Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[EvilTom]

Jo'ou Ranbu - ok cool; I guess that's something we can look at later.

AndrewRogue - Uh...well. I can see you're going to make friends in this game!
I know you're annoyed that your proposal didn't go through last time, but you have noone to blame for that but yourself.
If this isn't a matter of spite but merely blatant selfishness, then you're not going to get your way; not now, not ever.
You can't expect everyone to make a law that's going to specifically advantage you.

Furthermore, how exactly do you propose I change the proposal to "specifically benefit you"?
The rules clearly state that rules cannot be retroactive.
If you think that I'm going to change it so that it says: "302. Repeal rule 206 and give Andy 10 points" then you need to wake up.

This is a rule proposal that is fair to everyone, because it applies to everyone equally. You can either play constructively, or you can be a self-centred git; if you're going to ruin it for everyone, fine. But you can expect to lose 10 points every round for the rest of the game, because nobody is going to appreciate your selfishness and unwillingness to compromise, so they're certainly not going to show you any courtesy.

[Excal]

Eh...  I'm not feeling the love for this one.  then again, I also like the idea of the -10 penalty.  I mean, one of the things I'm noticing in the comments on this one is a shocking solidity most people feel towards the rules.  It's also in the fact that people seem to think someone is going to win by having their proposal passed.

There's also the fact that as of my turn, which is next, getting all votes -1 (likely Andy at present) will net me the ten points I need to offset the penalty.  There's also the fact that as of Turn 5, each vote is worth at least 2 points.

That said, since I like the penalty, and like what it represents, I will propose the following amendment.

Amendment 206: If a proposal fails to garner a majority of votes, then there will be a -10 point penalty imposed on the person proposing the rule.

Alternatively, you could just make each vote against a measure worth -1 or -2 points against the person proposing it.

[Excal]

There's two more things I would like to state.

First, negative points are not necessarily...  negative.  Sure, right now the rules state we need a positive score to win, but that's a mutable rule.  All it takes is one edit that removes the word positive from 209 will allow for a win with +/- 100 points, which puts Andy 7 points closer to victory than the rest of us.  Remember, everything can be changed, so instead of complaining that you don't think you're doing well, think about how to make the situation favour you, and how to make us want to do that.

Second, Andy, I'd really like to second Tom on this.  If you're not willing to compromise, then there's no real point in playing.  You tried to hold true to your vision, turned down offers to make it more acceptable to people, and got what that earned you.  And if you're going to specifically shoot down every proposal that's offered just because we're not willing to bow and scrape before you, then once a unanimous vote is no longer needed and your veto is gone, I think you'll find this game to be a very uncomfortable place.

[EvilTom]

Not bad; there's 7 players, so you'd need 4 votes. If you get 3 votes or less, you lose 10 points.

Andy would have nothing to bitch about, because he only got 2 votes (including his own). And it still keeps the spirit.

Alternatively, you could just make each vote against a measure worth -1 or -2 points against the person proposing it.

I think I preferred the first option; still works though.

Since the proposal won't pass without everyone on board, obviously I'm going to try and achieve that. Excal has suggested some workable modifications which I'm happy to include. Opinions from others?

 

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Amendment 206: If a proposal fails to garner a majority of votes, then there will be a -10 point penalty imposed on the person proposing the rule.

Hm. While I still ain't all that keen on voting being the sole factor on point loss, I think this is a somewhat fair compromise - oh wait I think QR also mentioned this. Since obtaining a majority of votes  =/= getting a rule approved as of now, it makes getting proposals turned down less risky - and quite possibly could've been the first rulechange to be touched upon instead. >_> On the other hand, I rather prefer sliding scale penalties than flat ones. Just like I'd prefer a sliding scale point scoring system to a flat gains system. Think we can work within this mindset?

Also, Andy: that's a friendly way to get started. I know it sucks to have your proposal shot down, but it's the beginning of the game! Don't go so sour that early!

[Excal]

Well...  I have an idea that introduces another way to gain and lose points, and deals with an issue that people seem to be having.  Although, it seems there may not actually be a point to trying to pass rules at present.  Right now I'm up to waiting a day or two to see how things go.

