Register

Author Topic: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 8 (Bardikin)  (Read 20958 times)

Taishyr

  • Guest
Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 8 (Bardikin)
« on: September 03, 2010, 09:43:45 PM »
Nomic Game start now go hi!

Points:

Excal: -10
Bardiche: -6
Magetastic: 15
Rat: 15
Tonfa: 12
n!: 16

EXCAL'S STATS: Atk 1 Def 5 Int 3 Spi 5 (Energized by Rat to Int)

RAT'S STATS: Atk 1 Def 3 Int 5 Spi 5

N!'S STATS: Atk 5 Def 4 Int 4 Spi 1

MAGE'S STATS: Atk 3 Def 5 Int 5 Spi 1 (Energized by n! to Int)

THE VP'S STATS: Atk 3 Def 1 Int 5 Spr 5

BARD'S STATS: Atk 1 Def 5 Int 5 Spi 3 (Energized by Tonfa to Int)


The rules~

Immutable Rules

101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes, as follows:

During the Proposal or Voting phase for a player, a vote for the proposal at hand may be sent in to the Moderator via a forum PM to the Moderator or, if the Moderator requests it, to the Co-Mod. This vote may be changed up until the end of the Voting phase. There are three options: Affirmative, Negative, and Abstention (or whatever synonyms are chosen). If no PM is received by the end of the Voting Phase, the vote shall be counted as an Abstention.

106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void in effect. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

112. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

115. Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

117. The Moderator and First Judge for this game is Taishyr/Taitoro/Xorntoro/Xorn-Gibberish. He may not be made a player and has veto attempts over attempts to make him a player. The Co-Mod is Halbarad. As for his playership, that's his choice.


Mutable Rules

201. Players shall alternate in Hatbotted order, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points.

202. A rule-change is adopted if the vote is a majority among the eligible voters.

203. A player gains points at the beginning of the next player's turn equal to his rule number minus 300, divided by 2, plus 3. Round up after dividing. (So (((X-300)/2)+3)

204. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

205. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. When a proposed rule-change is accepted, the player who proposed it gains 10 points.

206. Each player always has exactly one vote.

207. The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

208. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

209. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
See Rule 305.

210. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then a Hatbotted player is made Judge, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate. If a Judgment is invoked and it is the Judge's turn, then a different person becomes Judge for that turn.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

211. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

212. There are two Phases, or Parts, to each round of the game of Nomic: the Proposal phase, to last no more than 72 hours, and the Voting phase, to last no more than 24 hours. See rule 303 for amendment


New Rules

303. There are two Phases, or Parts, to each round of the game of Nomic: the Proposal phase, to last no more than 48 hours, and the Voting phase, to last no more than 24 hours.

304. Each player has four statistics, denoted as follows: Attack, Defense, Intelligence, and Spirit. Each of the values begins at 1, and on the inception of this rule, each player shall be awarded 10 additional points to spread between his statistics. When assigning these points, no statistic can be raised above 5. These points must be assigned immediately, and play will not recommence until this is done. The values are to be made public, and posted in the opening post of any and all Nomic threads.

During the proposal phase of each turn, each player may also take one of these additional options. These options are PM'd to the mod, to be revealed and enacted at the end of the proposal phase, before voting commences.

Assault: Select a player. Your opponent will lose 1d6+Your attack-His Defense points. The mod will roll dice and adjust the totals. (1d6 means a six-sided die, the sides consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Results will be taken from the side facing upwards after the die has been rolled. The mod may use a stand-in for the die, such as HATBOT, at his discretion.)
Protect: Select a player. Add your defense score to his defense score until your next turn. You are permitted to target yourself with this ability, as well, effectively doubling your defense.

Legislative Maneuvers: You may not use this ability during your own turn.

Select a player. The mod will roll 1d6 for each of you, and add the results to your corresponding Intelligence scores.

If your roll is lower, you suffer from an Injunction. This lasts until the beginning of your next turn, and you may not use Legislative Maneuvers while you are under an Injunction. In the proposal phase of your next turn, you do nothing. In the voting phase of your next turn, nothing happens.

