-Nomic-

For completed/abandoned Mish Mash Games.
Locked
User avatar
vonflare
vonflare
doot
User avatar
User avatar
vonflare
doot
doot
Posts: 3093
Joined: January 1, 2014
Location: Blue Gatorade Factory

-Nomic-

Post Post #0 (ISO) » Mon May 29, 2017 11:23 am

Post by vonflare »

Welcome to nomic! The game where the players make the rules.

Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed.

Spoiler: CURRENT IMMUTABLE RULES
101
: All players must abide by all Immutable and Mutable rules in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect when the game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-115 (Immutable) and 201-212 (Mutable).
102
: Players may propose an addition, amendment, or removal of a Mutable Rule.
103
: Players may propose to move a Mutable rule to the Immutable category, or an Immutable rule to the Mutable category.
104
: All proposals 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.
106
: If a rule is adopted, it shall guide play in the form in which it was voted on.
107
: No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. 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 If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it.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 If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.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. 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 if it consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, 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
: 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.
113
: There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.
114
: 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.
115
: If there is a disagreement between players about the interpretation or application of a rule, anyone may call upon the Moderator in order to settle the dispute. The Moderator must abide by all rules, but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, the Moderator will use their own discretion, making sure to consider consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.


Spoiler: CURRENT MUTABLE RULES
201
: In order to win, you must score 100 (positive) points.
202
: When a new rule is adopted, the player who proposed it receives points equal to the number of votes in favor it received.
203
: When a new rule is adopted, every player who voted against it receives 1 point.
204
: When a new rule is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 5 points.
205
: A rule change (as defined in rule 102) or a rule transmutation from Mutable to Immutable requires a simple majority.
206
: If a player does not post in the game thread for a period of 72 hours, they are not counted towards the number of players in the game. A player may also publicly abstain from a vote, enacting the same effect.
207
: An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.
208
: Each player always has exactly one vote.
209
: At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.
210
: 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, unless one of the rules explicitly states it takes precedence over the other rule (or a specific type of rule). If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
211
: If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, the player(s) with the most points wins.
212
: There is one Moderator, Vonflare.


Spoiler: PROPOSALS THAT CAN BE VOTED ON


301
: Anyone who posts the string "/in" in this thread becomes a player. Any player who posts the string "/out" in this thread is no longer a player.
1 votes


302
: rule 203 be repealed.
0 votes


303
: rule 212 be made immutable
0 votes


304
: rule 115 be made mutable
0 votes


305
: a new rule be added to the ruleset that states "Players are allowed to engage in "duels" in which one player challenges another player to a duel in this thread. The players shall then agree on an amount of points and any neutral and fair rules of the duel, which can be a game, wager or other fair method agreed to by both players. The winner of the duel shall win the specified number of points from the other player if the moderator certifies that the duel was run fairly.
0 votes


306
: all rules have a debate period of 48
0 votes


307
: Cursed Aztec Gold (abbr. CAG, icon: Image) will be the official monetary currency of the game. Anyone currently in the game at the time of this proposal passing will receive 110Image and anyone new that joins will receive 100Image.
Anyone who votes in favor of a proposal will receive an 5Image when it passes.
For the first post anyone makes during a standard game day (12:00am EDT to 11:59pm EDT) they will receive 10Image as an activity bonus.
Anyone who violates a rule will be fined the smaller amount of the following: 20Image or all of the Cursed Aztec Gold they have.
Vonflare will be the banker in charge of tracking how much Cursed Aztec Gold everyone has, in the event he makes a public post stating he doesn't want the responsibility, Aronis will take over as banker.
The banker may not purposefully lie about the amount of gold someone has or purposefully engage in any behaviors that are considered unethical while performing their duty as banker.
0 votes



Spoiler: PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN
Last edited by vonflare on Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
THIS POST IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
User avatar
vonflare
vonflare
doot
User avatar
User avatar
vonflare
doot
doot
Posts: 3093
Joined: January 1, 2014
Location: Blue Gatorade Factory

Post Post #1 (ISO) » Mon May 29, 2017 12:02 pm

Post by vonflare »

PLAYERS:

Vijarada - 0 points

Charles510 - 0 points

mallowgeno - 0 points

Save The Dragons - 0 points

Aronis - 0 points

There are
5
players, so
3
votes is a simple majority.
Last edited by vonflare on Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
THIS POST IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
User avatar
Vijarada
Vijarada
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Vijarada
Goon
Goon
Posts: 460
Joined: November 5, 2016
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post Post #2 (ISO) » Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 pm

Post by Vijarada »

this game has been tried a lot of times, but good luck!
get a warrant
User avatar
Charles510
Charles510
he
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Charles510
he
Goon
Goon
Posts: 219
Joined: March 11, 2017
Pronoun: he
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Happy Birthday!

