How many votes does it take to go from immutable to mutable?
How many votes to go from immutable to the as of yet uncreated superimmutable?
You could argue anything under the current 'vote passes,' but logic would dictate there needs to be more and more votes as the importance of the rules goes up.
Unless there exist clear, easily referenced, unambiguous rules, this game is going to become a lot of yelling and hair pulling.
This is real fucking simple. Good Lord guys.
Majority vote wins every time. Every. Time. Every time.
It takes the majority vote to go from immutable to mutable.
It takes the majority vote to go from mutable to immutable.
It takes the majority vote to amend a mutable rule.
It takes the majority vote to add a new rule.
It takes the majority vote to remove a mutable rule.
How fucking hard is this, guys? Shit.
Anyways, I leave in 2 1/2 weeks and I don't know that we'll have time to finish a game or even bloody start one at this rate. The rules are clear as day to me, the point of the entire game is change anything and everything. If you find a rule "ambiguous" then tell me what it should be and I'll change it. Damn.
EDIT: And I'll even add an example!
Poster 1: I want to add a rule that gives a player points for votes in favor of his change, addition or amendment even if the change, addition or amendment does not pass.
Poster 2: I vote yes.
Poster 3: I vote yes.
Poster 4: I vote no.
Poster 1's rule passes, because he got 2 'yes' votes and 1 'no' vote. 2 > 1 therefore the rule is passed.
Well, as defined someone would have to first be a player (and thus already on the list somehow) before they could be considered an active player, I would think.
While there is perhaps a bit of ambiguity there, the word "one" implies that the poster must already be a player in the game in order to be active.
"One" is defined as a single person or thing. I think they could successfully argue they were an active player if they made a vote, but weren't on the player list.
There isn't yet a rule about active players. So inactive players, even if this gets passed, can still vote three days from now (assuming no one follows up on your law). Assuming that we make it so only active players can vote, then that takes care of both problems
I think we should define what an active player gets to do before we define what an active player is. Hell, we haven't even defined what a "player" is yet. We simply have names on a player list.
I think we should start with something like "Only those appearing on the player list as of post #47 may participate in the Nomic".
To my way of thinking, we need to establish who the active players are before we can start defining what they can or cannot do.
At the moment, we have the implied rules that the "players" are the people on the list in the OP (from whence I copied mine, then removed the struck player and alphabetized), that there exists an order of succession for the current player (alphabetical for now), that the current player can propose one rule (either a new rule or a change to a current rule, options outlined in OP), and that all players (and ONLY players) can vote either for or against the current proposal.
Keep in mind that NO new rules will go into effect until the end of the round (each player submits a rule, then all which pass will go into effect together before we start the next round), so there's time to flesh this out with the other definitions and restrictions we need before it becomes live.
How about Darian redefines his law? Is he allowed to do that, or is it too late? Because he could have his law be a lot longer and more complicated and cover these problems.
"I !propose and vote yes for define active, a new mutable rule:
201. A Player shall be defined as anyone listed under the "SIGN UP LIST" on post 1 of this thread as of <insert appropriate date and time for tonight or tomorrow, but I suck at time conversions>
a) An Active Player shall be defined as anyone who has voted for any proposal in the last 48 hours. All players are considered active for 24 hours after this law is passed.
b) An Inactive Player shall be defined as any Player that is not considered an Active Player
c) Only an Active Player may vote on a proposal.
d) Only a Player may post in this thread."
I am okay with redefining my rule, but you're trying to do more there than should be done in a single proposal.
The general rule idea and a and b all make sense and go well together, but c seems like it belongs in a separate section on how votes are considered (and I would prefer that any player may still vote on a proposal, thus inactive players become active again simply by showing up and voting). I also think the list of players should be a rule in itself, so that players can be added or removed during the course of the game.
And I certainly don't see anything in the rules that says I cannot withdraw my proposal and start again, so here goes:
Instead, I !propose and vote yes for player definitions, a new mutable rule:
201. Player definitions
a) A Player shall be defined as the controller of a Penny-Arcade forums account which is in the Player list in section 201.b
b) The Player list is:
Darian
Jester313
Kime
Legionnaired
MechMantis
MundaneSoul
nefffffffffff
WeatheredClown
Zombiemambo
c) The Current Player shall be defined as the Player whose turn it is
d) An Active Player shall be defined as any Player who has voted on any proposal within the last 48 hours.
e) An Inactive Player shall be defined as any Player who is not considered an Active Player
Commentary: This intentionally does not attempt to establish any privileges, rights, or restrictions for players; it merely gives well defined terms which we can use in future rules to describe how the game will work. I think we should at least strongly consider adding separate rules explicitly working out:
How the vote is done
Who can vote - here I think any Player should be able to; becoming active again should simply be a matter of voting
Whether any votes count more than others
What the current player can do in their turn
Can they withdraw and propose a different rule, or are they stuck with the first one proposed?
