Nomic - Turn Twenty Eight (tai sez: omnomnom)

[Laggy]

I'm cool with that. Kinda sketchy on part c, though, mainly because "one vote" could end up meaning a lot of things, and things are not etched in stone. If Rule 315 changes or voting in general changes in such a manner that voting on multiple proposals becomes difficult, I figure that future people should take that into account when interacting with this.

In other words, I don't think that safety net is necessary. Just a and b should be fine.

[n-factorial]

fair enough, it's why that part was seperate from the rest of it. mainly just something that occured to me as an issue when I was typing the revision up.

[Hunter Sopko]

I like how the mob is doing Tom's work for him. It strikes me that we might not need this after all, for all that I'm for this.

[Bardiche]

There's a difference between proposing an alternative proposal (something which the players should do moar) and proposing our own proposals. I, for one, already know what I want to propose if I get a turn to do so.

And you'll all shoot it down like hell hath no I suppose but that's cool.

[n-factorial]

once the players not only stop making proposals that are sloppy in thought and execution, but also put less effort toward complaining about how people don't like proposal x or y or how people are just coasting or whining or whatever, and actually put effort into suggestions and rules you'll find a lot more mobbers going along to get along.

until then in order to make this game even remotely coherent, expect us to speak up. and if you don't like how person x or y is coastign or whatever, make a proposal and counteract the punk instead of going "lawlololo hey look they're duin all the work for him". we're trying to get some enjoyment out of this too, but unlike you, we don't have anything to lose - we -can't- lose. that's why we're throwing our hats into the ring this way. don't like that? don't wanna see us helping people out? you can make a rule once your turn comes around - do something about it. complaint won't help anything.

[Hunter Sopko]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, nice shootin' Tex.

You're making more than a few assumptions. First is that I'm not enjoying seeing the mob take over for people. I've supported both the past two amendments the mob's interjected with. And I support the mob doing so, because it keeps players on their toes as much as it allows them to coast.

I felt it needed to be said though, because obviously people aren't getting the message and just taking advantage of it instead of improving their play despite the amount of times it's happened so far. You'll notice that I've actually gone back on my last two turns and revised my amendment based on player/mob feedback, as well as pulled an amendment and proposed something else entirely when one didn't work. Just in Rat's last turn I stated that this shouldn't be looked down upon as weakness or have a stigma attached to it. You're preaching to the quior here.

I'm calling out the players here, not the mob. I should have been a little more precise, but too late.

[n-factorial]

fair enough; I tender my apologies. looking back, what you say is true; i did not recognize the avatar and thus presumed that you were speaking up after a period of silence. that plus the ambiguity got my hackles quite raised. indeed, i do seem to be preaching to the quoir here.

[Carthrat]

Voting phase!

323. Following each voting phase, a non-player (hereby referred to as the Mobb Proposer) that voted that phase is randomly selected via Hatbot. During the subsequent discussion phase, the Mobb Proposer is allowed the option of making a proposal (separate and independent of the one that the current player is proposing). This proposal is then voted on like any other during the next voting phase.

The voting for the Mobb Proposer's proposal differs from norm in the following ways. Every eligible voter gets an additional vote to be used exclusively for this proposal - player's votes as counted with three times the normal weight. Rule 315 does not apply (players cannot choose to split up your votes or stockpile votes). Other rules associated with voting still apply so long as they are applicable (score-related voting rules cannot be applied to non-players, for instance).

Votecount!

AndrewRogue: 24
Carthrat:  16
EvilTom: 15
Excal: 18
HunterSopko: 11
Jo'ou: 10
VerySlightlyMad: 14

[Carthrat]

323. Following each voting phase, a non-player (hereby referred to as the Mobb Proposer) that voted that phase is randomly selected via Hatbot. During the subsequent discussion phase, the Mobb Proposer is allowed the option of making a proposal (separate and independent of the one that the current player is proposing). This proposal is then voted on like any other during the next voting phase.

The voting for the Mobb Proposer's proposal differs from norm in the following ways. Every eligible voter gets an additional vote to be used exclusively for this proposal - player's votes as counted with three times the normal weight. Rule 315 does not apply (players cannot choose to split up your votes or stockpile votes). Other rules associated with voting still apply so long as they are applicable (score-related voting rules cannot be applied to non-players, for instance).

AndrewRogue: Abstain
Carthrat: Yea
EvilTom: Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea
Excal: Yea
Jo'ou Ranbu: Yea Yea
Sopko: Yea (Bet Mob would vote Yea)
VerySlightlyMad: Abstain

Bardiche: Yea
Laggy: Yea
n-factorial: Yea
Nitori: Yea
QuietRain: Nay Nay (Excal's vote)
Xanth: Nay

The proposal was PASSED!

