Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Ranmilia]

Too complex and I don't see much of a purpose for it.

Summary of game thus far:
"Hey let's let non-players vote!  Haha that'll be awesome!  There'll be chaos!"
"Schweet!  Interest levels way up!"

Almost every single proposal since then:
"... oh god, they can actually vote!  Wait no chaos is bad let's do our best to take away the mob's influence... by choking them in rules so they don't care enough to want to vote!"

This is stupid.  You folks really want to get rid of the mob that badly, then just go repeal 310 or whatever it was.  There's likely enough player (and non player) sentiment in that direction to get it passed now.

[Carthrat]

<Excal> Here is a rule that gives the mob power and an agenda.
<Alex> You are clearly trying to get rid of the mob!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaano.

[Ranmilia]

I prefer an agenda of pure chaos with no win condition, as was covered in past proposals.  Also anything injecting this much complexity and trying to separate the non-players further does indeed reduce mob power and interest.  See QR's post, she summed it up very well.  It reads like an attempt to keep the mob out of this topic.

[Excal]

I'll be voting nay.  Adding our own topic is unneccesarily adding layers of complexity to the game that do not really add to the overall enjoyment of it.  Non-players were added in to keep it from dying and that process seems to be really effective so far.  I don't see why we need our own 'mini-game' to keep us from falling off a cliff and losing interest.  If we really need that to keep us posting and interested, then there's a bigger problem than just the lack of a mini-game.  The mob vote is really as much as the non-players need.  If this game were to somehow end some vague day in the future, there's always the option to play another game and have everyone who didn't get in on this one, get in on it. 

If you're goal is to flat add players, then do that.  Propose a rule where everyone can send Rat a PM saying 'Add Me' in addition to their 'Yea or Nay' and they will be added as players.  That way you still get your influx of active participation without the need to toss us cookies to stay interested.  Much more effective, I think.

Eh, I know that's not anywhere near to why I voted to let non-players in.  My whole goal is to allow people to try their hand at the game without taking up any obligations.  And to give them the closest thing to joining the game as I can.  As for why the extra topic, from what I can tell there's two issues there.

The first deals with the necessity of it.  In this, I believe it's a good thing to have because under this rule, we'll have two proposals to talk about in this thread.  One proposed by a player in turn, and one proposed by the Mobb.  I would like for the mobb proposals to be something that the lot of you can propose and discuss on your own in order to properly refine them.  And I felt that it would lead to this topic being tangled.

The second is the separation.  That I proposed mostly because there is a general sentiment here that the Players are trying to screw with the Non-Players in order to guard their own interests.  Since I am not willing to get rid of the safeguards such that the balance of power rests with those who are also taking the obligations and penalties of playing as opposed to those who can simply leave if they so choose.  So, I suggest the separation so that your conversations can happen without being interrupted or influenced by those you see as being hostile to your interests.

Given that I may be wrong on both of those considerations, I'm willing to amend them if there is sufficient concern there.  They're certainly not central to my proposal.

As for the idea of simply allowing whoever wants to join to become a player.  I do add one change to facilitate that.  As well as the ability for anyone outside the game to do that if they so desire as well by making it an actual proposition.  In addition, I like the dynamic of two groups.  It's part of why I tried to find a way to make things work such that the non-player mechanics are not similar to the player mechanics.

Finally, I would like to apologise to Tom.  I should not have been so blunt at you.

[EvilTom]

No problem.

[Ranmilia]

Sorry, I should clarify that my comments mainly stem from Soppy's old proposal, and the fact that a lot of recent ones have felt very similar to it.  Excal in particular may not have been coming from the same place.  This... is at least very, very similar, though.  I'm 100% opposed to a split topic and separate conversations, and nearly as strong against the non-players having a win condition. 

A part of what Excal said is useful here.  I'd like the balance of power to remain at least even, or if possible tilted in favor of those who can leave if they choose, and not in the hands of those taking the obligations and penalties of playing.  The reason for this is that more interest in the game is universally good, and more power in the hands of the mob ensures that via making everyone consider the general popularity of their proposals rather than privatized self interest.  In other words, the mob will tend to pass things that are awesome and fun and veto things that are not, so people must make proposals that are awesome and fun.  If the mob gains any sort of self interest in the game beyond making it fun, this is lost.  Ditto for taking the mob out of the player's discussions.

[Excal]

Hmm, I'll strike the separate topic idea then, proposals can just be sent directly to Rat, who will add a separate ballot just for Mobbsters to vote on for their proposals.

