Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

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

200 points where? 100 points as the rules state right now.

[Carthrat]

Read the second line of 209.

[Yakumo]

The Rat has a point.  We're less than a quarter of the way there and that's not considering the fact you know the scoring mechanics are going to change whenever someone gets close to winning. <_<

[Hunter Sopko]

Read the second line of 209.

...

::Headdesk:: Ugh. How annoyingly pointless. May I ask why you worded it like that?

[Carthrat]

Because I... CP'd it from a nomic site and didn't correct it at the time?

[Excal]

Honestly, I'd much rather see it be closer to the lines of +/- 5 from 10 based on how the Mobb votes.  Either that, or make the mobb score independant of whether you vote for/against the proposal, and maybe make it based on if you can guess which way the mobb will lean.

That said, I do like it as one of the few random factors that can be somewhat guessable.

[Hunter Sopko]

Given the recent revelation, we'll probably need to seriously rework it if we want to enact something like it. 200 instead of 100 kinda changes the ballgame.

[Yakumo]

I have to wonder why none of the players apparently read the rules to a game that is all about the rules to notice this beforehand.  It's not like it was hidden. <_<

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Hm.

Rule 318: As an amendment to rule 309, the points awarded to players who vote against a proposal that passes/for a proposal that fails will now function as described below:

The players now have the option to guess the way the mobb will vote (based on majority). If the players who choose to guess do so correctly, they will gain a bonus of 1 point per every mobb member that voted the way they guessed, capping off at +5. If they guess incorrectly, they will suffer a -1 point penalty per person who voted the opposite way to the one they guessed, capping off at -5. The choice to guess must be expressed during the voting phase.

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

This covers the idea Excal gave, adding an optional scoring system. I'm not sure this is terribly elegant, however.

[Carthrat]

a) Not entiiiiirely sure how that'll go, do write down the proposal *exactly as you want it to be printed*. Is this supposed to replace or add on to the existing system?

The rule is tolerable enough, though.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Rule 318: As an amendment to rule 309, the points awarded to players who vote against a proposal that passes/for a proposal that fails will have the added mechanic:

The players now have the option to guess the way the mobb will vote (based on majority). If the players who choose to guess do so correctly, they will gain a bonus of 1 point per every mobb member that voted the way they guessed, capping off at +5. If they guess incorrectly, they will suffer a -1 point penalty per person who voted the opposite way to the one they guessed, capping off at -5. The choice to guess must be expressed during the voting phase.

Basically, it's an add-on rather than a replacement, since this could get very messy to pass as an outright replacement. I guess there's no point to just banning that rule outright so far.

[Talaysen]

Is there any reason this has to be an amendment?  Seems like you could just make it it's own rule, since it doesn't actually conflict with anything.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Hmmm, makes sense.

Rule 318: The points awarded to players in the fashion described by rule 309 will have the added mechanic:

The players now have the option to guess the way the mobb will vote (based on majority). If the players who choose to guess do so correctly, they will gain a bonus of 1 point per every mobb member that voted the way they guessed, capping off at +5. If they guess incorrectly, they will suffer a -1 point penalty per person who voted the opposite way to the one they guessed, capping off at -5. The choice to guess must be expressed during the voting phase.

[Carthrat]

Apologies, I was late. Voting phase!

Rule 318: The points awarded to players in the fashion described by rule 309 will have the added mechanic:

The players now have the option to guess the way the mobb will vote (based on majority). If the players who choose to guess do so correctly, they will gain a bonus of 1 point per every mobb member that voted the way they guessed, capping off at +5. If they guess incorrectly, they will suffer a -1 point penalty per person who voted the opposite way to the one they guessed, capping off at -5. The choice to guess must be expressed during the voting phase.

[Carthrat]

Rule 318: The points awarded to players in the fashion described by rule 309 will have the added mechanic:

The players now have the option to guess the way the mobb will vote (based on majority). If the players who choose to guess do so correctly, they will gain a bonus of 1 point per every mobb member that voted the way they guessed, capping off at +5. If they guess incorrectly, they will suffer a -1 point penalty per person who voted the opposite way to the one they guessed, capping off at -5. The choice to guess must be expressed during the voting phase.

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

Bardiche: Nay
Laggy: Yea
Quietrain: Nay
Superaielman: Nay
Twilkitri: Nay
Yakumo: Yea

The proposal was PASSED!

<->

Nomic -- Turn Nineteen

Players - Points

1. AndrewRogue: -16
2. Carthrat: 44
3. EvilTom: 49
4. Excal: 40
5. Jo'ou Ranbu: 50
6. Sopko: 35
7. VerySlightlyMad: 53

It is Sopko's turn! Please propose a change to the rules. Your rule-change number is 319.

[Carthrat]

By the way, closest vote ever. A difference of 1... is still a difference!