If your roll is tied, nothing happens.

If your roll is higher, you can order the other player to vote in whatever manner you choose once, and he must comply. This ability must be used before your next turn, and may not be used during your turn.

Energize: Select a player. You may add your Spirit score to their Intelligence or Assault until the beginning of your next turn. This player is considered Energized. A player can only be Energized by one other player at a time. Further attempts to Energize that player fail until the first instance expires.

The actions are resolved in the following order- Protect, Energize, Attack, Legislative Maneuvers, meaning that a player who has energized or protected another will have this ability take effect before any other actions are done. When multiple players select the same option, they will be resolved simultaneously.

305. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the highest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

306. All players in the current game of Nomic, as of the inception of this rule, will have the options of drawing from the Deck on their turn. Draws cost a certain amount of points listed below, deducted as soon as the card is drawn. The cards drawn counter resets on the player's next turn. All Draws must be done before the Voting Phase, but need not be done consecutively; all Draws and their results must be declared in topic, and a player cannot draw more than once if he is at or below 0 points.

First draw: 1
Second draw: 3
Third draw: 6
Fourth draw: 10
Fifth draw: 15
Sixth draw: 21
Drawing past six cards is not permitted.

There are twenty-one cards in the Deck, and when a card is drawn, it is immediately replaced and the deck is reshuffled.

The twenty cards are divided into four suits and four ranks; each card has a unique suit/rank combination. The four suits are phlegm, sanguis, cholera, and melancholia. The ranks are Jack, Queen, King, Ace, and Eight. (In order, these may be corresponded to spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs, and Jack, Queen, King and Ace when using a real deck to draw from). The twenty-first card is the Joker of Bane.

The suits change a player's stats as follows permanently, unless stated otherwise by the rank of the card. The maximum stat allowed by card-drawn mods is 8.

Phlegm/Spades: Intelligence +1, Spirit -1.
Sanguis/Hearts: Spirit +1, Intelligence -1.
Choleric/Diamond: Attack +1, Defense -1.
Melancholic/Clubs: Defense +1, Attack -1.

Jack: If this rank is drawn, another point is deducted from the player's score. This cannot reduce the player's score below zero.
Queen: Instead of accepting the stat modification as written on the card, the player may instead swap the two stats and then apply the stat modification. (So if someone with Int 4/Spi 1 drew the Sanguine Queen, for example, they could first swap Int and Spi (to Spi 4/Int 1) and then apply the stat mod (to Spi 5/Int 1).
King: The drawer may instead choose which stat is reduced, instead of following the suit's reduction. It cannot reduce the stat increased in this way.
Ace: The drawer may instead choose which stat is increased, instead of following the suit's increase. It cannot increase the stat reduced in this way.
Eight: Instead of accepting the stat modification as written on the card, the player may choose to stop drawing for his turn. If he does so, he gets a +3 to the stat that would have been boosted, and a -3 to the stat that would have been reduced. (The player may also accept the stat mod as normal and then stop drawing.) This boost lasts until the player's next turn.
Joker of Bane: The player's stats are reset to their base.


Failed Rules

301.  Change Rule #205 so that it reads as follows.  "If your proposal fails, gain three points for every vote for the proposal made by a non-proposing player.  If your proposal passes, then every player besides the proposer gains points equal to the total votes for the proposal, and the proposing player can, on one vote before their next proposal, have their vote carry the weight of two votes.  If the vote is unanimous, then they can do this twice."

302. Every eligible voter is permitted to abstain. However, no eligible voter is permitted to abstain twice in a row. Doing so will incur a penalty of having a Negative vote appended to the first proposal to be proposed by the eligible voter who abstained twice in a row. This negative vote will be considered equal to an eligible voter's vote, and for the purposes of point calculations will be considered the same as the proposing player's vote.

