Nomic: The Constitution Game - Game Over

[StrangerCoug]

/in

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 313
VOTE: Yea 314
VOTE: Yea 315
VOTE: Yea 316

[StrangerCoug]

Proposal 317: Rule 206 is hereby amended to read "New rules require an absolute majority of active votes to pass unless another rule currently in force or the proposer of the new rule imposes a higher minimum threshold."

[StrangerCoug]

Proposal 318: Rule 212 is hereby transmuted from mutable to immutable.

It's supposed to be a fun game that anyone can join at any time. We shouldn't be making that more difficult.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Abstain 319

Give me more time to think about that one. I'd be more comfortable with it if some mechanism were in place to ensure that no one is given too much voting power.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 319

That's better to my liking.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 320

I thought I voted.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 321

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 301
Makes perfect sense.

VOTE: Yea 323
Goes reasonably hand-in-hand with allowing multiple votes being voted down. You should be playing under only one account at a time.

[StrangerCoug]

Proposal 324: A proposal may not make more than one fundamental change at a time. What constitutes a "fundamental change" is at the discretion of the moderator, but as an example of the intended spirit of the rule, a proposal may not simultaneously transmute and amend a rule. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to prohibit proposals that simultaneously add a new feature to the game and set rules on using the new feature.

[StrangerCoug]

Oh, I thought 319 failed xD I still support 323, and the anti-cheating argument still stands.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 325
Defeats the purpose of a motion.

[StrangerCoug]

I meant the vote for 301 to be a vote for 323, but ah, there's enough votes to pass without it.

VOTE: Nay 219
VOTE: Yea 330
VOTE: Yea 331

Also, isn't 332 invalid since it amends a now-immutable rule?

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 219

I meant VOTE: Nay 319.

[StrangerCoug]

323 I support as an anti-cheating measure. 332 I have qualms about, and we don't need to be excluding people entirely for arbitrary reasons. Even if we are nice people about that sort of thing, I don't want that door for abuse open.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Abstain 332

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 322

[StrangerCoug]

Proposal 333: Players may withdraw any of their own proposals made after the passage of this rule. A withdrawn proposal is treated as if it failed immediately upon withdrawal for the purposes of rules affecting failed proposals.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm not sure I can count that as a valid referral. Can I have opinions from other players on the matter?

I say he must explicitly name one.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 329
Thought I did that already.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay M001
VOTE: Nay 334

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 335
VOTE: Abstain 336 I'm opposed to win conditions, but it makes logical sense if we end up setting one against my wishes, and it does not itself set a win condition.
VOTE: Nay M002
VOTE: Yea 337

Let me think about 338 before I vote on or abstain from it.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay M003

Proposal 341: A rule, as most recently amended if applicable, must be in effect for 72 hours to be amended or repealed. Transmutations do not reset the 72-hour clock, and a rule in effect in its current form for less than 72 hours may still be transmuted.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 342

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 344
VOTE: Yeah M004
VOTE: Yeah M005

[StrangerCoug]

Proposal 345: Rule 305 is hereby repealed.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 347
VOTE: Yea 348
VOTE: Yea 349
VOTE: Yea 350
VOTE: Yea 351

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea M006

[StrangerCoug]

Proposal 352: Rule 349 is hereby transmuted from mutable to immutable.

[StrangerCoug]

Give Jake The Wolfie 5 reputation points

VOTE: Abstain 353
VOTE: Yea 354
VOTE: Yea 355
VOTE: Yea M007

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 357
VOTE: Yea 360
VOTE: Yea 361
VOTE: Yea 362

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 359

Nominate logan5123 for president

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 363
VOTE: Abstain 364

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea M008 if it hasn't passed already
VOTE: Nay 366

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: logan5123 for president[/vote[
VOTE: Yea 368

[StrangerCoug]

Botched the tags, but I think the intent is well-understood.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 369
VOTE: Yea 370

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: logan5123 for duel

Supporting my preferred presidential candidate.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 371
VOTE: Yea 372 I agree with the abuse part.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 373
VOTE: Abstain 374 I also oppose win conditions in principle, but hey, given how rare a royal flush is...

Well then how the fuck are we every going to win?

Ever played simulation games like city builders? I find the fun of those in the simulation itself, without a real final goal to achieve. However, in the specific case of city builders, I'll grant that they often offer scenarios, with goals that offer a "win condition" (SimCity, I think the Natural Disasters expansion of Cities: Skylines).

