Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Carthrat]

Besides, everyone would call me out on that when I posted non-real results.

[EvilTom]

Running out of time, so I may just leave each of RSP as x2 for the moment. Others can change them later.

[Carthrat]

Voting phase begins... in about 30 minutes. I'm going to bed before then, do send votes in after that time!

316. Addition to voting phase: the player proposing the rule (proposing player) 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 may assign either scissors, paper or rock to that vote.
If the voter defeats the proposal's alignment, their vote is tripled. If there is a draw, the vote proceeds as normal. If the voter is defeated by the proposal, the voter's vote fails entirely and is not counted. A fail carries all the regular penalties for failing to vote in any given round.
A voter may choose not to play the tactic, and this rule does not apply to them.
Every time the proposing player defeats a vote, the proposal player gains 2 points (per vote defeated). For example, if a proposing player chooses scissors and a voter votes 3 times paper, the proposer gains 6 points.
If a voter 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.
The proposing player cannot state or hint what tactic he's using to others, at pain of instantly losing the game.
All participants are subject to this rule.
The proposal player may not play tactics against himself.

This is the current proposal, if Dread Thomas posts a revised version use that instead. I, however, am sleeping.

[Carthrat]

316. Addition to voting phase: the player proposing the rule (proposing player) 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 may assign either scissors, paper or rock to that vote.
If the voter defeats the proposal's alignment, their vote is tripled. If there is a draw, the vote proceeds as normal. If the voter is defeated by the proposal, the voter's vote fails entirely and is not counted. A fail carries all the regular penalties for failing to vote in any given round.
A voter may choose not to play the tactic, and this rule does not apply to them.
Every time the proposing player defeats a vote, the proposal player gains 2 points (per vote defeated). For example, if a proposing player chooses scissors and a voter votes 3 times paper, the proposer gains 6 points.
If a voter 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.
The proposing player cannot state or hint what tactic he's using to others, at pain of instantly losing the game.
All participants are subject to this rule.
The proposal player may not play tactics against himself.

AndrewRogue: Abstained
Carthrat: Yea
EvilTom: Yea Yea Yea let's send votes by PM so I don't miss them nor need to MSN logdive in the future kthx
Excal: Nay
HunterSopko: Nay
Jo'ou Ranbu: Nay Nay Nay
VerySlightyMad: Nay Nay

Corwin: Nay
Gatewalker: Nay
Laggy: Nay
QuietRain: Nay
Ryogo: Yea
Super: Nay
Talaysen: Nay
Xanth: Nay

The proposal was REJECTED!

<->

Nomic -- Turn Seventeen

Players - Points

1. AndrewRogue: 4
2. Carthrat: 24
3. EvilTom: 39
4. Excal: 35
5. Jo'ou Ranbu: 36
6. Sopko: 35
7. VerySlightlyMad: 53

It is Excal's turn! Please propose a change to the rules. Your rule-change number is 317.

[EvilTom]

Damnit Rat, I sent you my vote.

[Carthrat]

Everyone

PM

your votes

MSN/AIM/IRC votes may be lost, non-received, or forgotten despite best intentions

[Excal]

The following is an amendment to Rule 201.

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.  The main topic shall be unofficially called the Senate, with each player being a senator.

b) Non-Players will have their own separate topic, where players cannot post or vote, in which they may make proposals.  This topic will be called the House of Commons.  Each proposal must be labled specifically as such and enclosed in quotation marks in order to be certain of the wording.  When the players reach a voting phase, then the Non-Players also enter a voting stage and may vote on which proposal they wish to support.  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.

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.


tl;dr version

New players aren't stuck with 0 points (too late for Rat though).

Non-players can propose their own proposals without player interferance.  Still needs the players to pass them though.

Non-Players get a collective victory option, and mechanics for gaining points.

Finally, a rule to make the Mobb counts as one vote on unanimous votes so we can pass the dang things again.

