Author Topic: Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom) (Read 83028 times)

Yakumo · « **Reply #825 on:** February 06, 2009, 09:43:03 PM »

Excal, while I do understand you wanting to set things in stone, the reason I bring up the judgement is that Rat said he isn't even going to be able to process this voting phase before he leaves. The only way you're going to have a chance to set anything in stone different from what we have now is to have Snow make a temporary ruling. The rules even specifically state that later judges are not bound by earlier rulings or anything, so you can appoint a temporary mod to handle rules and then make a rule about changing the mod later when it really matters.

Still don't like the rule, by the way.

Kilgamayan · « **Reply #826 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:28:09 PM »

I can take care of the voting process if necessary, at the very least.

Excal · « **Reply #827 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:32:45 PM »

Eh, Yakko. I missed that part, so I do admit you have a very good point. But if this game is going to be going on for much longer, then I would like to have something for appointing the mod/person running the game to be a little bit more set in stone than just what random person selected by the dice says. Especially since random person might be the person leaving, or might simply decide that we aren't changing Mods (which Snow is entirely within his rights to say this time as well).

QR. There's some formulae you can just punch in to make it fairly easy. The rest is just dealing with counters. But yeah, I'd prefer somebody fairly non-partial who wants to do it.

Yakumo · « **Reply #828 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:37:44 PM »

Well, Excal, I understand what you're saying but short of forcing Soppy to change his rule to something that applies to this situation and then having Snow appoint a mod to handle that one vote count, I'm not entirely sure what else you can do about it. Well, okay, you could make Corwin make that his rule, but you get my point. I'm all in favor of having this set in stone but right now neither you nor I can actually do that and unless we get a temporary measure put in place, there's no way we'll be able to set it permanently and then the game just sits here and stagnates until Carthrat gets back from whatever he's doing.

Excal · « **Reply #829 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:41:59 PM »

You're right, Yakko. I can't do jack all about it save for one thing. I can bring it up, and it can be discussed, and hopefully the interplay of words and ideas will either convince a person making a proposal that this is something that they want, or will get enough other people speaking favourably about it, that it will convince a person making a proposal that this will get them point, which they ostensibly want.

Same way that if anyone has an idea that they think would be cool, they're perfectly within their rights to post the sucker, and see if someone else is willing to pick it up and run with it.

Laggy · « **Reply #830 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:43:12 PM »

I may or may not be able to handle modding while Rat's gone. I'll talk to him.

As for any player-specific point docking, I object to anything like that on principle unless the player(s) in question have been barely active. i.e. Andrew (who doesn't need the point docking), and Tom (who... has posted only in direct response when something was brought up, and nothing else at all). I think VSM has suffered enough from his lack of activity as well. >_>

Jo'ou Ranbu · « **Reply #831 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:51:35 PM »

Hm? What is this about me needing to do a ruling?

And, while we're at the proposal analysis, the whole "specific player point-docking/swapping for lolz yay~" thing actively irks me as something seriously brought up, even if I'd love to do that kind of stuff in a personal level at times. Just find it very unprofessional. The other two rulings don't really strike me one way or another either.

Yakumo · « **Reply #832 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:52:05 PM »

We really shouldn't be arguing about this since we're basically saying the same thing. I think I need to be clearer about what I'm saying, though.

If we want to not have this game stagnate, a PLAYER has to request judgement on this. No matter what the rule for this round is, and feel free to keep beating Soppy/Corwin about getting the mod thing fixed permanently now, if Rat's not going to be here for the voting phase for this round then somebody has to start the process. I am not a Player, I cannot do it, rule 212 specifically mentions players. One of you has to formally ask Snow to make a ruling on this if we want the game to continue.

EDIT: Read rule 212, Snow. We need someone to clarify the voting process, since it never specifically states Rat has to count the votes, or when Rat disappears the game will die for a couple weeks. Basically, since you would be the Judge per 212, you would be able to decide exactly how votes are cast as the rules don't actually specifically state that.

Jo'ou Ranbu · « **Reply #833 on:** February 06, 2009, 11:01:59 PM »

* Jo'ou Ranbu reads, nods.

In this case, I think we should just assign a temporary replacement moderator for these purposes. I could whip up a fast ruling regarding this, but I'd need a consensus on who the temp mod would be.

