Author Topic: Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom) (Read 83061 times)

Carthrat · « **Reply #675 on:** January 19, 2009, 08:22:48 AM »

Fucking sold. Am willing to insert a 'n-factorial is a legend' clause. Do people have any thoughts on locking relationships in for a period of time, so you can't switch every turn?

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.

c) 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.

Yakumo · « **Reply #676 on:** January 19, 2009, 08:34:04 AM »

It's one thing to have a complex addition to the game that changes the way the game is played, it's quite another to haphazardly toss in something that not only is going to completely change the game but to do so in an incredibly haphazard and half-formed way. Read the Rat's second MtG proposal post carefully. It has half-finished sentences, for crying out loud. It also ignores the fact that the idea is unbalanced by the current vote pools. I haven't been keeping track of who has been stockpiling votes, but if there's one player that's way ahead in the vote count at this point they have a huge advantage right off the bat, while someone that's actually been using their votes is stuck futility throwing out little 1/1 weenies every turn and praying that people don't decide to gang up on them. You can tell that the plan wasn't prepared properly. If you must have the MtG thing, give it a separate pool of points, reset the vote pools to zero, or just say that votes stocked before this proposal takes effect can't be used for the purposes of this proposal. Something to give it balance instead of dicking people over because they didn't foresee something like this.

Short form: Complex ideas are great, but at least have a workable implementation before you propose them.

Yeah, I know this is kinda obsolete already but the basic point stands. You can't just throw things out willy-nilly and expect anything to actually get done.

Carthrat · « **Reply #677 on:** January 19, 2009, 08:49:24 AM »

Yak mostly has a point, I was more gauging for reactions to the concept when I tossed it out. Switching was pretty much a kneejerk response, and honestly I like this more right now anyway.

I disagree with him about putting forward an imbalanced proposal, some are going to benefit some people more than others depending on circumstances. That's just how things go. Whether or not they go through depends on me being able to appeal to a majority, not everyone. I have to ask the mob in general, are you likely to kneejerk proposals that don't give everyone fair shake?

Hell, I'm tempted to get people to say the sorts of things they'd love to vote *against* more than anything.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #678 on:** January 19, 2009, 08:59:25 AM »

I really like this new one. n-factorial is a legend.

Carthrat · « **Reply #679 on:** January 19, 2009, 09:08:09 AM »

Mod stuff

To all partners: When sending in your votes, please state whether or not you're using both your mob vote and the extra vote you gain by being a partner. I have assumed nobody has used those extra votes so far.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #680 on:** January 19, 2009, 09:14:49 AM »

Yeah, was wondering about that.

And a reminder to the players with partners, if the partner didn't vote, it's credited to your reserve votepool.

n-factorial · « **Reply #681 on:** January 19, 2009, 01:41:37 PM »

edit note: there should be two " ## in front of Accepting (Peace/Neutrality) with:: [player name]. " for the sake of easier formatting.

and now that i have managed to be awesome in a forum game on the interwobs, i shall now go and proceed to get completely sloshed. cheers.

VySaika · « **Reply #682 on:** January 19, 2009, 05:52:38 PM »

I'm down with this one, yeah.

Ranmilia · « **Reply #683 on:** January 19, 2009, 05:53:45 PM »

This looks fun, will vote yes, etc.

Jo'ou Ranbu · « **Reply #684 on:** January 19, 2009, 10:34:13 PM »

I actually like this proposal myself. Including the "n-factorial fucking rules" amendment.

n-factorial · « **Reply #685 on:** January 19, 2009, 11:09:42 PM »

i have no objections to a rider to be attached to the bill, but instead of something immortallizing me, just have the rider be "The game is now known as 'Om Nom Nom Nomic'." this way more rules may be added without worrying about the omnoms.

Yakumo · « **Reply #686 on:** January 19, 2009, 11:40:46 PM »

Well, Rat. Think of it this way. You have to either at least make things look balanced and sneak something through, which is going to be fairly difficult with the group of people you have reading over everything, or you have to make things intentionally unbalanced and make more people buy into it than not. The proposal you had really did neither. It was inherently unbalanced not against specific people who you might be able to convince other players deserve to be screwed, but against whoever had actually been using their votes on proposals, which isn't even being kept track of in public.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that while I can understand what you're saying about not having everything be balanced, it still requires a bit more thought about how and why it is unbalanced and how you can convince others that this is a good thing. Not just unbalanced because you thought the idea sounded cool and didn't think it through.

EvilTom · « **Reply #687 on:** January 20, 2009, 12:28:06 PM »

Back from holidays at the beach!

Rofl @ rules passed while I was away.

Eh this proposal requires team work etc. which I do not have the motivation for. As with the previous teamwork proposal, I will vote no. Because I am lazy.

