Nomic

JDGA · Post Post #24 (isolation #0) » Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:16 pm

Proposal 3: This rule does nothing. (olololololololol)
VOTE: Proposal 3
VOTE: Proposal 3
VOTE: Proposal 3
VOTE: Proposal 3
VOTE: Proposal 3
VOTE: Proposal 3
VOTE: Proposal 3
VOTE: Proposal 3
VOTE: Proposal 3
(I am a terrible person)

JDGA · Post Post #25 (isolation #1) » Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:21 pm

Right then. Now that we've got that out of the way (I'm so sorry, I saw that I could claim the bottom of the page and just couldn't resist):

Proposal 4: Each person may only give a maximum of one vote to a proposal per page.

VOTE: Proposal 4

JDGA · Post Post #26 (isolation #2) » Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:23 pm

Whilst we're on the topic, other things that are more important right now than limiting the playerbase:

Proposal 5: Double posts are not permitted. Breaching this rule will result in your votes on the page(s) of your breach(es) failing to count.

Proposal 6: No rule may be applied retroactively.

Proposal 7: Editing posts such that the "Last edited" tag appears is not permitted. Breaching this rule will result in your votes on the page(s) of your breach(es) failing to count.

VOTE: Proposal 5
VOTE: Proposal 6
VOTE: Proposal 7
(Also, hi)

JDGA · Post Post #37 (isolation #3) » Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:36 pm

In post 34, Cheery Dog wrote:VOTE: Proposal 3

wait why would you even is this a typo?

JDGA · Post Post #59 (isolation #4) » Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:45 pm

10 would slow the game down too much.
VOTE: Proposal 5
11 I think would create a precedent of "well if I'm breaking the rules but there's no vote then who cares?"

JDGA · Post Post #83 (isolation #5) » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:16 pm

VOTE: Proposal 37
VOTE: Proposal 37
It means that this doesn't work.

JDGA · Post Post #87 (isolation #6) » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:48 pm

But proposals aren't even defined!

JDGA · Post Post #96 (isolation #7) » Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:26 pm

Oh yeah, this is a thing I still need to do.
VOTE: 7

JDGA · Post Post #98 (isolation #8) » Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:51 pm

I can agree with this. Unless the game somehow gains too many players to get in some meaningful discussion during a voting period, I doubt we'll

ever

need to restrict the playerlist. And as for win conditions, well~

JDGA · Post Post #100 (isolation #9) » Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:59 pm

Proposal 7 wins the vote.

Anyways, I definitely think it's time to get rid of any ambiguity in regards to retroactivity.

In post 26, JDGA wrote:
Proposal 6: No rule may be applied retroactively.

VOTE: 6

JDGA · Post Post #106 (isolation #10) » Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:16 am

In post 104, Burning_Earth wrote:Someone does have to win this at some point.

But who cares about that right now? First we can focus on making the game actually playable, then we can worry about your silly club desires.

JDGA · Post Post #118 (isolation #11) » Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:59 pm

HURT WITH A BLADE: 3

JDGA · Post Post #120 (isolation #12) » Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:04 pm

HURT WITH A BLADE: Burning_Earth

JDGA · Post Post #123 (isolation #13) » Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:02 pm

HEAL: Feirei's idea
And since we ought to have all the really basic rules down after one more post, I wouldn't mind getting that though next page.

JDGA · Post Post #125 (isolation #14) » Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:07 pm

VOTE: Feirei's 122

JDGA · Post Post #127 (isolation #15) » Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:11 pm

Well if we're doing it that way then to give it better wording:

Proposal 16: If there have been no posts in 24 hours, a double post is permitted despite rule 3.

(And no, "proposals" aren't official in any way)
VOTE: 16 though to confirm

JDGA · Post Post #131 (isolation #16) » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:27 pm

I still maintain we can work that out later, but if you get a good idea feel free to propose it and see what happens.