfeits their turn

three times

or misses a vote ten times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game." That's what I meant to type.

And the "seperate tally" was meant to cover that they were seperate tallies, but I guess it could be misunderstood to just mean seperate as in a seperate place. Sorry, the more I try to keep it simple concise, the more complicated it becomes.

[CoolBot]

I still say the amended proposal is illegal. We are only allowed to change proposals for the reasons I bolded above. Fishbulb's' original proposal:

Proposal 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

Is it unclear or ambigous? No.
Paradoxical? No.
Would this rule hurt the playing of the game? No, in fact, it protects it.
Does it consist of multiple rule changes? No.
Does it make no difference? No.
Is it of questionable value? No, clearly there is value to dissuading players from skipping their turns.

shadyforce, Prop 302 originally did not have several parts. It dealt with players be absent during their proposal turns. A proposal certainly can have multiple parts, but Prop 302 didn't.

To be clear, I'm in favor of regulating missed votes as well as missed proposals, but the current rules don't allow us to do so with prop 302. We can accomplish both in the following ways.

• 1. Fail 302. In some later proposal, we address both the issues of missed proposals and missed votes.
  2. Pass 302. In some later proposal, we amend 302 to include the issue of missed votes.
  3. Pass 302. In some later proposal, we pass a seperate rule to address missed votes.

I think I prefer option three best of all.

[Scalebane]

I completely agree coolbot, but the rules also state that the author of the rule decides upon the final form of the rule, before it is voted upon. I see no reason why he can't make the rule say whatever it wants, it is only player proposed amendments which matter, I think.

[PolarBoy]

Also, the most recent formally proposed version of the rule is ambiguous. Also it is arguably of questionable value if one is given too many or not enough misses and therefore is still open for amendment. I would appreciate a formal proposal of the most recent version of the rule before voting though.

[CoolBot]

The original proposition:

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

which I will refer to as P.302a.

The amended proposition:

Each player has 72 hours from the time their turn begins to submit a new proposal for voting and 72 hours from the start of a voting period to submit their vote. If he/she does not submit a proposal on time, the turn will move to the next player. If he/she does not submit a vote on time, they do not have a vote and the proposal will need one less vote for "unanimity". If any player forfeits their turn or misses a vote ten times during the course of the game, they shall be removed from the game. The number of skips will be kept on a seperate tally on the first post.

which I will refer to as P.302b.

P.302a is not unclear, paradoxical, or questionable. R.111 only allows proposals to be amended for these reasons. Further, P.302b doesn't address anything like these reasons; instead, it adds a whole new dimension to the proposal. Thus, in my estimation, P.302b is an illegal proposal, and unless it is judged (as outlined by R.212) otherwise, I will vote against it or any variants of it. I will, however, vote for P.302a.

[Fishbulb]

Well, if we can all be happy with the original proposition (which I fail to see any problems with) I'd much rather use it. The changed proposition was just to please everyone telling me it was ambiguous and whatnot. I think the first one is fine, just we will need something in the future to handle absenteeism during voting.

[Scalebane]

I agree, Fishbulb.

Would you care to declare the final proposition and that it is time to vote?

[Fishbulb]

Alright. Just like it was in my original proposition .

Proposal 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.

[CoolBot]

Fine by me. My only contention was that one couldn't add new things to a proposal once it's made.

[PolarBoy]

alright, we'll have to deal with absenteeism during voting some other way. I can deal with that.

Vote: Yes on 302

.

[Scalebane]

Vote: Yes

[shadyforce]

Vote: YES

!

[Fishbulb]

Actually, discussion doesn't end until 5:00 PM GMT. So we weren't supposed to vote yet, correct?

[cuban smoker]

hijack!

All nomic players... If you're having fun, you'll love Security Council Mafia in the Free Market Thread. Few spots left!