[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 13082012 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null Nomic: Wiki Edition --- Finished (More or Less) - Mafiascum.net
Post
Post #65 (isolation #6) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:34 am
Postby 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
Post
Post #67 (isolation #7) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:48 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #70 (isolation #9) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:57 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #71 (isolation #10) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:02 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #74 (isolation #11) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:03 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #75 (isolation #12) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:08 am
Postby Deimos27 »
In post 72, Ircher wrote: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.
With those sorts of numbers I don't think we will face significant problems with diseconomies of scale, then.
Post
Post #78 (isolation #14) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:21 am
Postby Deimos27 »
On second thought it may be undesirable to allow people to trade each other their points in the form of shiny rocks (facilitates kingmaking) but at least a one way points into shiny rocks exchange might introduce interesting strategic decisions
Post
Post #99 (isolation #16) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:23 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
VOTE: Aye 312 VOTE: Nay 313
I don't really see 313 as necessary either. We are capable of using our words to explain opinions and reservations when we have them.
Post
Post #101 (isolation #17) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:31 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
In post 90, Ircher wrote:It depends on your interpretation. That's not how I have typically done it in the past, but I do see that we don't have a rule that clarifies that scenario. The way I see it is that a proposal passes when it reaches a majority of votes needed; however, it fails as soon as it can no longer pass. You are free to re-propose the proposal as there is no such rule against such. This keeps proposals that are on the edge of getting the requisite votes but unable to from staying in limbo forever.
To be clear, abstentions are excluded from the calculation for simple majority, right? Otherwise they just become de facto nays. So if we have two abstentions and 7 players it would become 3 to pass. I do agree that proposals should fail when they can't pass, and that therefore includes situations where the vote is tied (or the best possible outcome remaining for the proposition is that the vote is tied).
Post
Post #102 (isolation #18) » Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:34 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
In post 100, lendunistus wrote:something that I think we should figure out - do we want a more game-y Nomic or some political/life simulation thing that never ends and just makes us angry and eventually kills the game
I was thinking of an RPG or something but that would be extremely difficult to figure out
In post 90, Ircher wrote:It depends on your interpretation. That's not how I have typically done it in the past, but I do see that we don't have a rule that clarifies that scenario. The way I see it is that a proposal passes when it reaches a majority of votes needed; however, it fails as soon as it can no longer pass. You are free to re-propose the proposal as there is no such rule against such. This keeps proposals that are on the edge of getting the requisite votes but unable to from staying in limbo forever.
To be clear, abstentions are excluded from the calculation for simple majority, right? Otherwise they just become de facto nays. So if we have two abstentions and 7 players it would become 3 to pass. I do agree that proposals should fail when they can't pass, and that therefore includes situations where the vote is tied (or the best possible outcome remaining for the proposition is that the vote is tied).
Actually it does appear as though this isn't currently the case and that makes no sense to me.
Proposal 314: Amend 206: Proposals require an absolute majority of active votes to pass, where active votes are defined as those held by active non-abstaining players. Proposals fail as soon as they can no longer pass.
For reference, current 206 reads only "New rules require an absolute majority of active votes to pass". This clears up the ambiguities mentioned above and changes out the words "new rules" for the word "proposals" to clarify that it applies also to e.g. proposals of amendments and repeals
In post 100, lendunistus wrote:something that I think we should figure out - do we want a more game-y Nomic or some political/life simulation thing that never ends and just makes us angry and eventually kills the game
I was thinking of an RPG or something but that would be extremely difficult to figure out
How about a political rpg lol
Awful
I kind of like it
Time to run a D&D campaign set in current-day USA.
Post
Post #128 (isolation #23) » Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:48 am
Postby Deimos27 »
VOTE: Nay 315
I see it as unlikely we'll run into scaling issues and I'd like to try not to pass any superfluous rules. VOTE: Aye 316
Why not? If the money supply gets out of hand the central bank can always pass some deflationary measures
Post
Post #129 (isolation #24) » Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:05 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
Ircher you def have my support for everything in 122, if there are any flaws they can be amended later. It's very well thought out and formatted as is. Though I'd call it the Nomic Central Bank rather than Reserve Bank just because the latter feels like it has an American bias lol. Doesn't actually make a difference.
I say we stop making proposals unrelated to this banking system until we get all its rules through; I'd like them in consecutive lexical order.
Post
Post #133 (isolation #25) » Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:18 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
VOTE: Aye 318
Now that you mention it Iendunistus I'd even suggest that sanctions are the kind of thing that should require a supermajority, to stop abuse by any tyrannical coalition.
How about some basic division of power: the BoD propose the sanctions, they are then approved by the public. Or vice versa
Post
Post #135 (isolation #26) » Sun Oct 31, 2021 3:07 am
Postby Deimos27 »
In post 134, Ircher wrote:With regards to the board itself, it is mainly an efficiency thing. Everyone voting on every exchange rate, etc. seems woefully inefficient especially if there is any dissent or absent players. It could work perhaps with our current numbers, but it doesn't scale well at all. Also, 318 passed.