Post Post #3 (ISO) » Wed May 31, 2017 1:47 pm

Post by Charles510 »

/in

Reading the rules, I'm not finding a good definition of who the players are and how to become a player. Is a player anyone who has posted to this thread?

I propose a new rule:
301
: Anyone who posts the string "/in" in this thread becomes a player. Any player who posts the string "/out" in this thread is no longer a player.

I vote for proposal 301.
User avatar
Charles510
Charles510
he
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Charles510
he
Goon
Goon
Posts: 219
Joined: March 11, 2017
Pronoun: he
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Happy Birthday!

Post Post #4 (ISO) » Wed May 31, 2017 1:50 pm

Post by Charles510 »

In post 0, vonflare wrote:205: A rule change (as defined in rule 102) or a rule transmutation from Mutable to Immutable requires a simple majority.
A simple majority of who? How many votes does my proposal need now?
User avatar
vonflare
vonflare
doot
User avatar
User avatar
vonflare
doot
doot
Posts: 3093
Joined: January 1, 2014
Location: Blue Gatorade Factory

Post Post #5 (ISO) » Wed May 31, 2017 2:54 pm

Post by vonflare »

I assumed there was insufficient interest in the game, but we can get going if you want.

Should we wait until there's at least 3 players tho? Else you have 100% of the votes
THIS POST IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
User avatar
mallowgeno
mallowgeno
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
mallowgeno
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1244
Joined: May 26, 2010

Post Post #6 (ISO) » Wed May 31, 2017 3:23 pm

Post by mallowgeno »

/in
User avatar
Vijarada
Vijarada
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Vijarada
Goon
Goon
Posts: 460
Joined: November 5, 2016
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post Post #7 (ISO) » Wed May 31, 2017 7:54 pm

Post by Vijarada »

/in

Proposal 2

I propose that rule 203 be repealed.
Argument
: Any rule that gives disincentives for people to vote for what they feel is a bad rule.
Debate
: The debate period for this rule shall be 48 hours.

Proposal 3

I propose that rule 212 be made immutable
Argument
: This game can't really be run without the moderator as vonflare. And if he does flake, we can always make it mutable again

Debate
: The debate period for this proposal shall be 48 hours.

Proposal 4

I propose that rule 115 be made mutable
Argument
: Foreclosing the players from engaging in any alternative method of rule interpretation bar removing the moderator is not good balance.
Debate
: The debate period for this rule shall be 48 hours.

Proposal 5

I propose a new rule be added to the ruleset that states "Players are allowed to engage in "duels" in which one player challenges another player to a duel in this thread. The players shall then agree on an amount of points and any neutral and fair rules of the duel, which can be a game, wager or other fair method agreed to by both players. The winner of the duel shall win the specified number of points from the other player if the moderator certifies that the duel was run fairly.
Argument
: Game mechanics ayyyyyyyy
Debate
: The debate period for this rule shall be 48 hours.


I would like to register my official disagreement with Charles and call upon the moderator to resolve it under 115

Charles510's vote is a clear violation of 111 as he voted before the start of the debating period. I submit that for the purposes of efficient running of the game, the moderator should interpret the provision of 111 that says "The proponent...unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate " to mean that the moderator should create a default debate period of 48 hours unless a diversion from that is contained clearly within the post in which the proposal is moved. I submit that this very submission itself is asking "the Judge...to do so" under 111 and 111 is not discretionary, therefore the Judge must decide the time to end debate in future. However, whatever interpretation the Judge makes of 111 should foreclose someone from making a proposal and voting on it that same post under 111's provision that the time for this debate must be reasonable. I submit that the remedy for this violation should be Charles510's vote for his proposal being discounted.
get a warrant
User avatar
Charles510
Charles510
he
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Charles510
he
Goon
Goon
Posts: 219
Joined: March 11, 2017
Pronoun: he
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Happy Birthday!

Post Post #8 (ISO) » Wed May 31, 2017 9:19 pm

Post by Charles510 »

In post 0, vonflare wrote:
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. [...]
So, those proposals would be 302-305.

I will offer to withdraw my vote for 48 hours if that is allowed under the rules.
User avatar
Charles510
Charles510
he
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Charles510
he
Goon
Goon
Posts: 219
Joined: March 11, 2017
Pronoun: he
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Happy Birthday!

Post Post #9 (ISO) » Wed May 31, 2017 10:01 pm

Post by Charles510 »

I didn't see rule 111 as requiring a debating period before every vote. If that's what we want we should probably create that as a rule. I would like to see voting as part of the debate just to save some time, with the votes being counted at the end of the period.