EDIT: More specifically, I'd probably make the ruling more precise on the mod thing, but make the mod attributions a bit more flexible in that regard. Just sorta how I roll, but feel free to argue.

Excal · « **Reply #834 on:** February 06, 2009, 11:03:50 PM »

I do think I need to agree with you Yakko. So...

##Request: JUDGEMENT!

I hereby state that the rules make no distinction between a moderator who is here, and a moderator who is not. But, that a moderator who is not here has a detrimental effect on game, thereby making such a personage not a moderator, and merely half a man! As such, this personage should be subjected to at least a temporary stripping of his rank as well as the gentle affections of Zenthor. As for a replacement, I would recommend Cyril, also known as Laggy, as the optimum person to take on such duties as are required until Rat returns.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #835 on:** February 07, 2009, 02:14:50 AM »

Unprofessional? We're playing a game. I mean, the point docking is a lot of things, but unprofessional?<G>

I can see people aren't gonna bite though. Things keep going the way they are though, we're not gonna be playing much longer anyway.

328. At any time, the moderator may designate a temporary moderator to handle affairs while he is incapacitated. In the case that the moderator disappears for a length of two days without posting, the players may elect another player or non-player to fill in as moderator with a vote of simple majority. This vote takes place immediately and publically as soon as it is called for on the board, once the aforementioned time period has passed.

Yakumo · « **Reply #836 on:** February 07, 2009, 02:19:44 AM »

I like the idea but I would request that it requires a certain threshold of players or a longer timeframe. The discussion phase is 48 hours by itself, after all, and if the moderator doesn't care about the proposal being put forward and isn't available right at the cutoff time for the phase, they could be "gone" for over two days and some overzealous player could tie up the game with a pointless vote. Now, I don't really see this as a likely problem but it's an easy to avoid one so we may as well. Or you could state something about a certain amount of time after a phase was meant to end.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #837 on:** February 07, 2009, 02:28:52 AM »

328. At any time, the moderator may designate a temporary moderator to handle affairs while he is incapacitated. In the case that the moderator disappears for a length of two days without posting, the players may elect another player or non-player to fill in as moderator with a vote of simple majority. The vote requires three players to motion for it to begin once the aforementioned time period has passed. This vote takes place immediately and publically as soon as the conditions are reached, and lasts 12 hours. At which point the results are taken as is. Should the moderator return during that time, the vote is immediately nulled.

Carthrat · « **Reply #838 on:** February 07, 2009, 06:27:40 AM »

a) This is going to have to be handled by judgement, since I simply won't be around to judge votes for this day. Sorry.

b) If it has to be this way then the game will pause on my turn anyway. However, a rule that enabled partners to stand-in for absent players would be pretty cool in my eyes and enable us to bypass this problem.

EvilTom · « **Reply #839 on:** February 07, 2009, 09:39:57 AM »

I'm obviously voting no to anything that attempts to lower my points.

That's gone now, but I still object to being called inactive :\

Carthrat · « **Reply #840 on:** February 07, 2009, 10:23:57 AM »

Er, why? You've made very few posts, there are a number of days where you just haven't posted at all, what posts you do make are very short and contain little new or exciting input...

I mean, hell, why not do a proposal where people get 2 points for every post they've made prior to this turn? Exclude modly posts (i.e. stuff with scores and posts with Voting phase! in it if you like). I'd like that, too.

And, heck, this would probably hurt me more than it helps, but I would like it in principal.

Carthrat · « **Reply #841 on:** February 07, 2009, 10:25:41 AM »

(that said, Andy and VSM are worse.)

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #842 on:** February 07, 2009, 12:08:56 PM »

As I understand it, they wanted it as to avoid it in the future. However...

328. If a player needs to be absent for any length of time for any reason, they may designate their partner to play in their place. They must notify the other players on the board for this to take effect. Any player's turns where they have not posted a resolution within 24 hours of the beginning of the round, their turn is considered skipped at no penalty other than the loss of the turn.

At any time, the moderator may designate a temporary moderator to handle affairs while he is incapacitated. In the case that the moderator disappears for a length of two days without posting, the players may elect another player or non-player to fill in as moderator with a vote of simple majority. The vote requires three players to motion for it to begin once the aforementioned time period has passed. This vote takes place immediately and publically as soon as the conditions are reached, and lasts 12 hours. At which point the results are taken as is. Should the moderator return during that time, the vote is immediately nulled.