[Carthrat]

I probably support this proposal, but only if there's a clause stating Dread Thomas is officially renamed 'Palpatine'.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Does that make VSM Padmé Amidala?

Anyhow, I support this proposition. If asked for, I'll give reasons why, but this is Excal's stage, so. >_>

[Excal]

I'm more for Senator Carthratine and his henchdude, Darth Thomas anyways.

That said, yeah.  Guess I should actually make my pitch.

The first point is basically just to make it so that if any more players join, then they aren't shafted.

Next up, we have all of the non-player stuff.  This has been needed since they joined the game, and this is the kind of thing that needs a lot of stuff at once at least to start.  So, I give you a lot of stuff at once.  You get a pair of win conditions that make it so that not only are the non-players different from the players, but they also have incentive not to just gang up on the players.  I also gave them the ability to make their own proposals without players mucking around with them.  We've still got the power of veto on anything they do, so let them have their fun.

As for why I'm favouring them so much, two reasons.  The first is it makes the game more interesting.  More input equals more ideas, equals more fun.  I don't really need any more reason than that.  But I do have one more.  This is an introductory game, one meant to let people play around with the idea and get used to it.  This means that anything which makes it easier to dabble in the game, get an idea of what it's like and decide whether or not you enjoy it, without forcing you to actually play the game, is a step in the right direction.

And, let's be honest.  I like the dynamic of Commons vs. Players, and I want to add reasons to not just work together to the Mobb while still emphasizing that they are a Mobb and should act like one.

Finally, the one thing I'm taking away from the Commons here very explicitly is their mass of votes in unanimous measures.  Sorry, no.  I don't want any measure like that to be hostage to someone outside the game that we can't influence one way or the other that might screw up our votes for kicks.  Basically, if you guys want a veto on something like that, then talk to each other and get a consensus.

[Carthrat]

Ok.

So there are two proposals to vote on each turn - BUT we only gain three extra votes each voting phase anyway, so we need to split our preferences that way. Correct?

[Excal]

Quick change in response to Rat.

b) Non-Players will have their own separate topic, where players cannot post or vote, in which they may make proposals.  This topic will be called the House of Commons.  Each proposal must be labled specifically as such and enclosed in quotation marks in order to be certain of the wording.  When the players reach a voting phase, then the Non-Players also enter a voting stage and may vote on which proposal they wish to support.  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.

[Carthrat]

Few quibbles.

As written, the extra vote gained by non-players is stockpiled by them. Make sure it expires. I'm not having the power of the mob inflate so dramatically. Let's also note that they get *one* vote each voting phase (which is presumably used to vote on which proposal they want to accept), followed by one more vote whenever they do come to a consensus (allowing them to weigh in on a proposal.) However, THEY don't get to vote on both. I think this works but it's worth bringing up.

On the other hand, I don't think it's enforced that players *must* vote on both proposals, only that they must vote during the voting phase. I don't like this; if players get an extra vote each turn then it should be enforced that they use it or suffer the consequences. Players probably shouldn't stockpile more than 2 votes a turn without consequences; the rate of gain should be quite moderate. giving multiple things to blow votes on is a good idea and I support it in general, however.

[Excal]

Right, then let's change the wording of that last bit too...

b) Non-Players will have their own separate topic, where players cannot post or vote, in which they may make proposals.  This topic will be called the House of Commons.  Each proposal must be labled specifically as such and enclosed in quotation marks in order to be certain of the wording.  When the players reach a voting phase, then the Non-Players also enter a voting stage and may vote on which proposal they wish to support.  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 to vote on the secondary proposal. This vote, if not used, expires at the end of the voting phase.  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.

[Bardiche]

The following is an amendment to Rule 201.

317. NON-PLAYERS GET MORE POWAH.

As a staunch supporter of an increase to non-player influences, you have definitely sealed my vote for this. A definite 'Yea'. The only obstructions I can see are either time constraints on my part, or the silly RPS game we have to play.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

You mean, the silly RPS that got staunchily rejected?