I like 302 and 305 and will vote for them after the debate period. I don't like 303 and 304 just changing mutability status of rules.
User avatar
Save The Dragons
Save The Dragons
He/Him
Protection unnecessary
User avatar
User avatar
Save The Dragons
He/Him
Protection unnecessary
Protection unnecessary
Posts: 21464
Joined: April 26, 2004
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: WA, USA

Post Post #10 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:39 am

Post by Save The Dragons »

I disagree with the interpretation of rule 111. It states that if rules are unclear, then debate.

I propose we add a rule 306 that says: all rules have a debate period of 48
User avatar
Aronis
Aronis
Just here for the Pagetop!
User avatar
User avatar
Aronis
Just here for the Pagetop!
Just here for the Pagetop!
Posts: 6580
Joined: January 18, 2014
Location: Somewhere
Contact:

Post Post #11 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:33 am

Post by Aronis »

/in
Proposal 307:
Cursed Aztec Gold (abbr. CAG, icon: Image) will be the official monetary currency of the game. Anyone currently in the game at the time of this proposal passing will receive 110Image and anyone new that joins will receive 100Image.
Anyone who votes in favor of a proposal will receive an 5Image when it passes.
For the first post anyone makes during a standard game day (12:00am EDT to 11:59pm EDT) they will receive 10Image as an activity bonus.
Anyone who violates a rule will be fined the smaller amount of the following: 20Image or all of the
Cursed Aztec Gold
they have.
Vonflare will be the banker in charge of tracking how much
Cursed Aztec Gold
everyone has, in the event he makes a public post stating he doesn't want the responsibility, Aronis will take over as banker.
The banker may not purposefully lie about the amount of gold someone has or purposefully engage in any behaviors that are considered unethical while performing their duty as banker.
Last edited by Aronis on Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Save The Dragons
Save The Dragons
He/Him
Protection unnecessary
User avatar
User avatar
Save The Dragons
He/Him
Protection unnecessary
Protection unnecessary
Posts: 21464
Joined: April 26, 2004
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: WA, USA

Post Post #12 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:37 pm

Post by Save The Dragons »

Can you remove the scumdate provision?
User avatar
Aronis
Aronis
Just here for the Pagetop!
User avatar
User avatar
Aronis
Just here for the Pagetop!
Just here for the Pagetop!
Posts: 6580
Joined: January 18, 2014
Location: Somewhere
Contact:

Post Post #13 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:41 pm

Post by Aronis »

In post 12, Save The Dragons wrote:Can you remove the scumdate provision?
done!
User avatar
vonflare
vonflare
doot
User avatar
User avatar
vonflare
doot
doot
Posts: 3093
Joined: January 1, 2014
Location: Blue Gatorade Factory

Post Post #14 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:35 pm

Post by vonflare »

OP has been updated.
In post 7, Vijarada wrote:
I would like to register my official disagreement with Charles and call upon the moderator to resolve it under 115

Charles510's vote is a clear violation of 111 as he voted before the start of the debating period. I submit that for the purposes of efficient running of the game, the moderator should interpret the provision of 111 that says "The proponent...unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate " to mean that the moderator should create a default debate period of 48 hours unless a diversion from that is contained clearly within the post in which the proposal is moved. I submit that this very submission itself is asking "the Judge...to do so" under 111 and 111 is not discretionary, therefore the Judge must decide the time to end debate in future. However, whatever interpretation the Judge makes of 111 should foreclose someone from making a proposal and voting on it that same post under 111's provision that the time for this debate must be reasonable. I submit that the remedy for this violation should be Charles510's vote for his proposal being discounted.
Rule 111 only applies when
a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or if it consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference
and no one has accused it of being such. If, however, you were to accuse the rule change of being in any way unclear, under the current rules there would have to be set aside time to debate this rule.
THIS POST IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
User avatar
Charles510
Charles510
he
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Charles510
he
Goon
Goon
Posts: 219
Joined: March 11, 2017
Pronoun: he
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Happy Birthday!

Post Post #15 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:50 pm

Post by Charles510 »

Proposal 308
: No player may edit any post for any reason. Instead of editing please make another post.

Proposal 309
: Whenever a player announces a deadline, (for example, a debate period,) a countdown tag must be used to indicate when the time has expired.

Proposal 310
: A player may only have one active proposal at a time.

I vote yes for 308, 309, and 310.
User avatar
Charles510
Charles510
he
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Charles510
he
Goon
Goon
Posts: 219
Joined: March 11, 2017
Pronoun: he
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Happy Birthday!

