Nomic: Wiki Edition --- Finished (More or Less)

[lendunistus]

Proposal 309: An inactive player can make themselves active again by posting in the thread.

[Ircher]

VOTE: Yea 309

[lendunistus]

New players added to Wiki!

[StrangerCoug]

Proposal 310: Players may withdraw proposals they have made that they no longer support. A withdrawn proposal automatically fails. If this proposal passes while Proposal 308 is still pending, that proposal shall automatically be withdrawn and fail.

VOTE: Yea 309

[lendunistus]

Event History section added in the Proposal History page!

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 309
Is it better if 310 clarifies a method of withdrawal (e.g. writing

Withdraw: 308

in bold)?

[Ircher]

306 passed earlier when Deimos27 voted for it.

[StrangerCoug]

Amended Proposal 310: Players may withdraw proposals they have made that they no longer support by bolding "Withdraw ###", where ### is the number of the proposal that the player wishes to withdraw. A withdrawn proposal automatically fails. If this proposal passes while Proposal 308 is still pending, that proposal shall automatically be withdrawn and fail.

[lendunistus]

Proposals updated, yet to update scores and ruleset

[lendunistus]

oh wait someone updated rules

[lendunistus]

okay, should be updated now

[lendunistus]

Updated archive as well

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 310

[Jake The Wolfie]

Proposal 311: Shiny Rocks are a type of Currency. Each player gains 10 Shiny Rocks for each point that they gain, including retroactively.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Instead of naming it something modern like "Coins" or some crap, we are all but crows collecting shiny rocks.

[Deimos27]

I feel like this whole getting points for passing proposals rule was implemented without enough critical discussion. Do we really want to incentivise inefficient and superfluous proposals? In the long-term it will inflate the number of rules and make keeping track of them and their interactions a nightmare

[Ircher]

If you would like to suggest a different way to earn points, I am more than happy to have that rule repealed. Again, the purpose is to give a way to earn points.

VOTE: Yea 310

[Deimos27]

Also the way it looks like right now that rule quite literally brings people closer to the win condition, and if shiny rocks passes looks like it will also end up giving them more currency.

I think rewarding a certain playstyle is kind of perverse in itself. I think people who are less inclined to propose and more inclined to help debate and assess other people's proposals are being tacitly treated as less valuable.

Furthermore I think this results in people being less likely to float their proposal ideas

before

actually proposing them for fear that someone else will make the official proposal first. Since we can only have 5 proposals at once it is far more efficient if we can discuss potential proposals without actually proposing them: it allows us both to exceed the number 5 as well as to screen the quality of proposals.

[Ircher]

Well one thing I would like to implement is a points penalty for purposefully breaking the rules. We are currently at the proposal limit, but what do you think would be a good penalty value?

[Deimos27]

That would be interesting. We would need the infrastructure for a fair assessment of "purposeful" though

[Deimos27]

A mechanism for determining when an infraction is on purpose. Seems hard to come up with something simple, and punishing even for accidental infractions seems dangerous too, although I am open to the idea.

[Deimos27]

How many players do these games usually amass? It's also worth noting that we'll get more and more proposal congestion and longer and longer voting periods as the number of players grows, so we may eventually have to compromise on either a max number of players or moving away from direct democracy / simple majority voting.

[Ircher]

I linked to some of the past ones I've done. It varies quite a bit. I think last time, we only had 5, but there are times when there are like 9-11 players.

Yeah, we probably need to implement some kind of judgement system as well.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 311, at least until the points thing is sorted out.

I like the idea in #68. A one-point penalty for rule violations seems the most reasonable with the existing system—less than that and you're dealing with fractional points, which are more difficult to work with; more than that seems extreme with the current point system in place.

[Deimos27]

I think the current rules leave it ambiguous whether points can be negative. We could amend 213 to read either "All players start with 0 points and can go no lower." or "All players start with 0 points, but it is possible to have negative points." depending on which we prefer.

If we're gonna have a points penalty I think it only makes sense for it to also threaten players who are at 0 and therefore we should permit negative points.