307. The rule, as it stands, shall be left alone except for the following action which will be added at the bottom.

Duel: A duel can only be selected by the player making a proposition and must be made at the same time as he makes his proposal.  If he does not issue his challenge publically at that time, then he has forfeited his right to make a challenge on that pass.  Also, the challenge counts as your action for that round.  Issueing a challenge involves stating who you are challenging, declaring which stat you are using to attack with (Defense can never be used to attack), and which stat you are targetting (Attack can never be attacked in this way).

In the discussion phase, the challenged party has three options.  They can accept the challenge, decline the challenge, or ignore the challenge.  An ignored challenge is the same as accepting the challenge, save that the challenger automatically wins.  If the challenged declines, they may do so by ceding the greater of the following two amount of points to the challenger.  A) 5 points, or B) If the declining party has more points than the challenger, 10% of the difference between them.  If the challenged party accepts, then the challenge goes forth.

Each player who is not engaged in the challenge can give support to either party.  This must be declared by PM to the moderator, and there is no cost to doing so, in points or actions, and it can coincide with their regular action for the round.  A person giving support adds half of their relevant stat (ie. the one the party they are supporting is using) to the score used for the duel.

The duel is resolved by having each party adding 1d6 to their final score and the greater number wins.

The aftermath of a duel is as follows.  Assume in all cases that when Attack/Defense comes up it is decided by the winner.

Whoever wins takes one point of the stat used for defense (unless it's Defense, then it's winners choice of attack/defense).  Ties go to the defender.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 11:11:22 PM by Taitoro »

Taishyr

  • Guest
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2010, 09:46:18 PM »
First Turn
Points:

Excal: 0
Bardiche: 0
Magetastic: 0
Rat: 0
Tonfa: 0
n!: 0

It be Excal's turn! Submit dat nasty funk rule on us! You're 301, baby! Once a rule is submitted, ya'll got 48 shinin' hours to discuss and have him revise before v-v-v-v-VOTES!

Excal

  • Chibi Terror That Flaps in the Night
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2603
  • Let's Get Adorable
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2010, 12:30:54 AM »
Rule #205 bores me.  Losing points if your proposal fails, getting them if your proposal passes?  Yawn!  And absolutely nothing that cares about the scale with which you pass?  Let's fix both of these with one toss.

301.  Change Rule #205 so that it reads as follows.  "If your proposal fails, gain three points for every vote for the proposal made by a non-proposing player.  If your proposal passes, then every player besides the proposer gains points equal to the total votes for the proposal, and the proposing player can, on one vote before their next proposal, have their vote carry the weight of two votes.  If the vote is unanimous, then they can do this twice."

Taishyr

  • Guest
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2010, 12:33:07 AM »
DISCUSSION PHASE: BEGIN!

Proposal is currently:

301.  Change Rule #205 so that it reads as follows.  "If your proposal fails, gain three points for every vote for the proposal made by a non-proposing player.  If your proposal passes, then every player besides the proposer gains points equal to the total votes for the proposal, and the proposing player can, on one vote before their next proposal, have their vote carry the weight of two votes.  If the vote is unanimous, then they can do this twice."

Carthrat

  • Max Level Arch Priestess
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
  • I'm a goddess! I'm really a goddess!
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2010, 01:48:26 AM »
I actually like this. It's pretty basic but it gives the game some dynamism, which is badly needed from the beginning to be built right into the diplo process. So I'd vote yes for this as it stands and think everyone else should too.

HOWEVER

I believe under this system we will require a clause somewhere that causes ballots to be anonymous, at least before the result is known. Thoughts?
WHAT BENEFITS CAN ONE GET FROM SCIENTOLOGY?

Excal

  • Chibi Terror That Flaps in the Night
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2603
  • Let's Get Adorable
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2010, 01:59:46 AM »
Actually, looking at the rules, currently votes aren't valid unless they're PMed to the moderator.  Aka, Tai or Hal.  Votes made on the forum aren't valid votes.  So, anonymous voting is already built in.

Bardiche

  • Guest
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2010, 02:04:04 AM »
A vote in favour always gets you 3 points, then.