As for your view on having point loss in other areas.  I can see where you're coming from, Snow.  But the current amendment has to do with what happens when a proposal fails.  It doesn't really leave a lot of room for other methods of docking points.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Yeah, at this point I just sorta sound like a broken record. It's just something I think we should address earlier than later. I'm also worried about how to break the unanimity stranglehold that the current rules bring to the system, so there are two - at least - urgent matters to be dealt with in this setup so far.

[AndrewRogue]

First and foremost, let's be polite here. We're only on round two.

I'm not really sore about yesterday. Sure, it sucks that I didn't pass it, but I chose to stick to certain guns (mostly on the basis that I'm reasonably sure I could not sell Excal on another system at this juncture, thus meaning that I might as well stick with my original gesture) and therefore lost points. It is unfortunate, but it happens. Hell, at the time, as I said. I really don't think the points mattered (and perhaps do feel a bit... frustrated that these discussions were largely ignored). However, you all made it clear that you feel they did, and thus I must adapt to the way you all will be playing the game, which is apparently gaming for points.

Thus we come to today. You wish to pass a rule that negates the penalty for failing. That's cool. Fun times for all. However, I have had the unfortunate circumstance of having to test the waters and accept the first penalty. Sad times for me and, much like you guys apparently had so much issue with me OH MY GOD GETTING ALL THE ADVANTAGES OF GOING FIRST I also am not particularly fond of sucking up the penalties for going first as well.

Thus we reach this point. We're clearly going to play the game for points at this juncture, based on the arguments. I'm behind because I had to be the one to figure this out. You want something. I want something. Quid pro quo. I have made it clear that I want this rule to specifically provide some sort of benefit to me at this point. You want the rule to pass. You suggest something or inquire as to what I feel would feel is suitable. We reach an amiable agreement and thus you acquire my vote. It is the process of compromise. Perhaps I came off whinier than I intended in the succintness of my post, but I also thought it would be best to flat out say that if the game is going to go like this, then this is how I have to play. I have to try and get an edge somehow, and starting behind on the established scale isn't good for that.

Personally, my ideal ruling would be one that includes setting me back to the baseline or at least ahead of the max penalty curve.

Additionally, I will apologize for the briskness and perceived sharpness of my tone. I would certainly appreciate an apology in return, given that I feel its a little early to be ducking into personal attacks, eh?

Ninja Edit: Personally, I'm also okay with a resolution to swap to majority rules voting as soon as possible.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

We're clearly going to play the game for points at this juncture, based on the arguments. I'm behind because I had to be the one to figure this out. You want something. I want something. Quid pro quo. I have made it clear that I want this rule to specifically provide some sort of benefit to me at this point. You want the rule to pass. You suggest something or inquire as to what I feel would feel is suitable. We reach an amiable agreement and thus you acquire my vote. It is the process of compromise. Perhaps I came off whinier than I intended in the succintness of my post, but I also thought it would be best to flat out say that if the game is going to go like this, then this is how I have to play. I have to try and get an edge somehow, and starting behind on the established scale isn't good for that.

Personally, my ideal ruling would be one that includes setting me back to the baseline or at least ahead of the max penalty curve.

I certainly see your point, Andy. We can apologize for how things seemed a little abrupt in that point, but the point still stands that simply threatening to bog down the entire voting process isn't going to garner what you want in the long run - or possibly even short run. You make a fine point on there being interests at play in the whole thing, but I feel that this could've been addressed... differently. And I'm not sure how big of an edge the shoving of the baseline would provide to you. As for negating your current disadvantage... *Shrug.* This is something that can be addressed on a more fundamental ruling - the next player could propose a total reset of the system. There could also be a one-time reset clause within the ruling, although, as I said, I'm not very sure this is even necessary by this juncture and would just delay this early game further. But a compromise can work, although asking for an edge for a rule that wasn't even approved feels excessive.

Additionally, I will apologize for the briskness and perceived sharpness of my tone. I would certainly appreciate an apology in return, given that I feel its a little early to be ducking into personal attacks, eh?

Apologies accepted from my end, and I hope you have no hard feelings towards me or us as well. Sorry if I sounded venomous.

[AndrewRogue]

No need, Snow. I wasn't bothered by your response at all. My major offense is with Tom (and to a lesser degree, Excal, whose tone was far more venomous and borderline threatening in game terms).

