Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Bardiche]

with the exception of Excal and EvilTom, I shall now vote Nay to everyone else's proposals. Out of spite. You drove me to this, gents.

[Yakumo]

That doesn't make you any less of a meanie head.

[Carthrat]

On second thoughts, nah.

[Hunter Sopko]

Aiel is a player now?

I call shenanigans.

Also: Way to prove the proposal right!

Also also: Alex is my partner. Are you going to list the partners' player votes? Or just their mob votes?

[Bardiche]

That doesn't make you any less of a meanie head.

That's beside the point. You already labelled me such, so there's no gains from me to now act in a manner unbecoming of a meanie head.

[Carthrat]

Partners are just sending in 'vote yay', which I have assumed thus far to mean the mob vote and nor their bonus partner vote; thus, you're accruing all your usual extra votes.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

That doesn't make you any less of a meanie head.

That's beside the point. You already labelled me such, so there's no gains from me to now act in a manner unbecoming of a meanie head.

You do know you still have plenty to lose, right? ^_^

[Bardiche]

The worst you can do is make me a player and then make me lose the game.

Or somehow pass legislature to ban me from participating.

BUT WHO CARES?

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

You're very uncreative and this saddens us. =(

Meaniehead~

[Bardiche]

If it promotes fun, it's a victory for me.

[Carthrat]

Blatant proposal to transform game into MTG here. Initial draft up, will follow with more revisions over the next couple days, subject to mob temperament. Long story short, I want people duking it out; creatures should let you punch the points right out of other people, potentially stealing their points or causing them to outright lose the game if they're reduced to something too low. Mainly tossing this up to see if I'm going to need to do something else later.

Although I'm tempted to propose something like 'if you have less than -50 points, you instantly lose and are no longer a player'.

322. All players may possess Creatures, which represent loyal warriors under their command. A Creature has a number of values.

Name: The creatures name, e.g. "Ex-Mob Bravo"
Type: The type of the creaure, e.g. "Moderator", "Anonymous", "Techie","Student"
Colour: The colour(s) of the creature, which are chosen from White, Red, Blue, Green, or Black.
Power: The attacking ability of the creature.
Toughness: The defensive ability of the creature. A creature which receives damage equal to it's toughness is destroyed.
Special Abilities: A creature may have a number of special abilities or exceptions built into it. When the special abilities possessed by a creature come into conflict with mutable rules, the creature's abilities take precedence.
Flavour Text: Something witty is said here.

A player can, during his turn, before he has made a proposal, spend any number of votes to put into play a single creature. The player chooses the name, type, colour, and flavour text of his creature, and has 2*X points to spend between power and toughness, where 'X' is the number of votes they have spent. Thus, one could spend 2 votes and put a creature with 2 power and 2 toughness into play, or perhaps a 3 power 1 toughness creature.

[Hunter Sopko]

No.

[Carthrat]

You wound me.

322. All players may possess Creatures, which represent loyal warriors under their command. A Creature has a number of values.

Name: The creatures name, e.g. "Ex-Mob Bravo"
Type: The type of the creaure, e.g. "Moderator", "Anonymous", "Techie","Student"
Colour: The colour(s) of the creature, which are chosen from White, Red, Blue, Green, or Black.
Power: The attacking ability of the creature.
Toughness: The defensive ability of the creature. A creature which receives damage equal to it's toughness is destroyed.
Special Abilities: A creature may have a number of special abilities or exceptions built into it. When the special abilities possessed by a creature come into conflict with mutable rules, the creature's abilities take precedence.
Flavour Text: Something witty is said here.

Two new phases are added to each turn; the 'attacking' phase and the 'deployment' phase, which occur before the Discussion phase in this order; attacking, deployment, discussion. During the deployment phase, the player whose turn it is may spend any number of votes to put into play a single creature. The player chooses the name, type, colour, and flavour text of his creature, and has 2*X points to spend between power and toughness, where 'X' is the number of votes they have spent. Thus, one could spend 2 votes and put a creature with 2 power and 2 toughness into play, or perhaps a 3 power 1 toughness creature.

During the attacking phase, a player can choose to attack another player with one or more of his creatures. The player who is attacked may respond by defending, if he has creatures of his own in play. The defender must assign one of his own creatures to an enemy attacker to defend against it. No creature can defend ainst more than one attacking creature per turn. No creature

If a creature is not defended against, the player loses x10 points, whgaere x is the power of the creature that is attacking.

If a creature is defended against, the power and toughness of the creatures are compared. If a creature has less toughness than the other has power, then it is destroyed. Both creatures can be destroyed at once in this fashion.

[Ranmilia]

So basically whoever has the most votes hoarded at the time this is adopted gets the biggest creature and uses it to kick the stuffing out of the other players...? 