If it passes, everyone gets VOTES IN FAVOUR=POINTS, AND the proposing player acquires a one-use doublevote.

Unless their proposal passed UNANIMOUSLY, in which case they get a DOUBLE-use doublevote?

I can plainly say that I am not in favour of this proposal. Chiefly because I don't think it right to promote voting in favour of whatever willy-nilly proposal that comes about. If I vote Nay, I will still acquire Points for all those who vote Yay.

It's too complicated, to me. As a proposer, you'd WANT your proposal to fail only barely, so as to acquire the 3pts per vote mechanic. If it passes, then no player is really "handicapped" - everyone gains points and advance to the next round, whereas the proposer still gets that doublevote to use which... I just don't see as being massively desired.

I quite like penalties for bad rule proposals. If what you propose is bad, then you should lose points for it. Not be awarded if one poor soul thinks it's greatest idea ever and votes Yay so you can gain 3 points.


As it stands, my vote would be a Negative. I'm open to changing my mind if a revision is made to encourage getting proposals passed, and to penalise bad proposals.


Also, how long does this Discussion Phase last? Will we be duly and appropriately informed of a "Voting Phase", or will that be skipped if all votes are acquired by the end of the Discussion Phase?


//EDIT: Wait, what, every player BESIDES the proposing player gets points? So, uh, you... don't want to have proposals passed, under that model.

I don't think I like that at all.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 02:06:20 AM by Bardiche »

n-factorial

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2010, 02:11:21 AM »
ninja: Excal is correct.

however, I posit concern re: this current rule. does not factor in draw votes.

...actually, rules in general fail to govern draw votes. hm.

one final note: is intent for doubled vote to count solely for voting, for scoring, or both?

ninja Bardiche: what? if a proposal fails, the proposer gains 3, 6, or (potential) 9 as it stands. if it passes, proposer gains -none-, others gain 4, 5 or 6 depending. all proposer gains is doublevote. unless misinterpret occurs, a potential but. it is a somewhat intriguing system, but your concerns are valid I think. unsure how to address.

re: voting/discussion phase,

212. There are two Phases, or Parts, to each round of the game of Nomic: the Proposal phase, to last no more than 72 hours, and the Voting phase, to last no more than 24 hours.

if he gets the votes beforehand or if people choose to end discussion beforehand, then I would conclude the proposal phase ends, voting begins, is tallied, ends, and then the turn moves on. of note is that this is editable, which may be fodder for later.

Carthrat

  • Max Level Arch Priestess
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
  • I'm a goddess! I'm really a goddess!
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2010, 02:40:46 AM »
I prefer a more freewheeling democratic system, that actively encourages positive votes and making new rules which, traditionally, the voting public would be outright scared of for no more reason than that they are 'different' or 'strange'.

However I clearly didn't read the proposal properly since it doesn't actually award the voter if his proposal passes, soooo yeah that really has to change. Go comprehension! I will be reversing my position now, since presently points are the win condition (although unlikely to remain such). We should have a scoring system that rewards strong proposals.
WHAT BENEFITS CAN ONE GET FROM SCIENTOLOGY?

Bardiche

  • Guest
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2010, 03:13:12 AM »
I think I understand a little of what Excal means with the rule change as-is: it would encourage proposalists to propose only those rules which would benefit themselves in some notable capacity, as it means others gain points. It stands to reason you would only permit something as that if you would benefit yourself.

However, rules explicitly benefitting a certain player, i.e. 302: Bardiche gains 10 points would likely meet with a high disapproval rate, and therefore you'd need to find a way to propose rules that duly benefit yourself without scaring off potential votees.

I... think that's just asking a bit too much caution and care on everyone's parts.

Carthrat

  • Max Level Arch Priestess
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
  • I'm a goddess! I'm really a goddess!
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2010, 08:25:04 AM »
Welllllll let's actually break this down to the perspective of the rulegiver and the other players. Did I mention how much I like this not being mafia, so I can post whatever I want and entirely revise my opinions later, even multiple times?