Just making it a general absentee rule. Makes partners more relevent since only the partner can be designated to play for the player! Yay synergy!

Carthrat · « **Reply #843 on:** February 08, 2009, 08:41:22 AM »

Alrighty. I'm gonna be taking off later. Laggy will serve as the un-unofficial moderator. I don't think anyone is going to object to him taking over for me before the current ruling is voted on. Make sure you send your votes to him and not to me.

Corwin · « **Reply #844 on:** February 08, 2009, 09:00:10 AM »

329. Amendment to rule 323. Following each voting phase, a non-player (hereby referred to as the Mobb Proposer) that voted that phase is randomly selected via Hatbot. During the subsequent discussion phase, the Mobb Proposer is allowed to choose from the following:
a) Making a proposal (separate and independent of the one that the current player is proposing). This proposal is then voted on like any other during the next voting phase.
b) Foregoing the proposal and choosing a Mobb Proposer of their liking for the next phase instead of relying on the Bot of Hate.
c) Doing nothing!

The voting for the Mobb Proposer's proposal differs from norm in the following ways. Every eligible voter gets an additional vote to be used exclusively for this proposal - player's votes as counted with three times the normal weight. Rule 315 does not apply (players cannot choose to split up your votes or stockpile votes). Other rules associated with voting still apply so long as they are applicable (score-related voting rules cannot be applied to non-players, for instance).

Laggy · « **Reply #845 on:** February 08, 2009, 10:40:49 PM »

Voting phase!

Rule 328. If a player needs to be absent for any length of time for any reason, they may designate their partner to play in their place. They must notify the other players on the board for this to take effect. Any player's turns where they have not posted a resolution within 24 hours of the beginning of the round, their turn is considered skipped at no penalty other than the loss of the turn.

At any time, the moderator may designate a temporary moderator to handle affairs while he is incapacitated. In the case that the moderator disappears for a length of two days without posting, the players may elect another player or non-player to fill in as moderator with a vote of simple majority. The vote requires three players to motion for it to begin once the aforementioned time period has passed. This vote takes place immediately and publically as soon as the conditions are reached, and lasts 12 hours. At which point the results are taken as is. Should the moderator return during that time, the vote is immediately nulled.

--

Rule 329. Amendment to rule 323. Following each voting phase, a non-player (hereby referred to as the Mobb Proposer) that voted that phase is randomly selected via Hatbot. During the subsequent discussion phase, the Mobb Proposer is allowed to choose from the following:
a) Making a proposal (separate and independent of the one that the current player is proposing). This proposal is then voted on like any other during the next voting phase.
b) Foregoing the proposal and choosing a Mobb Proposer of their liking for the next phase instead of relying on the Bot of Hate.
c) Doing nothing!

The voting for the Mobb Proposer's proposal differs from norm in the following ways. Every eligible voter gets an additional vote to be used exclusively for this proposal - player's votes as counted with three times the normal weight. Rule 315 does not apply (players cannot choose to split up your votes or stockpile votes). Other rules associated with voting still apply so long as they are applicable (score-related voting rules cannot be applied to non-players, for instance).

--

Voting phase will end in 24 hours at 3pm PST, Sunday, 2/09.

Laggy · « **Reply #846 on:** February 09, 2009, 10:43:08 PM »

Rule 328. If a player needs to be absent for any length of time for any reason, they may designate their partner to play in their place. They must notify the other players on the board for this to take effect. Any player's turns where they have not posted a resolution within 24 hours of the beginning of the round, their turn is considered skipped at no penalty other than the loss of the turn.

At any time, the moderator may designate a temporary moderator to handle affairs while he is incapacitated. In the case that the moderator disappears for a length of two days without posting, the players may elect another player or non-player to fill in as moderator with a vote of simple majority. The vote requires three players to motion for it to begin once the aforementioned time period has passed. This vote takes place immediately and publically as soon as the conditions are reached, and lasts 12 hours. At which point the results are taken as is. Should the moderator return during that time, the vote is immediately nulled.