Carthrat · « **Reply #688 on:** January 20, 2009, 12:56:17 PM »

You think it's possible to win at Nomic without teamwork? >_>

Veryslightlymad · « **Reply #689 on:** January 20, 2009, 06:32:41 PM »

Unfortunately for me, no. Eventually, I'll have to be.... nice

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #690 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:41:17 PM »

I think Yakko has the right idea, but I also have to say that it's better to not be insulted when people don't like your proposals. You fight for them, maybe compromise, but ultimately, if you don't think they have a snowball's chance in hell, you pull it and propose something else. Instead of really fighting for your proxy fighting proposal, you took it personally and attacked us and other proposals that had passed rather than working on making it more balanced. I'll grant that factorial kind of pre-empted you with something better before you could refine it to something better, though.

There's nothing wrong with switching out your proposal. I don't really see a stigma against it.

Carthrat · « **Reply #691 on:** January 21, 2009, 06:00:17 AM »

Voting phase is a go.

Kilgamayan · « **Reply #692 on:** January 21, 2009, 06:32:38 AM »

I voted Yea on 321, jerkwad. List me. >:|

Carthrat · « **Reply #693 on:** January 22, 2009, 07:11:06 AM »

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.

c) 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.

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

Bardiche: Nay
Corwin: Yea
Gatewalker: Yea
Laggy: Yea
n-factorial: Yea
QuietRain: Yea
SuperAielMan: Yea
Yakumo: Yea
Xanth: Yea

The proposal was PASSED!

<->

Nomic -- Turn Twenty Three

Players - Points

1. AndrewRogue: -32
2. Carthrat: 81 (Partner: Corwin)
3. EvilTom: 89
4. Excal: 50 (Partner: QuietRain)
5. Jo'ou Ranbu: 60
6. Sopko: 58 (Partner: SirAlex)
7. VerySlightlyMad: 63

Diplomacy!

AndrewRogue - Carthrat (N), EvilTom (N), Excal (N), Jo'ou Ranbu (N), Sopko (N), VerySlightlyMad (N)
Carthrat - AndrewRogue (N), EvilTom (N), Excal (N), Jo'ou Ranbu (N), Sopko (N), VerySlightlyMad (N)
EvilTom - AndrewRogue (N), Carthrat (N), Excal (N), Jo'ou Ranbu (N), Sopko (N), VerySlightlyMad (N)
Excal - AndrewRogue (N), Carthrat (N), EvilTom (N), Jo'ou Ranbu (N), Sopko (N), VerySlightlyMad (N)
Jo'ou Ranbu - AndrewRogue (N), Carthrat (N), EvilTom (N), Excal (N), Sopko (N), VerySlightlyMad (N)
Sopko - AndrewRogue (N), Carthrat (N), EvilTom (N), Excal (N), Jo'ou Ranbu (N), VerySlightlyMad (N)
VerySlightlyMad - AndrewRogue (N), Carthrat (N), EvilTom (N), Excal (N), Jo'ou Ranbu (N), Sopko (N)

It is EvilTom's turn! Please propose a change to the rules. Your rule-change number is 323.

Do people want me to post the number of votes everyone has in stock? It's not really a secret, since you can figure it out by going back, so yeah.

EvilTom · « **Reply #694 on:** January 22, 2009, 07:58:51 AM »

323. During each voting phase, each member of the mob has the option of voting for a player for any reason. These votes are known as 323 votes.
The player with the most 323 votes at the end of the round has his votes doubled for the next round. 323 votes are reset every round.

--------

Ok, my intention here is to give the mob a 'People's Choice' award sort of thing. The person most entertaining or intellectual or whatever will get a reward, hence boosting input, gameplay etc.
The execution of the rule is a bit clumsy so feel free to rearrange it.

Carthrat · « **Reply #695 on:** January 22, 2009, 08:00:55 AM »

I have no interest in turning this into more of a popularity contest than it already is.

Carthrat · « **Reply #696 on:** January 22, 2009, 08:02:04 AM »

Oh yeah

##Declaring War With:: EvilTom
##Declaring War With:: VerySlightlyMad
##Advance to Peace With:: Excal
##Advance to Peace With:: Jo'ou Ranbu

Carthrat · « **Reply #697 on:** January 22, 2009, 08:03:50 AM »

Also keep in mind that given how many votes are floating around at the moment (most people have around 10, Andrew has quite a bit more), doubling voting power of one player could lead to some truly lopsided stuff.

If we must have this rule, at the very least have it only double the number of extra votes they receive that round rather than something so vauge. I'll still vote against it, but probably not with all my strength.

Veryslightlymad · « **Reply #698 on:** January 22, 2009, 03:35:23 PM »

Damn it, Kilga! Your post after the official vote post kept me from thinking it was the voting phase. I lost 20 points thanks to you!

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #699 on:** January 22, 2009, 03:41:29 PM »

How'd you lose 20? Andy only lost 10.

News:

Author Topic: Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom) (Read 83061 times)