Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Yakumo]

The thing is, everyone knows that if one person gets enough votes they can just stuff through an "I win" proposal, so what it looks like to me this is going to boil down to is everyone is going to sit on votes so that nobody can get far enough ahead to stuff something through like that.  If you set a limit on it, that's the only way I can see the strategic part of it coming into play at all.  You know if there's a limit of say, 10 votes, that the rest of the players will always have enough to shoot something down if need be and so you don't need to sit on every extra vote.  Sure, if we leave it like this the Mob will basically be running the game, but... I don't know, it just seems like it'll cause stagnation, not the strategy he's looking for.

[Carthrat]

To put through an 'I win' proposal, you would need roughly... 28 votes (assuming average mob size of 10), and that is assuming nobody else saves any up at all. No player will vote yes to that (presumably), and I'm pretty sure the entire mob would hate on someone being so cheap, too.

Even if you saved up three votes every turn that'd still take you quite some time to put together, during which a bunch of other proposals would get passed that would probably rape your plan. And of course if you're in imminent danger of being able to win like that, someone else will surely notice and make sure to put forward a proposal that you *must* shoot down at all costs.

If there absolutely had to be a limit (players, what do you think, Dread Thomas? VSM? Are you with us? No?) I would have it at around 20 or something, and only in terms of how many votes you can spend at once. That would give someone awesome power potential, but blatant 'I win' proposals would still fail.

[EvilTom]

I have an idea.

Make it like poker; you have to announce how much you're "betting". That way other people can "match" or "raise" your votes.
Idea is a WIP.

[Bardiche]

If I like the one making the "I win" proposal I would vote in favor of it.

Alternatively you could just make a "This player loses" proposal, where everyone could be cutthroat and get them off, or whatever. Eliminating the opposition also works, eh?

[Carthrat]

Voting phase!

315. (Amendment to 311.) Every player gains three votes every voting phase. Votes are expended during the voting phase as normal, however: A player may chose to use all, some, or none of his votes on a given proposal, with the weight of said votes tallied appropriately. A player who does not use a portion of his votes during any given turn may retain them for use in later turns. Any amount of votes can be spent, so long as the voter has possession of them, and there is no limit to the number of votes that can be held in stock.

A player cannot vote in multiple ways in any given turn; each vote must be for the same purpose (so you cannot vote both yea and nay in one turn.) No matter how many votes a player casts, when determining penalties and bonuses, the player counts as only having cast one vote.

Every non-player participant on the board gains one vote each turn, which may not be retained or saved; it must be used the same turn it is gained (or not used at all, in which case it expires); non-players count as eligible voters for the purpose of determining whether or not a proposal passes (ala rule 306), but they do not have to vote (ala rule 303). All the penalties and bonuses associated with voting for the purposes of playing the game will be reserved for players.

[Carthrat]

315. (Amendment to 311.) Every player gains three votes every voting phase. Votes are expended during the voting phase as normal, however: A player may chose to use all, some, or none of his votes on a given proposal, with the weight of said votes tallied appropriately. A player who does not use a portion of his votes during any given turn may retain them for use in later turns. Any amount of votes can be spent, so long as the voter has possession of them, and there is no limit to the number of votes that can be held in stock.

A player cannot vote in multiple ways in any given turn; each vote must be for the same purpose (so you cannot vote both yea and nay in one turn.) No matter how many votes a player casts, when determining penalties and bonuses, the player counts as only having cast one vote.

Every non-player participant on the board gains one vote each turn, which may not be retained or saved; it must be used the same turn it is gained (or not used at all, in which case it expires); non-players count as eligible voters for the purpose of determining whether or not a proposal passes (ala rule 306), but they do not have to vote (ala rule 303). All the penalties and bonuses associated with voting for the purposes of playing the game will be reserved for players.


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

Bardiche: Yea
Corwin: Yea
Dunefar: Nay
Gatewalker: Yea
Kilgamayan: Yea
n-factorial: Nay
QuietRain: Nay
Talaysen: Nay
Yakumo: Nay

The proposal was PASSED!

<->

Nomic -- Turn Sixteen

Players - Points

1. AndrewRogue: 14
2. Carthrat: 14
3. EvilTom: 45
4. Excal: 35
5. Jo'ou Ranbu: 36
6. Sopko: 35
7. VerySlightlyMad: 53

It is EvilTom's turn! Please propose a change to the rules. Your rule-change number is 316.