As for your other two ideas, let's just say that I can see exactly where you're coming from and that I disagree.  I believe that giving penalties without giving benefits will only lead to resentment, and following through on that will only lead to a greater deal of resentment on the part of the players.  This is a bad formula.  As for the win condition, I think it would do more to focus the Mobb.  Besides, it's not like having a win condition has kept me from trying my best to do things that screw around with the game and generally trying to be interesting.

Anyways, just going to ready a final draft of my proposal before sleep.

[Excal]

317. a) Players will alternate in alphabetical order by the name they signed up for the game under. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points, new players start with points equal to the player furthest from the winning condition.  "Player" is a term that will be specifically applied to anyone who is registered as a participant in this game, accrueing all of the rights and obligations accorded to someone in such a position.  "Non-Player" is any registered forum account that is not listed as a "Player" in the first page of this game.

b) Non-Players may make proposals to the Moderator, who will then post these proposals when the Voting Phase begins.  "Non-Players" each have one Proposal Vote to be used specifically to decide which Proposal they wish to put forward.  In the case of a tie, the Moderator will pick the winner.  The winning proposal will be unveiled when the next player Proposal is entered, and it will run side by side with the player proposal, with both being voted on.  If no proposals are put forward, then no Non-Player proposal will run alongside the Player proposal.  Also, when the voting phase is completed, all proposals are taken off the board and must be resubmitted if still wanted.  In any round where a second proposal is in effect, all eligable voters receive one additional vote that they may use as they wish.  This vote counts as one vote for both voting weight and scoring purposes.  Additional votes gained by other laws may be attached to this vote, but if so, as considered to count only as added weight, and will not count as additional votes for scoring purposes.

c)  Non-Player Proposals will start at 401 and are bound by all of the rules and laws which effect Player proposals.  As well, the person whose proposal is picked will gain Mobb Points equal to their proposal number minus 391, multiplied by the percentage of votes in favour of their proposal with -1 Mobb Point for each vote against.  Due to the group nature of the Commons, any Non-Player who votes against the winning proposal will gain 3 Mobb Points, while any Non-Player who votes for the winning Proposal will gain 10% of the Mobb Points gained by the person who made the winning proposal.

d)  Non-Players may win the game in the following manner.  In all of these cases, X equals the number of points needed for a player to win the game.  Any individial member of the Commons may win by accumulating X Mobb Points.  A victory in this matter grants victory to the Player with the most points, and causes everyone else to lose.  However, the Mobb may also win by collectively accumulating (.8X * 10) Mobb Points, in which case every Player loses, as well as the three Commons members closest to X, but everyone else with Mobb Points wins.

e) For purposes of unanimous votes, the Non-Players shall count only as a single Commons vote, to be decided by the outcome of their majority vote.  In this matter, a tie shall count as an abstention.


Only changes are at the end of a) for definition of Player and Non-Player, and at the beginning of b) in order to remove the separate topic and refine the mechanism for giving the Mobb their proposal.

[EvilTom]

This is a lot better.

However, the Mobb may also win by collectively accumulating (.8X * 10) Mobb Points, in which case every Player loses, as well as the three Commons members closest to X, but everyone else with Mobb Points wins.

I don't really understand what's going on here; isn't .8X * 10 just 80X? The Mobb currency is confusing.

[Excal]

8X, actually.  Which I suppose if I wanted to simplify things I would have put down.  But it's like that because my thought process is 80% of a winning score for 10 Non-Players.  There is no practical difference in precisely which notation I use to express that so long as it is expressed properly.

[Hunter Sopko]

Besides, why the hell should we not let "non-players" play. 

I know what you mean by this, but this quote amuses me to no end.

For Rat, who supposes that the idea that they can win creates incentive to play... I was under the impression that they wanted to participate without having to really worry about the particulars of the game. 

A part of what Excal said is useful here.  I'd like the balance of power to remain at least even, or if possible tilted in favor of those who can leave if they choose, and not in the hands of those taking the obligations and penalties of playing.  The reason for this is that more interest in the game is universally good, and more power in the hands of the mob ensures that via making everyone consider the general popularity of their proposals rather than privatized self interest.

...

If the mob gains any sort of self interest in the game beyond making it fun, this is lost.  Ditto for taking the mob out of the player's discussions.

Alex is right, and I think this is where people are getting wires crossed. You can't really have an unbalanced setup favoring the mob AND allow them to win, or it would just kinda suck.

In other words, the mob will tend to pass things that are awesome and fun and veto things that are not, so people must make proposals that are awesome and fun. 

Editing out the mob propaganda. Bad, Alex. Bad.