[Bardiche]

The very same. I forgot it got rejected.

[EvilTom]

Oh geez, things get more complicated by the minute :\

[Carthrat]

Is that a statement or a condemnation?

People who don't talk need to talk more, and frankly I'm tempted to policy veto people who don't participate in the discussion of proposals that aren't their own. This isn't mafia, but watching people just coast along without even bothering irks me in so many ways.

[EvilTom]

Well, yes it is (a 'condemnation'). Letting non-players propose stuff, creating new groups, secondary votes - all of these things are multiplying the complexity in a way that is spiralling out of control.

Opening the game up further is not a good idea. It has already been diluted to the point where you don't need to be playing to play (or to play to be playing), and that's why people aren't posting anymore.

[Carthrat]

It's multiplying the complexity by... two. And given that we're playing nomic, complexity is a given.

People weren't even really posting much to start, and it's clear that this game is going to take the form of an extended metaphor on modern governmental practices. A high council struggling to maintain power of an unruly mob, where all involved are motivated by self-interest- it sounds kind of cool.

The best part is that the integrity of the standard game is left intact. Should the mob vanish, the game still goes on- excepting the fact that players can win by headhunting random forum-goers to work in the house of commons for them. It is very political.

[Excal]

Dangit, I knew my proposals were doing something wrong!  Ushering in an era where a proposal would be made and then the topic will lie dead for three days until it's time for the next proposal to be made!

Wait...

That's what the topic was like before I started letting the non-players play.

Tom, as you may have noticed, I've been very open about my philosophy for how this game should be going, including the complexity, from the start.  So why have you just started to comment on it now?  In fact, especially the complexity, given that "not enough complexity" was my reason for basically stating that I would veto the first proposal in the game.  And, yes.  What Rat said is very true.  This is a political game.  The way you win is by either convincing everyone that you deserve to win more than they do, or by getting things complex and finding (or placing then exploiting before anyone else can) a loophole that will let you attain victory.  And given how likely the second one is, then cutting back on the Chaos is a sure fire way to ensure that the game will never end.

Besides, why the hell should we not let "non-players" play.  This is a beginner game, an introductory game.  Being a snob here when the whole purpose is to let people have a taste of the game is idiotic.  As far as I'm concerned, the only difference there should be between "Player" and "Non-Player" is that a "Player" has obligations to the game to continue playing, and therefore have greater power in exchange for that.  But, in order to get a taste of the game, "Non-Players" need three things.  For a taste, they need the ability to vote and make proposals, and in order to care, they need to be able to win.  If this motion passes, they will have those tools, and they will be able to have their taste.

So, yeah.  I don't feel any remorse for my actions, nor do I feel I am in the wrong here.  You're welcome to make reasoned arguments for why my attempts are foolish or whatever else you think they are.  But until I get that, I'm going to continue doing what I can to make the game look like what I think it should look like.

[QuietRain]

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.

[Carthrat]

Ugh, no, let's not have a rule that allows people to join as players whenever they want. The current dynamic holds far greater promise than such a tedious policy.

The mobb rule is interesting because it has redundancy- even if the mob vanishes the original players can still go on. It's also interesting because it creates a split between two groups; asymmetric gameplay is significantly more interesting than symmetric play, especially in terms of a game where everyone is supposed to be pushing an agenda- when everyone has the *exact same goal*, though, plans are quite transparent. For that matter, people who are against complexity make me sad; Excal is quite right in saying that the game will probably never end unless the complexity goes *up* and the ability to make plans that aren't immediately obvious to everyone else becomes apparently.

The funny thing is, I don't understand why anyone in the mob would actually want to vote against this. The idea that they can win creates incentive to play. They aren't compelled to do so, so they can leave whenever they want. Even if they don't participate in dicussion in the commons at all, they can retain their vote. They have nothing to lose- since any given mob member has nothing- and everything to gain.

[EvilTom]

Excal, being abrasive isn't going to change my mind, FYI. This isn't mafia (not that it works there either).