Nomic: The Constitution Game - Game Over

[Ircher]

VOTE: Nay 304
Why???

pedit: VOTE: Abstain 305
I'm against it personally because I believe it's better to let people vote against it again, but given we have proposal limits, I can see the case for it, so I'll abstain for now in case someone provides a more compelling case for it.
---
Edit: As of this post:

Active Proposals:

1.

Proposal 301

(10) by Ircher: Proposals pass or fail immediately upon achieving the required number of yes votes to pass or required number of no votes to fail.
Yea - Ircher, Jormengand, logan5123, Allomancer, Ausuka
Nay -
Not Voting - bugspray

2.

Proposal 302

(12) by logan5123: Rules now have names. Rules cannot not have names, and any rules without them can be ignored by the moderator. Initial rules have an initial name of "Initial Rule x", where x is the number of the rule. All names are public. The number of the rule shall be put in parenthesis beside the rule. Rules missing numbers via this shall be counted as missing a number through rule 210, and be ignored. Rules, and votes on rules, may also use a name instead of a number. Any rules passed before this rule may have a name decided on by the submitter of the rule, except for this rule, which will be called the Name Rule.
Yea - logan5123, Ausuka
Nay - Allomancer, Ircher, Jormengand
Not Voting - bugspray

3.

Proposal 303

(17) by Allomancer: Someone is automatically assumed to be voting for their own proposal unless they vote otherwise.
Yea - Allomancer, Ircher, logan5123, Jormengand
Nay -
Not Voting - bugspray, Ausuka

4.

Proposal 304

(22) by Jormengand: Rule 211 to be struck from the records; players may not abstain.
Yea - Jormengand
Nay - logan5123, Ircher
Not Voting - Allomancer, bugspray, Ausuka

5.

Proposal 305

(24) by logan5123: Players may not suggest rules that are functionally the exact same as previously denied rules, unless another rule allows them to.
Yea - logan5123
Nay -
Abstain - Ircher
Not Voting - Allomancer, Jormengand, bugspray, Ausuka

[Jormengand]

Mostly abstains are just... annoying. I'd rather people have an opinion, y'know?

VOTE: Nay 305 for the reason Ircher gave.

[Jormengand]

(Also, not a proposal, but "Jormengard" to be changed to "Jormengand" in all places where this misspelling is in place. )

[logan5123]

I actually had three reasons:
1. filling the proposal list
2. because then it becomes a valid strategy to just spam a rule until eventually people get sick and tired of it and accept it
3. because who wants to reject the same rule a dozen times

[Jormengand]

I doubt people will run the same rule multiple times in quick succession. And if they do, we can deal with it when it becomes an issue.

[logan5123]

Yeah, but if there's one thing I learned from... many places, actually, it's to take care of the problems before they become problems.
Not to mention, if nothing else, we can take care of it when we remove the proposal limit.

[Ircher]

I'll be voting against any suggestions of removing the proposal limit unless a replacement system is suggested that serves the same purpose is instated (mainly keeping down the amount of work I have to do as moderator.)

As to your proposal: maybe if you amended it to read, "Players may not suggest a functionally equivalent rule to a rule that failed in the past 48 hours," I'd be willing to yea it. This curbs abuse while not making it as painful to make proposals. (There's also the case that people's views change over time, so I could see someone reproposing a rule after a long time has passed.)

[logan5123]

Well when you put it that way, I actually kind of agree with you.
It just doesn't say anywhere that you can amend proposals so I sort of don't know how to do it.
I'll try like this, however, I will stretch out that deadline a bit.

Amending 305: Players may not suggest a functionally equivalent rule that failed in the past 72 hours.

[Ircher]

VOTE: Yea 305

(As noted earlier, if something isn't disallowed, it's probably okay. So yes, you can amend proposals simply by bolding it and formatting it like a normal proposal. It obviously won't invalidate current votes, so keep that in mind. That being said, we probably do need something more official to prevent abuse.)

[Jormengand]

All right. VOTE: Yea 305

[Allomancer]

VOTE: Nay 304
VOTE: Yea 305

[Allomancer]

Also, what I've done to limit the workload in the Nomics I've modded is to have the current ruleset on a wiki page and allow all players to keep it up to date.

[bugspray]

I'm going to be slow in this at first while I get the feel

[logan5123]

there you are bugspray
now, quickly, vote YEA or NAY on 301
it's vital

[logan5123]

or abstain. really doesn't matter just pls vote

[Ircher]

there you are bugspray
now, quickly, vote YEA or NAY on 301
it's vital

or abstain. really doesn't matter just pls vote

This.

(Though I'm going to sleep and won't be able to formally recognize any proposals as passing.)

[bugspray]

/out

[Ircher]

With that 301 and 303 pass while 302 fails. I will update everything later, but we can submit up to three more proposals during this time.

[Allomancer]

P306: There is a currency called Reputation. A player earns 5 Reputation when a proposal suggested by them passes. This proposal is retroactive from the beginning of the game.

[Ircher]

Proposal 307: Proposals submitted after this proposal passes may not be retroactive in nature.

[Allomancer]

VOTE: Nay 307

[Ircher]

VOTE: Yea 306
Okay, I just updated everything, and it looks like 304 fails and 305 passes as well.

The reason I hate retroactive rules is that they require us to keep track of a lot of information, and once we have a ton of rules and proposals, it can be quite unwieldy to manage. Like right now, retroactive rules aren't a big deal, but they will be later.

I do have a bunch of other proposals I want to make, but I don't want to clog up the thread, so I'll submit one more for now.

Proposal 308: Players may amend their own proposals by posting in bold AMENDED PROPOSAL #: New description. (Other variants of notation are fine as long as the moderator can understand its an amendment to an active proposal.) When a player amends a proposal, all votes cast on it by players other than the proposer are invalidated.

[logan5123]

Honestly though retroactive rules can be useful sometimes.
Key word here is sometimes.
I have a rule that I wish to propose later that's retroactive but only to players so therefore it shouldn't be that bad.
VOTE: YEA 306 VOTE: NAY 307 VOTE: YEA 308
other two rules are cool though. Finally, a currency I can work with!

[logan5123]

Also, just noticed that name rule failed.
Ripparoni pepperoni to rule customization I guess.
I'll have to find another way to make that work later.

[Ircher]

With that, 306 passes.

Proposal 309: The moderator (and anyone else with the ability to do so) may not edit or delete other players' posts. If a player is caught doing this, they lose three reputation.

To be clear, you are allowed to edit (and potentially delete) your own posts; this proposal does not prohibit that.