Oh, no, only the player whose turn it is.  So the first player to go here pops out a, say, 19/1 and smacks the defenseless player of their choice for 190 points.

Or if you let everyone deploy... everyone must sacrifice one vote per turn to make a 1/1 chumpblocker?

And this works with partner votes how?

I'm kinda with Soppy here, no matter how you look at it this takes away from people casting votes on proposals.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

...

fucking god no. I like the sentiment, but the implementation just isn't happening.

[Carthrat]

I don't know, Alex. When did partners do anything? I only voted yes to it because it meant free points, and I was pretty certain several people just wouldn't be bothered. I'm happy with that as is, frankly, since I already have a lead. Eh, oh well.

322. Andrew, Excal, Carthrat, and Jo'ou all gain 100 points.

[n-factorial]

...that seems incredibly and pointlessly random as a proposal.

[Dunefar]

Carthrat you are unbalanced.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Carthrat you are unbalanced.

Really needs to be said.

[Carthrat]

Nothing pointless about it. I'm declaring a formal invitation of alliance with the individuals mentioned in my post.

I did consider throwing up some huge diplomacy proposal, where people could declare war, neutrality or peace with others. Something like "If you vote the same was as someone you're at peace with, +5 points, if you vote opposite, -5 points", and vice-versa for when at war. I'd be amenable to that, though it would probably take a lot of words.

[Dunefar]

Carthrat you are unbalanced.

Carthrat you are unbalanced.

Carthrat you are unbalanced.

Carthrat you are unbalanced.

There you go, Snow!

[Dunefar]

Nothing pointless about it. I'm declaring a formal invitation of alliance with the individuals mentioned in my post.

I did consider throwing up some huge diplomacy proposal, where people could declare war, neutrality or peace with others. Something like "If you vote the same was as someone you're at peace with, +5 points, if you vote opposite, -5 points", and vice-versa for when at war. I'd be amenable to that, though it would probably take a lot of words.

This is just gonna lead to a wank-off where people throw all the vote they can at it one way or another. It's like using a club when finesse is needed.

[Carthrat]

Nah, the people who stand to benefit outnumber those who stand against it. I'll bet not everyone tosses all their votes against it.

[Laggy]

I will totally vote yea for this.

Rat has a point in that this game's quickly going nowhere when people autovote against complex proposals. It's freaking Nomic. The game is about rules. It's about coming up with crazy legalese and weird and alternate ways to go to victory that aren't immediately obvious. It stalls forever otherwise like it has been, on turn 21, with no one even halfway to victory. I understand the mob's reluctant to get themselves mired into the game because they didn't sign up for this but that doesn't mean complexity = automatically bad.

The MtG idea was frankly cool though it needed a lot more refining and detailed stuff. Again though I get the feeling that Rat's not bothering to pursue it because -no one- wants to actually figure out details or pick at things that are layered rather than transparent. For the sake of the game not continuing until the next ice age, I implore people to reconsider this line of thinking.

*poofs!*

[n-factorial]

Nothing pointless about it. I'm declaring a formal invitation of alliance with the individuals mentioned in my post.

I did consider throwing up some huge diplomacy proposal, where people could declare war, neutrality or peace with others. Something like "If you vote the same was as someone you're at peace with, +5 points, if you vote opposite, -5 points", and vice-versa for when at war. I'd be amenable to that, though it would probably take a lot of words.

322. All players shall now possess the option of entering into a state of peace, neutrality or war with another player. All players shall also be considered as starting in a state of neutrality at the time this law is passed. Advancing from war to either neutrality or peace, or from neutrality to peace, requires one player to propose the offer in the format ##Advance to (Peace/Neutrality) With:: [player name], and for the other player to confirm with Accepting (Peace/Neutrality) with:: [player name]. All movement from peace to either neutrality or war, or from neutrality to war, requires only one member to state in post ##Declaring (Neutrality/War) With:: to lower the relationship to the stated level. All changes in relationship statuses may occur during both proposal discussion and voting stages.

a) Peace. This relationship grants a +5 point bonus to two people in the relationship if their votes on a proposal are the same, and a -5 point penalty if their votes conflict. These point bonuses stack with other peace bonuses (so three people voting together under Peace will get +10 points). This does not count the number of votes, simply the affirmative/negative value of the votes.

b) Neutrality. This relationship has no point modifiers.

a) War. This relationship grants a +5 point bonus to two people in the relationship if their votes on a proposal are different, and a -5 point penalty if their votes are the same. These point bonuses stack with other war bonuses (so one person voting against three others he is at War with will get +15 points). This does not count the number of votes, simply the affirmative/negative value of the votes.

i offer this as an alternative to your current proposal, carthrat.