I agree, quantitative decisions like exchange rates sound dreadful to build majority support for in a group of any considerable size.
Post
Post #141 (isolation #29) » Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:21 am
Postby Deimos27 »
Elections are every two weeks in Ircher's post so that's the length of term and most basic form of accountability. Motions/proposals/executive reviews will always exist for accountability as well. We can consider instituting a vote of no confidence if you're still concerned.
Is it really necessary? Well, if our wincon is going to be based on currencies, it seems logical. We'll need exchange rates and having a smaller body for determining them seems logical. When we get an economy running the bank can take on traditional duties like maintaining price stability.
Post
Post #142 (isolation #30) » Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:28 am
Postby Deimos27 »
Ok so looks like there basically is a vote of no confidence now which can be used to dismiss the head director. That should allay any lingering doubts about accountability.
Post
Post #173 (isolation #33) » Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:09 am
Postby Deimos27 »
VOTE: Aye 322
The temporary rule game sounds like a right old pain to balance.
The room concept is a pretty flexible one that we can certainly consider, but I'm very apprehensive about letting any one player pick a room's rule solely because of its potential to provide huge advantages if not outright break the game. Again, just hard to balance.
If you want to democratically institute special rooms with special rules that can be voluntarily entered or exited by all I think you are free to do so through proposals.
Post
Post #190 (isolation #39) » Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:27 am
Postby Deimos27 »
It would be useful if the central bank were to publish updates also on stats such as the daily or weekly percentage increase of the money supply, to inform pricing decisions on shop items. I would certainly volunteer to do so if I were elected to the board regardless of whether it is an officially required duty.
Post
Post #201 (isolation #41) » Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:28 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
I'm ok with it not being possible, just checking whether M002 should be given another clause forbidding the player whose name the vote coupon is in from thereafter changing their vote
Post
Post #202 (isolation #42) » Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:30 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
I assume from your response that it totally is possible to change votes (I certainly see no rule forbidding it) and therefore I think we will need to reword M002 accordingly
Post
Post #219 (isolation #47) » Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:54 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
So relating to statute III of the Nomic Central Bank: it may be wise to require the BoD to approve changes to the supply of a currency, or at least to automatically invalidate the current exchange rate of a currency whenever its supply is changed, to prevent people "printing money" to take advantage of an exchange rate in the short term and buying out the shop.
Perhaps something like:
A player can print more of their currency at any time and in any quantity by posting in bold a request to do so in the format '
Print: X [currency]
', but they may not do so more often than once every 48 hours. The BoD of the Nomic Central Bank is required to produce a statement approving the change and declaring an update to the exchange rate (which may be that the currency is deemed valueless) within 48 hours of the request. When the statement is published the changes in the currency supply and its exchange rate go into effect simultaneously and immediately. When money is printed it is printed into the inventory of the owner of the currency. Some of a currency may be requested to be removed from circulation by the same mechanism by printing a negative X, but this can only remove from circulation money in the inventory of the owner and it cannot bring that quantity below 0.
Post
Post #221 (isolation #49) » Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:04 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
Of course the ability to print money directly into your own inventory still stands to be problematic since it allows devaluing other people's holdings of your currency — but at least now the frequency with which this can be done is capped. Besides, I kind of feel that's a fun and natural part of the currency politics. If you're seen to regularly devalue others' holdings of your currency you undermine it as a store of value and risk people giving up on using your currency altogether.
Post
Post #230 (isolation #50) » Tue Nov 02, 2021 12:16 am
Postby Deimos27 »
In post 226, Jake The Wolfie wrote:Hmm, what if we could gain mana like in Magic, where you could gain land (such as from purchasing it from el shoppe) and every 24 hours all tapped land regenerates, or gets untappedn
I'm not opposed to that in fact.
Time to become a landowner.
Post
Post #231 (isolation #51) » Tue Nov 02, 2021 12:17 am
Postby Deimos27 »
In post 228, Jake The Wolfie wrote:Concept: Vote Tokens. Each vote token is worth 1/X votes, where X is the number of vote tokens that exist. Upon using 1 vote token, it is destroyed.
Post
Post #240 (isolation #53) » Tue Nov 02, 2021 12:52 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
I'm not gonna be doing much creative labour myself for about two days as I'm working on an important essay irl, but will check in regularly to vote on other people's proposals
Post
Post #246 (isolation #54) » Tue Nov 02, 2021 2:13 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
So is it the case btw that Prince Jake, son of the 7th circle is currently 1 vote coupon away from winning. While majority is 3 doesn't it take only 2 vote coupons to force a proposal giving yourself 100 points
Post
Post #253 (isolation #59) » Tue Nov 02, 2021 2:25 pm
Postby Deimos27 »
Btw I'd love if we agreed some nomenclature to differentiate the person who owns the vote coupon and the person whose name it's in cause it makes writing about them really annoying