<-->

Points

1. AndrewRogue: -42
2. Carthrat: 116 (Partner: Corwin)
3. EvilTom: 110
4. Excal: 80 (Partner: QuietRain)
5. Jo'ou Ranbu: 70
6. Sopko: 82 (Partner: SirAlex)
7. VerySlightlyMad: 53

Votecount

AndrewRogue: 27
Carthrat:  18
EvilTom: 12
Excal: 19
Jo'ou: 11
Sopko: 13
VerySlightlyMad: 17

Diplomacy

AndrewRogue - Neutral to All
Carthrat -  EvilTom (W), VerySlightlyMad (W) Excal (P), Jo'ou Ranbu (P)
EvilTom -Carthrat (W)
Excal -  Carthrat (P), Jo'ou Ranbu (P), VerySlightlyMad (W)
Jo'ou Ranbu - Carthrat (P), Excal (P), VerySlightlyMad (W)
Sopko - Neutral to All
VerySlightlyMad -Carthrat (W), Excal (W), Jo'ou Ranbu (W)

It is Excal's turn! Please propose a change to the rules. Your rule-change number is 324.

Hatbot has selected BARDICHE, a meanie head who does not understand what a wall of text truly is, to propose a change to the rules! His rule-change number is 325, should he choose to make it.

[Ranmilia]

Shouldn't that be 324 and 325, since the one that was just passed is 323?

[Bardiche]

... what, I actually get to propose a rule? Awesome.

325. During the Voting Phase, a player may send the (unofficial) Game Moderator a single PM, seperate from their vote PM to exchange Points with another player. The player must declare the amount of Points he wants to exchange, and to which Player. A player may never trade more Points than he currently possesses, and cannot trade Points if they have a negative amount of Points. If a player would be declared the victor through Point exchange, then the exchange is void.
Once exchanged, the specified amount of Points is deducted from the player what sent the PM, and added to the Points pool of the player specified in the PM.

------>

Basically the "bribe"-clause.

[Carthrat]

I like it, but why stop people from winning that way? >_>

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Also, giving the receiver a clause to accept/decline the points might be useful, since, then, it won't be as easily used as a bruteforce blackmail maneuver.

[Hunter Sopko]

I don't see much potential for blackmail here, even if the points can't be refused. At least in the traditional sense. You could easily tell what point went where with simple math. Giving points to a player and telling them to vote some way or else is more a threat than blackmail, since the information being held against them would already be public. You're just as better off not giving the points and making the threat.

Of course, this is aside from all the other fun things you could do with this bill. I'm in favor of it.

[Carthrat]

Presumably deals would be made behind the scenes as to where votes and stuff go. Just giving someone points isn't going to go very far if they haven't already agreed to something, so.. yeah. I like it.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

*Nods.* Yeah, in that case, don't see why not. Sounds fun.

[Yakumo]

I'm apathetic mostly because it has nothing to do with me, so whatever.  Hatbot probably gets this vote. <_<

Also, where's our player proposal anyway?  *pokes Excal*

[Bardiche]

Preventing someone to win in that way in case of oversight on the giver's behalf, or someone getting frustrated (somehow) and tossing the hat in the ring by donating all their points to the highest number'd player to grant them the win immediately. At least this way, everyone still has a chance to circumvent it... somehow.

Since you can already discuss over PM etc I really didn't see a need to include the accept/deny clause since it just really didn't make a lot of sense to me.

Idea though: since Rat will clearly know who's backdoor dealing to who, do I need to change the rule a little to force Rat to make the information public each round, or the reverse and deny him that possibility?

[Excal]

Sorry for the delay.  I've been busy the last few days.

Anyways, player proposal 324 goes as follows.

Amendment to 306:  A rule-change is adopted if and only there is a positive majority among the eligible voters.  If a vote is still unanimous in spite of this, then the following two rules apply.  a) All bonus or penalties for voting for or against a proposal are nullified with the exception of those pertaining to the person making the proposal.  b) There will be one vote, and only one vote, to represent the full say of all votes and other sources of influence outside of those listed as players.  This vote will be the same as the most votes it has received.

[Carthrat]

What's the rationale behind this?

[Bardiche]

Amendment to 306:  A rule-change is adopted if and only there is a positive majority among the eligible voters.

Add an 'if' there and you'll have my vote.

[Excal]

Amendment to 306:  A rule-change is adopted if and only if there is a positive majority among the eligible voters.  If a vote is still unanimous in spite of this, then the following two rules apply.  a) All bonus or penalties for voting for or against a proposal are nullified with the exception of those pertaining to the person making the proposal.  b) There will be one vote, and only one vote, to represent the full say of all votes and other sources of influence outside of those listed as players.  This vote will be the same as the most votes it has received.

There's the Bard, who does not begin to comprehend the metaphysical nature of walls consisting of text, amendment.

As for rational, mostly just so that we can pass unanimous motions again and therefore play around with immutables.  Which I want to open up because it's fun and it might take the attention away from the Mobb who seem to be the centre of attention for far too many proposals.  How does this do it?  Mostly by removing point based incentives for players to vote against it.  And by removing the possibility of random jackasses just popping their heads in, voting no, and there being nothing we can do about it.

[Carthrat]

Huh. How exactly does this work?

"If a vote is still unanimous in spite of this, then the following two rules apply-" what does this mean?

[Excal]

unanimous, all votes must = yes in order to pass.  When this = yes, then the two rules I'm proposing come into effect.  And in no other case do they do so.

[Carthrat]

Can you rephrase it to something like 'if the vote requires unaminity' or something? As written I read it as if the vote already has to be unanimous before the rule goes into play (that is everyone is already voting for it.)