[EvilTom]

316. Addition to voting phase: the player proposing the rule change secretly picks a 'tactic' of either scissors, paper or rock. This choice is to be submitted to the game moderator along with the vote, and not read by the moderator until tallying. When a voter makes a vote during the voting phase, they must assign either scissors, paper or rock to that vote.
If the voter defeats the proposal's alignment, their vote is doubled. If there is a draw, the vote proceeds as normal. If the player is defeated by the proposal, the player's vote fails entirely and is not counted. A fail carries all the regular penalties for failing to vote in any given round.
Every time the proposal player defeats a vote, the proposal player gains 2 points (per vote defeated). For example, if a proposer chooses scissors and a voter votes 3 times paper, the proposer gains 6 points.
If a player is able to submit more than one vote, they may submit them under any tactic. For example, a player with three votes can submit one vote scissors, one paper and one rock.



Discuss!

[Carthrat]

I would like a clause that ensures the person proposing the rule change cannot state or hint what tactic he's using to others (particularly members of the mob) before instituting it, at pain of instantly losing the game.

Also, does the DL support concealed text in posts and PMs? Because it really should do that if we're going to do this.

[Carthrat]

Oh hey you could send an attachment in the form of a .txt file with the tactic in it. Do that.

[Bardiche]

B'coz otherwise Rat would have an easy way into beating it all.

I assume the mob is made subject to this rule as well?

[Carthrat]

Looks like it, since it refers to 'voters', not 'players' in that sense.

[Carthrat]

Oh wait it only does that in certain senses (if a mob member loses, they technically would not lose their vote, since it says players there, not voters.) Refine the langauge.

[Carthrat]

Also, the player making the proposal shouldn't get to play against himself and easily win, thus doubling his votes.

[Carthrat]

Man, and I'm not even the law student, here.

[Bardiche]

Technicalities, I loves dem.

If the voter defeats the proposal's alignment, their vote is doubled. If there is a draw, the vote proceeds as normal. If the player is defeated by the proposal, the player's vote fails entirely and is not counted. A fail carries all the regular penalties for failing to vote in any given round.
Every time the proposal player defeats a vote, the proposal player gains 2 points (per vote defeated). For example, if a proposer chooses scissors and a voter votes 3 times paper, the proposer gains 6 points.

In the first paragraph, you refer to "the proposal's alignment", and then in the second one, it's the "proposal player" and "proposer". For complete fool- and shenaniganproof ruling you should probably refer to the player proposing the proposal by the same name in each instance.

[Carthrat]

Also, instead of 'scissors, paper, rock', we should refer to the tactics as 'lance, sword, and axe' (or anima, light, dark, whatever)

[EvilTom]

All of these are good suggestions, ones which I should have had in the original proposal. Consider them all implemented.

And yeah, the mob should be subject to all of it. We wouldn't want them to miss out on the fun

[Shale]

I love this idea and will vote for it.

[Excal]

Whereas I see this as a chance to randomly lose ten points, for a gain of 'Nowhere near worth it'.  I like the idea of being able to choose how much weight you'll be packing.  Hell, I like adding things to the game which increase chaos.  But I don't like things which randomly make your vote worthless and punish you beyond that for simply not being lucky.

Granted, I dislike the entire idea behind this proposal (since the fact that you can vote yea or nay is the ONE thing that is under your control, and you're taking that away), but the fact that you're punished further for losing your only way to impact the game, your only way to really play the game, moves this measure from simply bad to borderline offensive.

So, yeah.  I'm really not inclined to vote for this sucker.

[Talaysen]

Here's a suggestion then:

Allow the option of not submitting a tactic, however increase the benefits of winning to 3x.  This seems fair because if you lose, you also get penalized for not voting.  I'd also suggest not being able to split your votes among tactics either, since that unbalances this.

That way you have the sure way (no tactic) or have a chance of tripling your vote power.

[VySaika]

I'm pretty much with Excal on this one. I'll vote No on this as it stands. Not really coherent enough to suggest new wording ATM, but I'll try to remember to make my suggestions before I go to bed tonight.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

This proposal turns the only reliable weapon we really have in Nomic into a game of chance as it stands. Nononononononono.

[Carthrat]

I'm ambivalent to this proposal. I'll certainly only blow one vote at most on it.

[QuietRain]

Serious dislike for this one.  I'll be voting no, pretty much no matter how you re-word it.  The potential for removing someone's vote is simply too much of a downside in exchange for some nebulous chance at maybe getting the slight possibility of adding extra weight to your vote.  The game's likely to drag on too long as it is with just the voting we've got now.  Nullifying votes will only increase that.  Nah, not voting Yay for this one at all.

[Ranmilia]

This would only be interesting to me if there were some actual differences involved in the rock/scissors/paper options making it more than a completely random shot.  As it is, I don't really see the point.