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 367
VOTE: Abstain 375
VOTE: Yea M009

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 376
277 is not even numbered correctly

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 377 Useless, and I'm opposed to anything that requires less than a majority to pass.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 377 Useless, and I'm opposed to anything that requires less than a majority to pass.

Didn't you originally Yea the President?

Yes, but the president can be given as much control and influence as we wish. I call weak rules "useless" because they aren't enforceable and allow an excuse to spam the rule set with fluff nobody needs.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 378
VOTE: Yea 379
VOTE: Yea 380
VOTE: Abstain 381
VOTE: Yea 382
VOTE: Nay 383
VOTE: Yea 384

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Abstain 381
VOTE: Nay 385 It's already dead because of Allomancer, but it was one I was strongly against anyway.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Abstain 386 Let me think about it.

Proposal 387: There is hereby established the concept of a party. Any person may create a party, and any person may join or leave a party at any time by bolding words to that effect. A player can be a member of only one party at a time. A party must consist at all times of at least one person—if all members leave a party, it is automatically dissolved. There is no limit on how many players may be in a party.

[StrangerCoug]

Actually, let me clarify a couple things.

Amended proposal 387: There is hereby established the concept of a party. Any person may create a party, and any person may join or leave a party at any time by bolding words to that effect. A player creating a party joins it automatically. A player can be a member of only one party at a time—a player who joins a party while already in a party automatically leaves their old party. A party must consist at all times of at least one person—if all members leave a party, it is automatically dissolved. There is no limit on how many players may be in a party.

[StrangerCoug]

Not exactly sure of the benefits of a contract there except to agree on a party platform. Could you elaborate a bit on your reasoning?

[StrangerCoug]

How about this, then?

Amended proposal 387: There is hereby established the concept of a party. Two or more people may form a party by making a contract in accordance with rule 355, as amended hereafter. Each party must have a distinct name. The signatories of said contract are considered the members of the party. A player can be a member of only one party at a time. A party must consist at all times of at least two people—a party with fewer than two members is automatically dissolved. There is no limit on how many players may be in a party.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 388
VOTE: Ircher to win the duel

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 389

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 390
VOTE: Nay 391
VOTE: Nay 392

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 393

Let me think about 394. I like the idea in principle, but my primary concern is the contract creator might burn the contract as a loophole around paying the penalty for breaking it.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 395

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 396

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 397

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 394

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 398
VOTE: Yea 399 I'd max it out at two or three consecutive terms, but I do like the idea of term limits in principle.
VOTE: Nay 400 Anti-corruption measures I'd probably be fine with, but I don't like how it's implemented here.

And now I have to wait to make my proposal ><

[StrangerCoug]

Since 400 has now been voted down:

Proposal 401: A player may vote "Yea with reservations" on any proposal made after this rule. A player who does so should, but is not required to, explain the reservations the player holds that prevent an unqualified Yea vote. A Yea with reservations is indistinct from a normal Yea vote for the purposes of calculating the number of Yea votes needed to pass a proposal.

[StrangerCoug]

Doesn't 402 make six active proposals?

[StrangerCoug]

Oh xD

VOTE: Yeah 402

[StrangerCoug]

Make that VOTE: Yea 402. I don't know how Ircher will count "yeah" if at all xD

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 403

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 404
VOTE: Yea 405 Makes sense to consolidate those two.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 406

[StrangerCoug]

It's not down for the count yet

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Ircher for president
VOTE: Yea 407

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay with reservations 408

Amend it to adapt Ircher's suggestion and I'll sign on.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 408

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 409
VOTE: Nay 410 Yea with reservations and nay with reservations I get, but what difference do you intend there to be between a regular abstention and an abstention with reservations?

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 411

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 412

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 413
VOTE: Abstain 414

[StrangerCoug]

I'll think about it

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 415
VOTE: Yea 416
VOTE: Yea 417

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 418

[StrangerCoug]

I'm still here

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 421
VOTE: Nay 422
VOTE: Yea 423

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: logan5123 for president

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea with reservations 424
VOTE: Yea with reservations 425

I like the idea in principle, but I'm struggling a bit to see what purpose the life system serves that the reputation system doesn't. I'm for transitioning duels to using the life system instead of the reputation system if it passes, though, since it seems like a logical step to give it use.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Abstain 426

Give me more time to think about it.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 428

There are other ways we can use/propose to limit his power. That's a considerable nerf.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm trying to think of interesting things to add to propose xD Maybe an unlock of sorts if we hit seven and/or nine players?