The rulegiver, under the current system, is encouraged to pass rules that everyone likes. If he succeeds, he gets closer to victory. If he fails, he moves away from it. This basically disencourages risky proposals and forces him to make nice-sounding gestures if he wants to get anywhere in the game. You only really have one option here.

The other players have no incentive to pass any rule, I believe, unless it benefits them somehow or they think it's cool. They can screw other players and chase them from victory and receive no penalty. They are entirely unaffected by the outcome of the vote aside from the rule in question.

I think this is a very dry system, honestly, and while of course there's plenty of potential in terms of backroom deals and the like, it ultimately allows play to be stonewalled, particularly by people who are losing.



In Excal's proposed system, as a rulegiver, you have a greater variety of options.

You can try and pass a law everyone likes, even if it may not benefit you or anything. Assuming you succeed, you gain some additional voting weight, as well as whatever advantage you derive from the rule itself. However, you get greater freedom in proposing oddball rules, since as long as someone votes for it you always derive some benefit.

The law also removes taking away points, which is awesome because taking away points is a lame, lame thing. We want the game to end someday, and I guarantee that with clauses that enable you to easily lose points, it will take forever to do so until other victory conditions are established.

As someone voting on a law, you are also forced to eventually pass something because if you don't, eventually points will creep towards victory and your options will get more and more constrained. There's more variables you have to measure up, too- even if you like a law tossed out, you must consider the opportunity cost of letting your opponent get an additional vote, which may present problems later down the track depending on what, if anything, he's arranged with other players.

Even ignoring the content of any rule, you must choose between awarding points or awarding power to each player. The more I think about this, the more I like it, and the more I want to pass this law as it stands.

WHAT BENEFITS CAN ONE GET FROM SCIENTOLOGY?

Magetastic

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 600
  • Cooler than you.
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2010, 10:50:10 AM »
Excal is hijacking this account to state that Rat has totally grokked what I was aiming for.
<%King_Meepdorah> roll 1d999 for "It was beauty...that killed the mage"?
* +Hatbot --> "King_Meepdorah rolls 1d999 for "It was beauty...that killed the mage"? and gets 999."12 [1d999=999]
<%King_Meepdorah> ...
<+superaway> ...Uh oh.
<+RandomConsonant> ...
* +superaway shakes head.

Magetastic

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 600
  • Cooler than you.
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2010, 11:23:25 AM »
Haven't had time to properly read through this thing, but I must ask: If this proposed change were to occur, would it begin with this proposal itself, or the next one?
<%King_Meepdorah> roll 1d999 for "It was beauty...that killed the mage"?
* +Hatbot --> "King_Meepdorah rolls 1d999 for "It was beauty...that killed the mage"? and gets 999."12 [1d999=999]
<%King_Meepdorah> ...
<+superaway> ...Uh oh.
<+RandomConsonant> ...
* +superaway shakes head.

Bardiche

  • Guest
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2010, 02:14:43 PM »
Next one.

Still voting Nay as it stands, though.

Excal

  • Chibi Terror That Flaps in the Night
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2603
  • Let's Get Adorable
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2010, 05:22:35 PM »
Alright, so now I'm awake and...  man, Bard, it's like we've come to this thing under completely different assumptions.  But yeah, not a huge fan of random penalties for people deciding to, for whatever reason, not like your proposal.  Remember, it's entirely possible a a proposal may be stonewalled for reasons like "You pissed us off" or "You're winning" and I'm not sure I want to make this game have the same carnival atmosphere that the other game had.  (It was fun, but making all games like that would be boring.)  Also, given the flat scoring in this game we need something that pays attention to the scale of how many people voted for something.

That said, yes.  I did intend the rule specifically to encourage people to want to get their proposal to aim for the middle.  I find that more interesting.  You'll also note that if a player's proposal doesn't pass, then their own Aye vote will not count for points.  So, if they get stonewalled, then they still get no points, although having read Rat's summary, I may change that.  3 Points isn't much, but it will be enticement to vote for things to deny points after a certain point.  And I really do like the fact that it's enticement to both vote for and against.  You get something for voting for a proposal, but the proposer will either get a rule passed or points.  As for the proposer, points wise he now has absolutely no incentive to ever vote for his proposals, but it means that his rule gets passed, which is your primary way to influence the game.