Carthrat in Japan: Yea
Dread Thomas, Town Doctor: Yea
Joe Rambo: Yea
Soppy: Yea
Excal: Yea
Andrew: Abstained
VSM: Abstained
Laggy: Yea
The Legend of n-factorial: Nay
Bardiche is a meanie head who does not understand what a wall of text truly is: Nay
Yakko: Yea
Jenna the Ninja: Yea
Xanth: Yea

9 in favor, 2 against

This proposal was PASSED!

--

Rule 329. Amendment to rule 323. Following each voting phase, a non-player (hereby referred to as the Mobb Proposer) that voted that phase is randomly selected via Hatbot. During the subsequent discussion phase, the Mobb Proposer is allowed to choose from the following:
a) Making a proposal (separate and independent of the one that the current player is proposing). This proposal is then voted on like any other during the next voting phase.
b) Foregoing the proposal and choosing a Mobb Proposer of their liking for the next phase instead of relying on the Bot of Hate.
c) Doing nothing!

The voting for the Mobb Proposer's proposal differs from norm in the following ways. Every eligible voter gets an additional vote to be used exclusively for this proposal - player's votes as counted with three times the normal weight. Rule 315 does not apply (players cannot choose to split up your votes or stockpile votes). Other rules associated with voting still apply so long as they are applicable (score-related voting rules cannot be applied to non-players, for instance).

Carthrat in Japan: Yea
Dread Thomas, Town Doctor: Nay
Joe Rambo: Yea
Soppy: Nay
Excal: Yea
Andrew: Abstained
VSM: Abstained
Laggy: Nay
The Legend of n-factorial: Yea
Bardiche is a meanie head who does not understand what a wall of text truly is: Nay
Yakko: Nay
Jenna the Ninja: Nay
Xanth: Nay

10 in favor, 11 against

This proposal was REJECTED!

<->

Points
1. AndrewRogue: -72
2. Carthrat: 126 (Partner: Corwin)
3. EvilTom: 130
4. Excal: 158 (Partner: QuietRain)
5. Jo'ou Ranbu: 135 (Partner: Laggy)
6. Sopko: 122 (Partner: SirAlex)
7. VerySlightlyMad: 23

Point Changes
AndrewRogue: -10 not voting
Carthrat: +10 "Yea" on defeated proposal, -5/+5 war, +10/+10 peace (diplomacy mods +20 total)
EvilTom: -5/+5 war (diplomacy mods +0 total)
Excal: +10 "Yea" vote on defeated proposal +10/+10 peace (diplomacy mods +20 total)
Jo'ou Ranbu: +10 "Yea" on defeated proposal, +10/+10 peace (diplomacy mods +20 total)
Sopko: +30 successful proposal
VerySlightlyMad: -10 not voting

Votecount
AndrewRogue: 36
Carthrat: 24
EvilTom: 18
Excal: 25
Jo'ou: 17
Sopko: 18
VerySlightlyMad: 24

Diplomacy
AndrewRogue - Neutral to All
Carthrat - EvilTom (W), VerySlightlyMad (W), Excal (P), Jo'ou Ranbu (P)
EvilTom - Carthrat (W)
Excal - Carthrat (P), Jo'ou Ranbu (P), VerySlightlyMad (W)
Jo'ou Ranbu - Carthrat (P), Excal (P), VerySlightlyMad (W)
Sopko - Neutral to All
VerySlightlyMad - Carthrat (W), Excal (W), Jo'ou Ranbu (W)

--

Discussion phase!

It is VerySlightlyMad's turn! Please propose a change to the rules. Your rule-change number is 330.

Hatbot has selected n-factorial to propose a change to the rules! His rule-change number is 331, should he choose to make it.

Laggy · « **Reply #847 on:** February 09, 2009, 10:48:46 PM »

Also, thanks to Tai for editing Rat's first post with the appropriate content.

Taishyr · « **Reply #848 on:** February 09, 2009, 10:58:45 PM »

No problem! ^_^;

n-factorial · « **Reply #849 on:** February 09, 2009, 11:02:04 PM »

uhwatewat

shit, hold on. gonna need to think on this for a bit. i'm not the creative sort.

okay, temporary proposal. this is -not- likely to be my final suggestion, but i'm curious as to the support it would get.

Proposal 331: Transmute rule 111 to a mutable rule.

rule 111 is:

111. 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.

News:

Author Topic: Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom) (Read 83028 times)

Taishyr