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 419
VOTE: Nay 429
VOTE: Yea 430

[StrangerCoug]

Oh, and VOTE: Yea 427 as well.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 431

Proposal 432: Vote timers become frozen when there are fewer than five active players.

[StrangerCoug]

Actually, let me modify that a tad for clarity:

Amended roposal 432: Vote timers become frozen when there are fewer than five active players and reactivate from the point at which they were frozen when there are again five or more active players.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 433

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 434

Allomancer said it well.

[StrangerCoug]

Proposal 435: Rule 202 is hereby amended to read as follows: "An inactive player is any player who has not posted, made or voted on a proposal, or exercised any special power granted thereto for a total of 72 hours. Except for posting, the 72 hours shall not start prior to the passage of this rule."

[StrangerCoug]

...Good point.

Withdraw 435

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 436 I find that too harsh.
VOTE: Yea 437 assuming it's in valid format. I think this works better than my 435.

[StrangerCoug]

Fair enough, but I think I already failed it.

And

mod: The sixth collapsible spoiler in post #3 should read Proposals 426-450, not Proposals 326-350.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 437
VOTE: Yea 438
VOTE: Nay 439

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 440
VOTE: Yea 441

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 442
VOTE: Yea 443

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay M010

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Abstain M011

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay 444

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea M012
VOTE: Yea 445

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay M013

Proposal 446: Proposals and motions made after the passage of this rule may not be retroactive in nature unless such retroactive application is intended to benefit all players.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea M014

[StrangerCoug]

Proposal 447: There is hereby created a weapons shop, from which players may use coins to buy weapons, as well as an armor shop, from which players may use coins to buy armor. Players may make motions to add items to either shop. Such motions must include a price for each item, although the same price can apply to multiple items. Items so added for sale are removed therefrom when the motion adding them expires unless otherwise stated in the motion adding the item.

[StrangerCoug]

Motion M015: There is hereby added a wooden sword to the weapons shop with a price of 5 coins. When used on another player, 25 life (minus any life prevented from being deducted by armor) is deducted from the attacked player. This motion lasts one second; however, wooden swords may continue to be purchased until another motion removes them from sale. This motion shall fail automatically if Proposal 447 fails.

Motion M016: There is hereby added a wooden shield to the armor shop with a price of 5 coins. When used to defend against another player, 20 life is deducted from the damage taken from the attacking player. This motion lasts one second; however, wooden shields may continue to be purchased until another motion removes them from sale. This motion shall fail automatically if Proposal 447 fails.

Willing to make adjustments, but I don't want the new weapons and armor to become useless if everybody goes out of their way to buy a wooden sword and a wooden shield, and they're both supposed to be relatively weak on purpose.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea M017 The wooden swords and shields were meant to be really basic anyway.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 448
VOTE: Yea 449

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: StrangerCoug for president
VOTE: Yea 450

[StrangerCoug]

Since the wooden sword is meant to be weak anyway, say it breaks after X number of uses (it can be 1 if it's the only way to get your vote?)

[StrangerCoug]

Amended motion M015: There is hereby added a wooden sword to the weapons shop with a price of 5 coins. When used on another player, 25 life (minus any life prevented from being deducted by armor) is deducted from the attacked player. A wooden sword may be used a maximum of three times; after the third time, it breaks and can no longer be used. This motion lasts one second; however, wooden swords may continue to be purchased until another motion removes them from sale.

VOTE: Yea 451
VOTE: Yea 452

Buy a wooden shield

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea M019

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Ircher, logan5123, and Allomancer for the advisory board
VOTE: logan5123 for the duel

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Nay with reservations 453 Conditional on 454 passing to have a point to me.
VOTE: Abstain 454
VOTE: Yea 455

[StrangerCoug]

UNVOTE: Nay with resservations 453
UNVOTE: Abstain 454
VOTE: Yea 453
VOTE: Yea 454

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 456

[StrangerCoug]

Buy a wooden sword and a lottery ticket

[StrangerCoug]

It's my scumday, but thanks anyway

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 457
VOTE: Nay 458
VOTE: Yea M020
VOTE: Yea M021
VOTE: Yea M022

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Yea 459
VOTE: Yea M023

[StrangerCoug]

*gets prodded*

[StrangerCoug]

*starts singing* Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer...

[StrangerCoug]

*ends up with 99 murdered clowns and 99 charges therefor*

[StrangerCoug]

*nods*

[StrangerCoug]

/out

Kinda hard to keep interest at this point. Sorry.