This gives us tension, gives us variable ways to decide how to vote, and keeps things from being a static system where degree of success does not matter.

Bardiche

  • Guest
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2010, 05:48:14 PM »
Alright, then. To address it in full (I am plainly in favour of changing the scoring mechanics, but not too hot on your current proposal), I'd like to see actual incentive for a proposer to get a bill passed. The proposal you've made would discourage it under the idea that improving the game's manner of play would be beneficial to most if not all, and all the proposer gets is a doublevote.

The latter which I also call into question under rule "206. Each player always has exactly one vote.", which would be upturned also by your proposal - unless it changes the weight of a vote, in which case it is still a "double set of proposals", as it not only changes the scoring mechanics, it also changes voting mechanics.

In effect I realise it puts in two rules at the price of one and I can't in clean conscience accept that as well. Per the rules, conflicting rules shall give the lowest number precedence, so 205 would still precede 206 and gain superiority by way of age, but yes.

Some amendments I'd like to see in bullet points:
- "Votes for the proposal" changed to "In favour" so there's no ambiguity at all.
- Proper incentive for people to also want their proposals passed without incorporating double-votes or the like.
- Proper penalising for failing a proposal.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the proposer gain 3 points for every proposal passed; this way players are still likely to gain that amount or more, although a complete unanimous vote in favour would of course be disadvantageous to the proposer.

Further, to reward a rejection with 3 points per vote in favour also seems bad to me. I'd be more inclined to like 2pts per vote in favour, operating under the idea that we should not want the current ruleset to remain too static and still be changeable due to obvious profits in actually making a vote pass.



I am of course also saddened because it means I can't put "3xx. Bardiche wins" as a rule proposal every time and then make the win condition "200 points" without "(positive)" in front of it. ;_; I'll survive but yes, I'd like to at least see some incentive to get proposals passed.

Tonfa

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 866
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2010, 06:29:07 PM »
I applaud Excal for attempting to encourage citizens to participate in the democratic activities of our glorious country. However, I do not believe the proposal fully captures the presidential spirit - I would like to suggest the following amendments.

- If the proposal passes unanimously, the proposing player is also awarded points. Under Excal's system, voting "Yes" to anything that does not actively impede you is a rather no-brainer choice - I do not see the additional doublevote being a critical factor in most cases compared to the point gain. This amendment makes players think - and besides, if the proposal is excellent enough to gain the trust of every citizen, should not such a bringer of Justice be appropriately rewarded?

- If the proposal is unanimously rejected, one (1) "Affirmative" vote is added to each non-proposing player's next proposal. This vote is considered to be cast by a non-proposing player. This prevents stonewalling the game, and our glorious democracy, by repeated unanimous rejection of proposals.

Now the proposer has great incentive for getting both (resoundingly) Affirmative and (barely) Negative verdicts, and the game will progress no matter how the votes fall. Surely you, too, consider this to be true Justice?
<Niu> If I ever see that Langfadood, i'll strangle him on sight
<Gourry> What, for making the game three times better?
<Gourry> And playable, at that?
<Niu> that lose the whole point of of L2!!!

Excal

  • Chibi Terror That Flaps in the Night
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2603
  • Let's Get Adorable
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2010, 07:02:18 PM »
Those are both pretty good add-ons.  Though I'm considering making an admendment to the second one where the propositioner's vote doesn't count for the unanimous no.  Either way, consider them things that will be worked in properly when I have the time.

Bard: I read enough of your post to know that it'll take a bit of time (that I don't have at present) to give a deserving response to.  So I'll deal with it when I return.

Tonfa

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 866
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2010, 07:27:55 PM »
I did not notice that the proposing player is also able to vote, actually. Yes, that amendment is necessary for the second add-on to work in its intended fashion in that case.
<Niu> If I ever see that Langfadood, i'll strangle him on sight
<Gourry> What, for making the game three times better?
<Gourry> And playable, at that?
<Niu> that lose the whole point of of L2!!!