I realize that, perhaps, the tone I took wasn't the most efficient for negotiation, but the fact is, the only power I have right now is my vote. As such, I felt it was important to impart that I'm willing to hold a firm position unless we reach some sort of compromise. Frankly, as it stands, I have no other recourse but to flat-out lay-out the terms that I'll veto the vote unless there are some concessions made to me. I will point out that I was pretty specific about it being specifically this movement that I'd vote down (poor word choice using juncture, perhaps?). It wasn't like I was threatening to vote down the next... 11-ish- amendments. Just this one because, well...

This is a rule proposal that is fair to everyone, because it applies to everyone equally.

That's quite patently false. The proposal was fair to everyone who WASN'T me, as I'd already, as it were, taken one for the team. The rule effected equally to everyone EXCEPT me. :p

[Excal]

I apologise for being harsh, and accept your apologies for the same.  Now, let's get down to the negotiation.

Honestly, my main problems with your declaration are that you:

a) demanded a concession instead of offering a compromise.

b) Mistakenly gave us the impression that you were going to veto everything.

Now, I can see that b) stems mostly from your succinctness and therefore should not be an issue.  However, the way you're going about trying to get something for your troubles is, unsettling, certainly.  You're trying to use the fact that you missed something in the rules (and apparently most people also didn't fully consider the -10 penalty) and because it's effect was magnified by a low turnout that the arguments on scrapping it now are overly harsh towards yourself and you deserve recompense?

What, then, of those of us who didn't especially worry about your 'lead' and didn't vote on it.  Should we also be asked to pay for the penalty as well as the privilege of your going first?  Especially when you turned away from compromise and discussion, declined Snow's offer, and didn't really try and convince me of anything.

So, if you want something now, well...  you're not the only one with a veto.  So try and offer a compromise between what we want and what you want.  Try and argue with me for why I should reward you for giving up on yourself and then demanding that it not count after you get burned for it.

[Excal]

Rat, can we abstain from a vote?

If so, does it count as participating in a vote (satisfying 105) while also counting as not voting (-10 Penalty -- 208)?

And, if you can, does it alter the total number of votes in play in regards to determining score?

[AndrewRogue]

I actually was well aware of the fact that there was a penalty. I'm actually a little surprised I'm only at -7, at the end of the day. I was expecting to be the only one to vote for the proposal, given the course of the day.

Frankly, I question, at this point, exactly what advantages there were to me going first. About the only thing it meant was I had the chance to pass the first proposal... which is, in turn, invalidated by the fact that everyone after me was well in power to seize more immediate advantage of whatever I did. Essentially, being first is actually disadvantageous in this game, because you have the least knowledge about the players and their individual goals.

As it stands, I was stuck in awkward place, being quite unsure of what people would be like in this game. As it stood, I had little to actually go on with you, since you provided no particular compromises (or even conceptions thereof) that I saw. Thus, it seemed like I was forced to accept you were satisfied with the system as it stood and that I could not convince you there. Essentially, since no one really responded to a very solid segment of my arguments (the overall meaninglessness of the point system) and thus I was kinda stuck in an awkward place. Admittedly, I did eventually decide against a particular compromise, but that was for the simple reason that compromising on those lines kind of invalidated the entire argument by and large.

Where we are now, I feel that a simple compromise shouldn't be too unreasonable, given we are making a ruling in the interest of the group on the whole, I feel that a concession should be made for the fact that this ruling does absolutely nothing for me except further shut me out. The simple fact is, it fundamentally changes the way I might well have played (for example, attempting to garner a higher percentage of votes instead of making a strong stand for a certain POV) and unreasonably punishes me for a playstyle that was NOT hampered by the original rules.

Anyhow, I need to sum this up at the moment, so. While my main goal would be to set me back at the general baseline (0 points) though something as simple as an "and Andrew gets 7 points" would be my optimal situation, but I believe I would be willing to settle for something that keeps the playing field fully level. What comes to mind is to add an amendment that the rules doesn't come into effect until the beginning of the second round (my next turn). That way it actually functions to benefit everyone.

[Carthrat]

If you don't vote, you lose points. No abstaining, since I think that is, well, not voting. >_>

Now that I read it, I'll grant that abstaining would count as 'participating'; however, abstaining would still lose you points.