As for the proposal on the board itself, I'm torn on it as a whole. There are upsides and downsides. We players get an extra vote, more opportunities for points, but giving the mob self-interest... I'm pretty against. Plus, playing Devil's Advocate, it doesn't even look like it does a good job in accomplishing what you want anyway in terms of allowing the mob to win, since Prop # - 391 * % of victory with -1 for each negative vote is hahahahaha for points. You're basically selling the Mobb on the dream of winning when it's not really practical. If a prop passes at 60%, there's a chance that they'd be earning negative points depending on the amount of people who voted. If you want to say this is a balance thing, thats fine, but don't pass it off as an appeal to the mob's chance to win.

[Carthrat]

Voting phase!

317. a) Players will alternate in alphabetical order by the name they signed up for the game under. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points, new players start with points equal to the player furthest from the winning condition.  "Player" is a term that will be specifically applied to anyone who is registered as a participant in this game, accrueing all of the rights and obligations accorded to someone in such a position.  "Non-Player" is any registered forum account that is not listed as a "Player" in the first page of this game.

b) Non-Players may make proposals to the Moderator, who will then post these proposals when the Voting Phase begins.  "Non-Players" each have one Proposal Vote to be used specifically to decide which Proposal they wish to put forward.  In the case of a tie, the Moderator will pick the winner.  The winning proposal will be unveiled when the next player Proposal is entered, and it will run side by side with the player proposal, with both being voted on.  If no proposals are put forward, then no Non-Player proposal will run alongside the Player proposal.  Also, when the voting phase is completed, all proposals are taken off the board and must be resubmitted if still wanted.  In any round where a second proposal is in effect, all eligable voters receive one additional vote that they may use as they wish.  This vote counts as one vote for both voting weight and scoring purposes.  Additional votes gained by other laws may be attached to this vote, but if so, as considered to count only as added weight, and will not count as additional votes for scoring purposes.

c)  Non-Player Proposals will start at 401 and are bound by all of the rules and laws which effect Player proposals.  As well, the person whose proposal is picked will gain Mobb Points equal to their proposal number minus 391, multiplied by the percentage of votes in favour of their proposal with -1 Mobb Point for each vote against.  Due to the group nature of the Commons, any Non-Player who votes against the winning proposal will gain 3 Mobb Points, while any Non-Player who votes for the winning Proposal will gain 10% of the Mobb Points gained by the person who made the winning proposal.

d)  Non-Players may win the game in the following manner.  In all of these cases, X equals the number of points needed for a player to win the game.  Any individial member of the Commons may win by accumulating X Mobb Points.  A victory in this matter grants victory to the Player with the most points, and causes everyone else to lose.  However, the Mobb may also win by collectively accumulating (.8X * 10) Mobb Points, in which case every Player loses, as well as the three Commons members closest to X, but everyone else with Mobb Points wins.

e) For purposes of unanimous votes, the Non-Players shall count only as a single Commons vote, to be decided by the outcome of their majority vote.  In this matter, a tie shall count as an abstention.

[Carthrat]

New years stuff means I'm late. Anyway.

317. a) Players will alternate in alphabetical order by the name they signed up for the game under. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points, new players start with points equal to the player furthest from the winning condition.  "Player" is a term that will be specifically applied to anyone who is registered as a participant in this game, accrueing all of the rights and obligations accorded to someone in such a position.  "Non-Player" is any registered forum account that is not listed as a "Player" in the first page of this game.

b) Non-Players may make proposals to the Moderator, who will then post these proposals when the Voting Phase begins.  "Non-Players" each have one Proposal Vote to be used specifically to decide which Proposal they wish to put forward.  In the case of a tie, the Moderator will pick the winner.  The winning proposal will be unveiled when the next player Proposal is entered, and it will run side by side with the player proposal, with both being voted on.  If no proposals are put forward, then no Non-Player proposal will run alongside the Player proposal.  Also, when the voting phase is completed, all proposals are taken off the board and must be resubmitted if still wanted.  In any round where a second proposal is in effect, all eligable voters receive one additional vote that they may use as they wish.  This vote counts as one vote for both voting weight and scoring purposes.  Additional votes gained by other laws may be attached to this vote, but if so, as considered to count only as added weight, and will not count as additional votes for scoring purposes.

c)  Non-Player Proposals will start at 401 and are bound by all of the rules and laws which effect Player proposals.  As well, the person whose proposal is picked will gain Mobb Points equal to their proposal number minus 391, multiplied by the percentage of votes in favour of their proposal with -1 Mobb Point for each vote against.  Due to the group nature of the Commons, any Non-Player who votes against the winning proposal will gain 3 Mobb Points, while any Non-Player who votes for the winning Proposal will gain 10% of the Mobb Points gained by the person who made the winning proposal.

d)  Non-Players may win the game in the following manner.  In all of these cases, X equals the number of points needed for a player to win the game.  Any individial member of the Commons may win by accumulating X Mobb Points.  A victory in this matter grants victory to the Player with the most points, and causes everyone else to lose.  However, the Mobb may also win by collectively accumulating (.8X * 10) Mobb Points, in which case every Player loses, as well as the three Commons members closest to X, but everyone else with Mobb Points wins.

e) For purposes of unanimous votes, the Non-Players shall count only as a single Commons vote, to be decided by the outcome of their majority vote.  In this matter, a tie shall count as an abstention.