Magetastic

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 600
  • Cooler than you.
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2010, 09:52:52 PM »
I'm fine with the proposal if given both Bard and The Great Vice-President's amendments, though I will note that unless we get some sort of change made to the voting process, there is no way to get a unanimous Nay, and so we either fix the voting process and make sure the proposer cannot vote on their own proposals, or we change the amendment to a unanimous Nay, discounting the proposer's own vote.

Personally, I would prefer the former, as it would not only make sure that tiebreaks are unnecessary (5 votes in play instead of 6), but it would also keep the proposer from gaining points on a unanimous shut-down of their proposal by way of their own vote.

This would, of course, have to happen in a later change, but without some assurance that this hole will be fixed, my vote stays a Nay.
<%King_Meepdorah> roll 1d999 for "It was beauty...that killed the mage"?
* +Hatbot --> "King_Meepdorah rolls 1d999 for "It was beauty...that killed the mage"? and gets 999."12 [1d999=999]
<%King_Meepdorah> ...
<+superaway> ...Uh oh.
<+RandomConsonant> ...
* +superaway shakes head.

Carthrat

  • Max Level Arch Priestess
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
  • I'm a goddess! I'm really a goddess!
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2010, 02:15:55 AM »
Quote from: Tonfa
- If the proposal is unanimously rejected, one (1) "Affirmative" vote is added to each non-proposing player's next proposal. This vote is considered to be cast by a non-proposing player. This prevents stonewalling the game, and our glorious democracy, by repeated unanimous rejection of proposals.

No, I don't think I like this amendment. Rules should ultimately be passed because players weighed up the benefits and penalties of doing so, and because people made a clear decision on that rule, at the time it was presented. While I do think a certain level of impetus needs to be given to ensure stuff is passed eventually, I really dislike it being so explicit. I prefer power to rest in the hands of individual players rather than just globally hand out potency like this. I also utterly HATE strong incentives to fail rules, which is what this basically is.

I'm okay with giving points to a player who gets something passed unanimously, although I don't really think this is necessary.

I don't think people should be penalized for failed proposals and really want to see that go away. That can only stifle the game, and isn't it bad enough that you weren't able to advance your cause on your turn?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 02:38:18 AM by Carthrat »
WHAT BENEFITS CAN ONE GET FROM SCIENTOLOGY?

n-factorial

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2010, 03:12:49 PM »
i am stonewalling self-further comment until a new version of the amendment is presented, as enough discussion has gone on that i wish to see how Excal replies to issues presented.

feel free to continue discussion, but that is the reason for my quiet.

Carthrat

  • Max Level Arch Priestess
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
  • I'm a goddess! I'm really a goddess!
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2010, 04:08:46 PM »
Um... okay? Don't hold back if you actually have something to say. <_<
WHAT BENEFITS CAN ONE GET FROM SCIENTOLOGY?

n-factorial

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2010, 02:36:07 PM »
it's more a case of "everyone else has stated what i wish to", at this point. with revision i believe myself likely to vote for this, as it stands I'm not so considering.

basically, i would rather see points awarded instead of doublevote, as Bard has alluded; otherwise the rule is somewhat pointless as it stands due to what he has pointed out. i do think that as it stands granting the effective doublevote makes it change two rules, which i do not believe is a legit tactic.

i also think there should be some cost for a dud proposal (one that no one besides the proposer votes for), but am not seeing a good way to implement it at current strides. am willing to overlook for the time present.

so basically, revise doublevote to pointget and i think i am accepting of this.




Bardiche

  • Guest
Re: Nomic: TROTLR: Turn 1 (Excal!)
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2010, 03:18:24 PM »
Yep, need Excal's input before we can say much more. Presently going to vote Nay, with a note I may be inclined to vote Yea depending on amendments.

I do believe we're nearing the 48 hours deadline, if we haven't already passed it.