As for altering the number of votes... I think abstaining votes wouldn't hurt someone looking for a unanimous decision.

[Smodge13]

penalties will become less important late game if the current point system is left in place, think about it say 20 - 30 proposals into the future.

Assuming only your own vote passes
(330-291)*(1/7)
= 39/7
= 5.5

so you would gain 5 pts and lose 10, this will scale better the later into the game it gets, especially if more people vote for the rule.

Question for Rat is it passed rules that ascend in value or any proposal.
in simpler terms would Toms be proposal 301 or 302?

[Carthrat]

Tom's proposal is 302.

[Smodge13]

yeah i see no point in changing this rule as it will make up for itself later, however i would be for a sliding scale to make things less harsh

[Smodge13]

Also please no rules that i must capitalize my I's

[EvilTom]

I feel that a simple compromise shouldn't be too unreasonable, given we are making a ruling in the interest of the group on the whole,

I've compromised with my proposal based on Excal, QR and Snow's suggestions. We're working to reach something everyone can be happy with. I'm happy to compromise.

 

I feel that a concession should be made for the fact that this ruling does absolutely nothing for me except further shut me out. The simple fact is, it fundamentally changes the way I might well have played (for example, attempting to garner a higher percentage of votes instead of making a strong stand for a certain POV) and unreasonably punishes me for a playstyle that was NOT hampered by the original rules.

You refused to compromise on turn 1; it was obvious that nobody was going to vote for something when all their suggestions had been ignored. That was your mistake alone. You went first, you could have capitalized on it and set the mood of the game! But you didn't. Deal with it and move on - it's only one turn, certainly not the end of the game for you. Asking for a do-over only shows your lack of responsibility for your action.

An individual concession based on your prior poor play is not going to happen.
+ First of all, it sets a terrible precedent; "Oh, I lost points, I'm going to vote against every proposal until I get my points back!" This is a childish approach, which is not going to earn you any support. Furthermore, it encourages extortion for handouts.
+ Secondly, it is not a compromise, it's still a demand (just worded differently).
+ Finally, it goes against the spirit of the rulechange I am proposing. I wish to amend the rules, not your mistakes. If you want to fix things in your favour, do it on your own turn. For now, try and comment on the merit of what I am proposing, and if you have constructive comments regarding that rule, I will take them on board to come up with a rule that everyone is happy with. However, I will not bend to your self-centred whims; I'd rather see my proposal fail than give in to outright extortion - I'm not prepared to pass a rule that goes against the spirit of what we are trying to do here.

 

Anyhow, I need to sum this up at the moment, so. While my main goal would be to set me back at the general baseline (0 points) though something as simple as an "and Andrew gets 7 points" would be my optimal situation, but I believe I would be willing to settle for something that keeps the playing field fully level. What comes to mind is to add an amendment that the rules doesn't come into effect until the beginning of the second round (my next turn). That way it actually functions to benefit everyone.

Your 'concession' is of no material difference to your demand. You want 7 points, *for no reason other than because you're behind*. Now or later, you still want 7 points. That's 7 bonus points the rest of us don't get. That is in no way fair.
Reproducing your demand as a maxim, every time a player falls behind, they can demand a "rebalance of the playing field, because that is fair to everyone". That's an obvious fallacy, and will result in the game being an infinite draw. If we reset the score for you now, then we'll have to do it every time. And if we don't, we'd be promoting injustice.

This is a game about rules. The rules apply to everyone equally. Nobody is above the rules; nobody is special; the rules play favourites to nobody.

Andrew, I will not change the rules to give you any form of special compensation for your own errors; earn the points back through your own good play. To do otherwise would be an injustice to all.

[EvilTom]

yeah i see no point in changing this rule as it will make up for itself later, however i would be for a sliding scale to make things less harsh

So you'd be up for the -1, -2 etc. option rather than the majority option? If so then that's currently the proposal then. It has the broadest support.

Also please no rules that i must capitalize my I's

You're just asking for it... I really want to now

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Tom: after reading your defense and your answer to Andrew, I think I have to throw in my two cents.

From the standpoint of fairness and general common sense, I agree with your words whole-heartedly: assuming this was a justice-based system - and even if not, really - the demands he makes are not reasonable, and you're right that giving him a reward for his own mistakes is pretty much wrong from a very fundamental gaming perspective, as well as ethical.