Is there any limit on how many times they can withdraw their proposal?
What happens if they submit a rule at the time deadline such that they are the only one who can vote on it? Should there be an automatic extension to allow votes on a proposal, or should they only be able to propose rules up until <insert time frame here> before the close of their turn?
How the order of play works
How long the current player's turn lasts, and if there are mechanisms to end it early,
After the current player's turn is done, who becomes the new Current player - here is where I would say Inactive players should not become the new current player; they should lose their turn
I meant my idea to say that only an active player could "propose", not "vote." Because yeah, you're right, once someone became inactive they wouldn't have been able to get back in.
Also, whoever goes tomorrow (Jester?). Please please make a law concerning withdrawing proposals. Otherwise the deadline withdraw/change will definitely come into effect, and that would not be fun this early. . . .
Also, is there anything that says you can't vote more than once?
Oh, and there's really no limitation to what you can put in a law, correct? So I mean, yeah, separating them (defining players, what each type can do, etc) out makes more sense, but there's nothing that says you have to. You just run the greater risk of it not passing if some people don't like one small part of it depending on how big it is.
Secondly, what ruleset are we using? There are three posted in the opening pages of this thread. Are we going with the rules in the OP, or the rules in post #11, or the rules in post #23?
THE GAME MASTER SPEAKS: As per in the rules, only one action may be taken per player per turn. Therefore you must know exactly what you want to submit as a rule, because you cannot withdraw it. This rule is in effect as of right now, so Darian's actions are valid. However, this rule IS in the OP, and is immutable.
RULES CLARIFICATION: Voting !Yes on a proposal is not considered an action, but players who propose rules cannot vote for them. This rule is immutable. Again, this is in effect as of right now, so Darian voted !Yes on his proposal. From this point forward, anyone who votes on their own proposals will have their vote struck down. This rule is immutable.
EDIT: Voting for Darian's proposal ends on November 20th, 3:57pm MST (that's 5:57pm for you ESTers), which is exactly 48 hours from when his proposal was made.
48 per turn, yes. Within 48 hours, the player whose turn it is must make an action or be passed, and all players wishing to vote must vote. After 48 hours the next player on the list goes and everyone votes on his or her actions etc. etc. I'll put this in the OP, since we never established specific time limits.
48 per turn, yes. Within 48 hours, the player whose turn it is must make an action or be passed, and all players wishing to vote must vote. After 48 hours the next player on the list goes and everyone votes on his or her actions etc. etc. I'll put this in the OP, since we never established specific time limits.
Just a comment, but I'd prefer if the person has to make their proposal within the first 24h, then everyone has the remaining time to discuss and vote. But that is obviously something which one of you can consider when you are making your rules for this round.
Also, don't be like me: put up a RFC (request for comments) before formally proposing your rule.
!yes on the current proposed rule.
We may want to figure out a way to have several rules on the table to speed the game along.
Also.. does voting close as soon as a simple majority is reached?
weatheredclown on
"Remember, there are no stupid questions. Just stupid people with inquisitive minds."
No, because your points are based on the number of people who vote for the rule, so that would rob people of points.
We could make a rule that voting closes as soon as everyone votes, though.
Also, with all the new rules not going into effect until the end of the round anyway, I don't see why we couldn't have more than one on the table.
Maybe something like
(first 24h period) Player 1 proposes
(second 24h period) voting on proposal 1, Player 2 proposes
(3rd 24h period) voting on proposal 2, Player 3 proposes
etc.
No, because your points are based on the number of people who vote for the rule, so that would rob people of points.
We could make a rule that voting closes as soon as everyone votes, though.
Also, with all the new rules not going into effect until the end of the round anyway, I don't see why we couldn't have more than one on the table.
Maybe something like
(first 24h period) Player 1 proposes
(second 24h period) voting on proposal 1, Player 2 proposes
(3rd 24h period) voting on proposal 2, Player 3 proposes
etc.
I was actually going to make my rule something about that, getting a bit more going on at once. I figure by the time my turn comes around, we've had a couple already to work out the kinks so may be able to speed it up a bit?
Also, I doubt the winner will actually be the one to get to 100 points. Maybe, by all means, but if we don't pass rules eventually that change the win conditions I'll be surprised.
No, because your points are based on the number of people who vote for the rule, so that would rob people of points.
We could make a rule that voting closes as soon as everyone votes, though.
Also, with all the new rules not going into effect until the end of the round anyway, I don't see why we couldn't have more than one on the table.