[Hunter Sopko]

Rule 319- Each player must pick a non-player partner. That partner gets control over one of the player's votes. The player has the option of changing partners at the beginning of every turn, but cannot choose another partner for three turns after that. Any unused votes by the non-player will be credited towards the player's accrued votes.
1) An eligible non-player partner is one that has voted in the mob in a turn previous to the player's choosing them as their partner.
2) If the non-player does not vote for four consecutive turns, the player is penalized twenty points.
3) Non-players chosen as partners retain their Mob vote.

Just trying to tweak the gameplay aspects into something more interesting. Makes the players work with a mob player of their choosing. Mob doesn't have to think that much other than gaining another vote. If the non-player chooses not to vote, then the vote isn't wasted at least, it still goes back to the player. 1 is there to ensure that people choose partners that are participating/would participate (therefore ensuring their compliance). 2 is there for the same measure, and makes people change partners in order to prevent skirting that rule. It also prevents non-players from willfully giving the player their votes back, but also allows them to enter into conspiracy to cost players points.

Basically meant to enforce teamwork and trust between the partners. Choose them wisely~!

This is extremely open to change, but I thought it was something neat and different when I thought of it. Comments?

[Excal]

It certainly is different.  I suppose my main question is this.  Would a player be eligible for points from his vote based on how his partner used it?

[Carthrat]

I was gonna do something like this. But I sorely doubt anyone will pick a partner who they think might screw them later. Yet I like the idea of teamwork!

So let's also make partners M:tG cards. When a partner is selected, they must create an Avatar of themselves. The avatar is constructed as follows.

-Name: The partner selects a name for the avatar.
-Colour(s): The partner selects a colour for his avatar. The colour may be red, blue, green, black, white, a combination of the above (red blue, for example).
-Type: The partner selects a type for his avatar, e.g. goblin, troll, wizard, robot.
-Power/Toughness: The partner may divide eight points between power and toughness. Whole numbers only, and toughness must be at least *one* point.
-Abilities: The partner may select one of the following abilities. (First Strike, Haste, Flying, Trample, Regenerate: Ten Points, Regenerate: One Vote, Vigilance, Shadow, Protection From (one colour), Defender)

If a partner is killed, the player should lose the vote the partner provides until a replacement can be found (with some kind of delay.)

The details on how a partner is chosen probably need to change, as well as exactly how the vote is handled. Also some method for actually throwing down and having a fight would be highly desired.

[Carthrat]

Oh, and partners should probably have a stake in the game now that they're affiliated with a player. Like winning if they do. Or at least having their own goal so diplomacy and skulduggery have more than THE WHIMS OF FATE to go on. (Or everyone just picking their best friend.)

[superaielman]

Sounds neat Soppy.

[Hunter Sopko]

Oh, and partners should probably have a stake in the game now that they're affiliated with a player. Like winning if they do. Or at least having their own goal so diplomacy and skulduggery have more than THE WHIMS OF FATE to go on. (Or everyone just picking their best friend.)

I didn't really want to make anything more at stake for the non-player than losing the extra vote. I don't think winning particularly appeals to the mob at this point, though they can correct me if I'm wrong. No on your other idea though, Rat. You can propose that though if you want.

It certainly is different.  I suppose my main question is this.  Would a player be eligible for points from his vote based on how his partner used it?

They could, I guess. Not sure how to implement this though. Ideas?

[Carthrat]

Boring, then. Voting nay until it's spiced up. Or it's proposed how this makes things remotely more interesting.

As things stand it's 'pick someone you like and the game continues as normal.'

[Hunter Sopko]

Even if you choose someone you like you don't particularly have control over their vote. You could change on a whim, but you might get stuck with someone who's even less inclined to agree with you for three turns. Too much of this or trying to control them and the non-players just might decide they've had enough of you and decide to bomb your points.

Really depends on how the non-players react to this, I guess. If they decide to be sheep, then it does make it a little boring. But if they decide to be cut-throat and play with their gut, then it could change the game.

[Carthrat]

What do you mean by 'cut-throat'? The non-players have no goal except, apparently, lulz. The player has no real option but to suck up to his partner, who may be able to ruin his game because he thinks it's funny, or because the coin he flipped landed heads that day. I don't like the idea of a partner who just does what he feels like with little regard for anything. It's one thing if you agitate someone enough that they'll screw themselves to screw you, but they *have no potential loss* to worry about; it's all about their whims. I dislike being held hostage to whim.

Increasing their involvement without corresponding restrictions, adding win conditions (to the partners if not the mob), or just in general rules that enable us to *predict their freaking play*- the people who aren't in the game have enough influence as is.

It just comes back to making sure they like you. Which I'm sure all of us can accomplish (or maybe someone can't, and that person is fucked.) And thus the rule either does nothing or ruins someone pointlessly, in a way I really can't approve of. There's no strategy here, nor really much meaningful diplomacy.