The thing is, as I see it, the game's -current- tenets are heavily intrigue-based, particularly given they're also marred down by that little full majority monstrosity that's been laced into the game's initial core ruleset. Just by -making- that assessment, I believe Andrew has marred the possibility of this ruling passing into zilch: if you don't appease him, he'll just shoot down the rule by voting against it. If you do, other people will most likely feel offended and will shoot down the rule. Of course, this will hurt no one but himself in the long run unless the rule-mongering goes entirely wacky, but even this is unlikely to happen considering how things are set up as of now. The point being: I think you've been thrown into a no-win situation due to this little clusterbomb, both due to how the rules have been set initially and due to us not having thought of tossing the ruling bogging down the game's flexibility into the gutter.

As of now, I think you have two options: try to compromise with Andrew even though his proposal is unfair from the majority standpoint and try to balance this with the ill feelings this will generate to others (difficult) or try for an entirely different ruling (also difficult). I would personally try for the former if we can't forge another ruling that will be harder to simply shoot down, although, by this point, I'm shocked that no one has tried to bring up a change that puts the idiocy of full majority vote for all decisions to permanent sleep. I know it sounds unfair, but, in an intrigue-based setup, principles -will- have to take second-fiddle at some point.

[AndrewRogue]

Let's put this is another light, then.

First of all, as I've already stated, your proposal does not benefit everyone equally. It singles me out and further disadvantages me at this particular point in the game and punishes me for a formerly acceptable playstyle choice. As such, the current rule provides no benefit to me and, as it stands, allowing it to pass is actually detrimental to myself, as it gives everyone an edge over myself. So, to put it bluntly, despite personally liking the rule, it is disadvantageous to me to let it pass without getting something in return.

More to the point, your statement about me "demanding" changes is kind of funny, given that anyone wishing alteration to your original amendment is, in fact, demanding change. Everyone here has the power to veto if you don't reach something acceptable to them. I'm just the only one who has outright stated that he'll use this power rather than the quiet implications of other individuals. I'm sorry if this offends you, but it doesn't give you any right to act like an ass either. As I've said, if the game is going to played along these lines, I'm going to play along these lines. We're gaming for points, so I'm gonna game for points.

Your fallacy itself is actually flawed because, after two complete circuits, we hit majority rules, in which each individual voter loses a significant chunk of power since now it is impossible for one person to stymie the entire voting process. Sure, this entire pre-majority segment has the potential to be incredibly painful, which is why I've even suggested a fair alternate compromise, as well as one that actually DOES apply equally to everyone. If you'd get off your high horse and read my post, you'd see this.

The fact is, Tom, compromising is a two-way street. I've tried. I started off with an extreme position and have since reduced it in the bargaining process. I've even stayed well within the spirit of your rule. For your sake...

...but I believe I would be willing to settle for something that keeps the playing field fully level. What comes to mind is to add an amendment that the rules doesn't come into effect until the beginning of the second round (my next turn). That way it actually functions to benefit everyone.

[Excal]

I do have to agree with Snow, to a degree.  Our goal here is to unite competing interests.  However, we must also recognise that Tom has an extra priority that we don't have.  His score will be determined by how popular his final ruling is, which means that if he feels that an amendment will harm his chance of gaining votes, then it is irresponsible for him to accept it.

Now, I am opposed to an Andrew-specific clause on this proposal.  But this shouldn't be too big an issue as I am also opposed to the proposal in general.  Of the ideas suggested I am most in favour of my original proposal, with the possible addition of the delay until proposal 308 of this current amendment.

[EvilTom]

302. Amend rule 206. to read "When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 1 point for every negative vote they receive. Sunrise provision: this rule does not take effect until the commencement of proposal 308."

---


I've incorporated Excel & Snow's penatly aspects, I've incorporated Smodge's sliding scale, and I've added Andrew & Excal's request for a sunrise provision (it will not come into effect until the end of the first cycle - that's fair as everyone makes one turn under tha same conditions).

Does anyone still have a problem with this? Would anyone vote no to this?

[Carthrat]

QuietRain has dropped out the game. She's been replaced by Sopko! Please give him a warm welcome. (There's no rule against this happening, so it can happen, ner ner ner.)