Maybe something like
(first 24h period) Player 1 proposes
(second 24h period) voting on proposal 1, Player 2 proposes
(3rd 24h period) voting on proposal 2, Player 3 proposes
etc.
So really.. we shouldn't *all* vote yes for something that we approve of, only vote yes if the "no" vote is currently winning.. otherwise we're just giving the other players gratuitous points. because 1 yes vote will pass the rule if that's the only vote, right?
perhaps my first rule will be about voting to close the voting, rather than voting yes or no..
weatheredclown on
"Remember, there are no stupid questions. Just stupid people with inquisitive minds."
THE GAME MASTER SPEAKS: Within the first 24 hours of his or her turn, the player must make a proposal. Within 48 hours of the turn starting, all players who wish to vote must do so.
So turns look kinda like this:
Player A's turn begins. Within 24 hours he must make a proposal. If he makes a proposal in, say, 1 hour from when his turn began, players have 47 hours to vote for the proposal. Technically you can vote at the very start of the turn before the player even proposes anything, and your vote will count for whatever proposal he makes.
Voting for Darian's proposal ends on November 20th, 3:57pm MST (that's 5:57pm for you ESTers), which is exactly 48 hours from when his proposal was made.
Turn order
current---->Darian no
Jester313 yes
Kime yes
Legionnaired yes
MechMantis yes
MundaneSoul yes
nefffffffffff
WeatheredClown yes
Zombiemambo
Now, Zombiemambo did make a post with yes in it, but that post was in GM mode clarifying starting rules, so as far as I can tell, he hasn't actually voted.
Also, note that after today the proposer can no longer vote for their own, nor can they change things. We probably should have had that discussion before putting a proposal on the table, but it's good to get it out of the way.
In the interest of fairness, I'll go ahead and change my own vote to !no since no one else will be able to vote for their proposals. I do this to deny myself an un-earned point, not because I actually wish to see this fail.
Posts
This is real fucking simple. Good Lord guys.
Majority vote wins every time. Every. Time. Every time.
It takes the majority vote to go from immutable to mutable.
It takes the majority vote to go from mutable to immutable.
It takes the majority vote to amend a mutable rule.
It takes the majority vote to add a new rule.
It takes the majority vote to remove a mutable rule.
How fucking hard is this, guys? Shit.
Anyways, I leave in 2 1/2 weeks and I don't know that we'll have time to finish a game or even bloody start one at this rate. The rules are clear as day to me, the point of the entire game is change anything and everything. If you find a rule "ambiguous" then tell me what it should be and I'll change it. Damn.
EDIT: And I'll even add an example!
Poster 1: I want to add a rule that gives a player points for votes in favor of his change, addition or amendment even if the change, addition or amendment does not pass.
Poster 2: I vote yes.
Poster 3: I vote yes.
Poster 4: I vote no.
Poster 1's rule passes, because he got 2 'yes' votes and 1 'no' vote. 2 > 1 therefore the rule is passed.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Darian is alphabetically first, therefore it is his turn. He has until 12:00am, November 18th to take his turn.
Turn order
current---->Darian
Jester313
Kime
Legionnaired
MechMantis
MundaneSoul
nefffffffffff
WeatheredClown
Zombiemambo
In the interest of keeping the game moving,
I !propose and vote yes for define active, a new mutable rule:
An active player is defined as one who has voted within the last 48h.
Well, I wanted to make a rule about skipping players who are inactive, but first we need to establish what it means to be inactive, so here you go.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
While there is perhaps a bit of ambiguity there, the word "one" implies that the poster must already be a player in the game in order to be active.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I think we should start with something like "Only those appearing on the player list as of post #47 may participate in the Nomic".
At the moment, we have the implied rules that the "players" are the people on the list in the OP (from whence I copied mine, then removed the struck player and alphabetized), that there exists an order of succession for the current player (alphabetical for now), that the current player can propose one rule (either a new rule or a change to a current rule, options outlined in OP), and that all players (and ONLY players) can vote either for or against the current proposal.
Keep in mind that NO new rules will go into effect until the end of the round (each player submits a rule, then all which pass will go into effect together before we start the next round), so there's time to flesh this out with the other definitions and restrictions we need before it becomes live.
"I !propose and vote yes for define active, a new mutable rule:
201. A Player shall be defined as anyone listed under the "SIGN UP LIST" on post 1 of this thread as of <insert appropriate date and time for tonight or tomorrow, but I suck at time conversions>
a) An Active Player shall be defined as anyone who has voted for any proposal in the last 48 hours. All players are considered active for 24 hours after this law is passed.
b) An Inactive Player shall be defined as any Player that is not considered an Active Player
c) Only an Active Player may vote on a proposal.
d) Only a Player may post in this thread."