AndrewRogue: Abstained
Carthrat: Yea Yea
EvilTom: Yea
Excal: Yea
HunterSopko: Nay Nay Nay Nay Nay
Jo'ou Ranbu: Yea Yea
VerySlightyMad: Abstained

Bardiche: Yea
Gatewalker: Nay
QuietRain: Nay
Talasyen: Nay
SirAlex: Nay
Superaielman: Yea
Yakumo: Nay

The proposal was REJECTED!

<->

Nomic -- Turn Eighteen

Players - Points

1. AndrewRogue: -6
2. Carthrat: 34
3. EvilTom: 49
4. Excal: 40
5. Jo'ou Ranbu: 46
6. Sopko: 35
7. VerySlightlyMad: 43

It is Jo'ou's turn! Please propose a change to the rules. Your rule-change number is 318.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Rule 318: As an amendment to rule 309, the 10 points awarded to players who attain points by voting for rejected proposals/against passed proposals will be affected by the Mobb's vote.

The mechanics of the scoring procedure will apply as follow: For each vote of the Mobb that goes against the player's vote, half a point will be subtracted from the base 10, and half a point will be added to the player's score for each Mobb vote that goes with the player's vote. This cannot lead to negative bonuses, but the 10 base also cannot be superceded.

=====================================================

This is basically a procedure to change up the 10-point system that Excal implemented, which feels rather insatisfactory for alternate point-gaining, since it encourages playing for score in a rather mindless way. While making it mostly a punitive method sounds pretty harsh, I honestly wanted a way to both incorporate the Mobb's vote in a more involved manner (albeit one that the mobb certainly has no reason to care about in the metagame) and create a less predictable metagame for the players. I'm, as usual, open to suggestions and mechanics changes.
 

[Hunter Sopko]

I like it. I can't really make any suggestions for it though.

[Talaysen]

This cannot lead to negative bonuses, but the 10 base also cannot be superceded.

What exactly does this mean?  What cannot be negative, total points or Mobb modifier to the +10?  What do you mean by "superceded"?

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

This cannot lead to negative bonuses, but the 10 base also cannot be superceded.

What exactly does this mean?  What cannot be negative, total points or Mobb modifier to the +10?  What do you mean by "superceded"?

I.e. the bonuses can't go higher than the base 10. And what I mean by "negative" is that you can't get a negative total bonus - i.e. you can't end up with an amount of points lower than 0.

[EvilTom]

You may as well just repeal the 10 points. I like the intention, but execution is clumsy.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

That's the thing. The basic idea of the alternate point-gaining is good. However, the execution of 10 points is very insatisfactory and makes the game way too linear. Repealing won't fix the abusability issue, it'll only lead it into a different direction. Also, could you point -where- the execution is clumsy, and how to improve it? I sorta need those pointers to know where to tweak for a more elegant law.

[Carthrat]

I don't really like this rule. Why is making the game less predictable inherently good? There's also nothing for players to get involved with- the choice to vote yea or nay, if you're trying for the points, remains the same; you just don't get as much if you're right. It's boring.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Then, what -wouldn't- be boring? I mostly want to discuss this aspect of the rules, since I find the current scoring system insatisfactory. What would improve things? What ideas could/should be implemented?

[Carthrat]

Turn the game into Civilization. Or possibly Risk.

I know I plan to.

[Carthrat]

That aside, I suppose I actually think the scoring systems as is work fine, and entirely new mechanics should be added to the game instead of tweaking the existing ones.

[Hunter Sopko]

I don't really like this rule. Why is making the game less predictable inherently good? There's also nothing for players to get involved with- the choice to vote yea or nay, if you're trying for the points, remains the same; you just don't get as much if you're right. It's boring.

Not really. It slows down the mechanic, but doesn't stop it entirely. Making it more unpredictable makes players less likely to vote for/against an amendment for sheer point value.

EDIT: I can see why you'd be opposed to it Rat, since it gives you less of a chance to catch up, but it also slows down players far ahead of you that are halfway to victory.

[Carthrat]

What is this halfway to victory, 200 points are required to win. We are still ages away.

I am in general against mechanisms that make the victory of.. *anyone* harder to get. Tension is good. Progress is good.