Post Post #16 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:57 pm

Post by Charles510 »

It looks like we can start voting for 302-305 in (expired on 2017-06-03 02:57:34)
User avatar
Vijarada
Vijarada
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Vijarada
Goon
Goon
Posts: 460
Joined: November 5, 2016
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post Post #17 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:26 pm

Post by Vijarada »

I end the debate period and begin voting. That's a reasonable enough reading of the rule I guess.
I would like to argue against STD's rule 306 under rule 111
. It's ambiguous and should say 48 hours, but more fundamentally is supplanted by 111, which (as it stands) is immutable. So, the proposal cannot be passed as it stands in my opinion.
get a warrant
User avatar
Vijarada
Vijarada
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Vijarada
Goon
Goon
Posts: 460
Joined: November 5, 2016
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post Post #18 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:29 pm

Post by Vijarada »

In post 8, Charles510 wrote:
In post 0, vonflare wrote:
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. [...]
So, those proposals would be 302-305.
These are the proposed rule changes as entered in the rules. It would be improper to number proposals that simply ask for an amendment, repeal, or transmutation in this way. Thus, my numbering, but I don't think the numbering appended to proposals in the post make any difference or not.
get a warrant
User avatar
Vijarada
Vijarada
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Vijarada
Goon
Goon
Posts: 460
Joined: November 5, 2016
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post Post #19 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:39 pm

Post by Vijarada »

Oh I forgot to propsose the repeal of 209

Proposal 311
: 309 is repealed
309 is just artificially limiting and doesn't help.

Votes
Yes on 308
No on 309; it's easy enough to figure it out yourself
No on 310, another artificial limit. I would possibly be for some limit if people were to abuse making hundreds of proposals, not one at a time and not now.
Yes on 307. Although I would prefer neutral language for the moderator to appoint his successor instead of the word Aronis in it, and the last provision to be enforcable, it's good.
Yes on proposals 2-5 aka 302-305.
get a warrant
User avatar
mallowgeno
mallowgeno
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
mallowgeno
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1244
Joined: May 26, 2010

Post Post #20 (ISO) » Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:50 am

Post by mallowgeno »

301
: Anyone who posts the string "/in" in this thread becomes a player. Any player who posts the string "/out" in this thread is no longer a player.
1 votes


302
: rule 203 be repealed.
0 votes


303
: rule 212 be made immutable
0 votes


304
: rule 115 be made mutable
0 votes


305
: a new rule be added to the ruleset that states "Players are allowed to engage in "duels" in which one player challenges another player to a duel in this thread. The players shall then agree on an amount of points and any neutral and fair rules of the duel, which can be a game, wager or other fair method agreed to by both players. The winner of the duel shall win the specified number of points from the other player if the moderator certifies that the duel was run fairly.
0 votes


306
: all rules have a debate period of 48
0 votes


307
: Cursed Aztec Gold (abbr. CAG, icon: Image) will be the official monetary currency of the game. Anyone currently in the game at the time of this proposal passing will receive 110Image and anyone new that joins will receive 100Image.
Anyone who votes in favor of a proposal will receive an 5Image when it passes.
For the first post anyone makes during a standard game day (12:00am EDT to 11:59pm EDT) they will receive 10Image as an activity bonus.
Anyone who violates a rule will be fined the smaller amount of the following: 20Image or all of the Cursed Aztec Gold they have.
Vonflare will be the banker in charge of tracking how much Cursed Aztec Gold everyone has, in the event he makes a public post stating he doesn't want the responsibility, Aronis will take over as banker.
The banker may not purposefully lie about the amount of gold someone has or purposefully engage in any behaviors that are considered unethical while performing their duty as banker.
0 votes

Vote Yes on all except 307 and 304
User avatar
Charles510
Charles510
he
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Charles510
he
Goon
Goon
Posts: 219
Joined: March 11, 2017
Pronoun: he
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Happy Birthday!

Post Post #21 (ISO) » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:13 am

Post by Charles510 »

In post 19, Vijarada wrote:Oh I forgot to propsose the repeal of 209

Proposal 311: 309 is repealed
309 is just artificially limiting and doesn't help.
In your proposal 311 here did you mean to repeal rule 209 instead of 309? You are talking about the limit on the number of mutable rules, right? I agree this should be repealed.

The reason I proposed 310 is because I think that it is too easy to make a large number of proposals and never vote or resolve them. Right now we have had 11 proposals and none of them have been voted in or out. There should a limit that pushes us to deal with them before moving on to new proposals.

I agree that 306 needs to be revised.
Locked

Return to “Sens-O-Tape Archive”