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
The general rule idea and a and b all make sense and go well together, but c seems like it belongs in a separate section on how votes are considered (and I would prefer that any player may still vote on a proposal, thus inactive players become active again simply by showing up and voting). I also think the list of players should be a rule in itself, so that players can be added or removed during the course of the game.
And I certainly don't see anything in the rules that says I cannot withdraw my proposal and start again, so here goes:
I !withdraw my proposal for define active.
Instead, I !propose and vote yes for player definitions, a new mutable rule:
201. Player definitions
a) A Player shall be defined as the controller of a Penny-Arcade forums account which is in the Player list in section 201.b
b) The Player list is:
Darian
Jester313
Kime
Legionnaired
MechMantis
MundaneSoul
nefffffffffff
WeatheredClown
Zombiemambo
c) The Current Player shall be defined as the Player whose turn it is
d) An Active Player shall be defined as any Player who has voted on any proposal within the last 48 hours.
e) An Inactive Player shall be defined as any Player who is not considered an Active Player
Commentary: This intentionally does not attempt to establish any privileges, rights, or restrictions for players; it merely gives well defined terms which we can use in future rules to describe how the game will work. I think we should at least strongly consider adding separate rules explicitly working out:
Also, whoever goes tomorrow (Jester?). Please please make a law concerning withdrawing proposals. Otherwise the deadline withdraw/change will definitely come into effect, and that would not be fun this early. . . .
Also, is there anything that says you can't vote more than once?
I vote Yes to this proposal.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Hence things like needing to get some basics established this first round.
(So post 23 can be considered as a source of ideas for rules, but in itself it is not binding.)
RULES CLARIFICATION: Voting !Yes on a proposal is not considered an action, but players who propose rules cannot vote for them. This rule is immutable. Again, this is in effect as of right now, so Darian voted !Yes on his proposal. From this point forward, anyone who votes on their own proposals will have their vote struck down. This rule is immutable.
EDIT: Voting for Darian's proposal ends on November 20th, 3:57pm MST (that's 5:57pm for you ESTers), which is exactly 48 hours from when his proposal was made.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Just a comment, but I'd prefer if the person has to make their proposal within the first 24h, then everyone has the remaining time to discuss and vote. But that is obviously something which one of you can consider when you are making your rules for this round.
Also, don't be like me: put up a RFC (request for comments) before formally proposing your rule.
We may want to figure out a way to have several rules on the table to speed the game along.
Also.. does voting close as soon as a simple majority is reached?
We could make a rule that voting closes as soon as everyone votes, though.
Also, with all the new rules not going into effect until the end of the round anyway, I don't see why we couldn't have more than one on the table.
Maybe something like
(first 24h period) Player 1 proposes
(second 24h period) voting on proposal 1, Player 2 proposes
(3rd 24h period) voting on proposal 2, Player 3 proposes
etc.
Also, I doubt the winner will actually be the one to get to 100 points. Maybe, by all means, but if we don't pass rules eventually that change the win conditions I'll be surprised.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
So really.. we shouldn't *all* vote yes for something that we approve of, only vote yes if the "no" vote is currently winning.. otherwise we're just giving the other players gratuitous points. because 1 yes vote will pass the rule if that's the only vote, right?
perhaps my first rule will be about voting to close the voting, rather than voting yes or no..
So turns look kinda like this:
Player A's turn begins. Within 24 hours he must make a proposal. If he makes a proposal in, say, 1 hour from when his turn began, players have 47 hours to vote for the proposal. Technically you can vote at the very start of the turn before the player even proposes anything, and your vote will count for whatever proposal he makes.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It's ambiguous, so for right now you can change your vote if you so choose.
So you've got a bit more than 6h left to vote.
Here's what it the votes look like so far.
Proposal:
Votes:
Now, Zombiemambo did make a post with yes in it, but that post was in GM mode clarifying starting rules, so as far as I can tell, he hasn't actually voted.
Also, note that after today the proposer can no longer vote for their own, nor can they change things. We probably should have had that discussion before putting a proposal on the table, but it's good to get it out of the way.
In the interest of fairness, I'll go ahead and change my own vote to !no since no one else will be able to vote for their proposals. I do this to deny myself an un-earned point, not because I actually wish to see this fail.
Final votes:
current---->Darian no
Jester313 yes
Kime yes
Legionnaired yes
MechMantis yes
MundaneSoul yes
nefffffffffff yes
WeatheredClown yes
Zombiemambo
Passes unanimously-ish, and 7 points scored for me.
Jester313 is the current player, and has until 6pm EST Friday to make his official proposal.