Nomic: The Constitution Game - Game Over

[Ircher]

You can't transmute individual parts of the rule though. Heck, if you vote yes, I'll even give you 2 rep. How does that sound? (I'll do it for anyone who votes yes to these proposals.)

Active Proposals

Up to date as of post 124.

1.

Proposal 322

(104) by logan5123: Transmute 301 to immutable.
Yea - logan5123, Ircher, Allomancer
Nay -
Not Voting - Jormengand, StrangerCoug

This requires unaminous consent.

2.

Proposal 327

(123) by Ircher: Motions may supersede any and all mutable rules, but they may not override immutable rules.
Yea - Ircher
Nay - Allomancer
Not Voting - logan5123, Jormengand, StrangerCoug

3.

Proposal 328

(123) by Ircher: There may be a max of three proposed motions at a time.
Yea - Ircher
Nay - Allomancer
Not Voting - logan5123, Jormengand, StrangerCoug

[logan5123]

VOTE: ABSTAIN 327 VOTE: ABSTAIN 328
I mean on one hand it's a good rule on the other it's already there on the OTHER hand reputation.
You guys decide what to do with it I really don't care

[Allomancer]

Proposal 329: A player may duel another player by announcing their intention do so in in bold in the thread. Only one duel may take place at a time. All players not in the duel have one vote to vote for a winner of duel, which they do by posting a vote tag with the dueler's name. The dueler with the majority of votes wins the duel. If there is a tie when all active players have voted, the defender wins the duel. The loser of the duel loses 10 Reputation and the winner gains 10 Reputation.

[logan5123]

...second thought bribery is too good to resist
VOTE: YEA 327 VOTE: YEA 328
and as for the dueling rule, I would say change it to where the player with the least votes wins
make it basically be gladiator simulator
LUL

[Ircher]

I'm not doing it for the rep. Like I said, I'll give 2 rep to anyone who yea to both proposals if they both pass. I want to transmute part of the motions rule, but I don't think we need to transmute all of it.

pedit: VOTE: Nay 329 because the challenged cannot decline a duel.

[Allomancer]

Alright, since I'm not strongly opposed, I'll be bribed.
VOTE: Yea 327
VOTE: Yea 328

[Ircher]

327 and 328 pass. I'll update later (early evening or late afternoon).

Give logan5123 3 rep.

Give Allomancer 3 rep.

Proposal 330: Transmute 327 to immutable.

This is to ensure that part has force because it's a bit questionable as to whether or not it does while it's a mutable rule. Someone else can propose the amendment to the original motion rule that removes the two clauses that just passed.

[Allomancer]

Proposal 331: 320 is amended to read:
Players may make motions in addition to proposals. Unlike proposals, which are permanent in nature, all motions are temporary and must cease to be in effect after a certain time. No motion may last longer than 1 week after passing. Motions are proposed, voted upon, passed, and failed in a similar manner as proposals. Numbering shall begin at M001 and increase with each proposed motion.

VOTE: Yea 327

[Ircher]

pretty sure you meant yea 330 but I can't count it if you don't specify the right number.
VOTE: Yea 331

[Allomancer]

VOTE: Yea 330

[logan5123]

ah screw it
VOTE: YEA 329 VOTE: YEA 330 VOTE: YEA 331
I'll join this train

332: Amend 318 to read: "If you are allowed to join by all other rules relating to joining, simply post /in."

It's probably useless but it'll help just in case.

[Allomancer]

VOTE: Yea 332

[Ircher]

Doesn't 332 allow us to restrict who can join? That sounds like a bad idea.

I'm not immediately voting Nay as that will kill the proposal.

[logan5123]

We basically already have, what with the "alternate accounts" rule.
Besides, I doubt we will abuse it.

[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.

[Ircher]

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?

That's allowed. It just requires unanimous consent.

[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.

[Allomancer]

We can always have that debate when we go to make new rules. This just clarifies the existing rules.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: Abstain 332

[Ircher]

VOTE: Nay 332

So if we're being technical, 318 as currently written only deals with the mechanism of joining the game. Nowhere does the rule state or imply that anyone can or cannot join. In particular, it does not conflict whatsoever with 323, which does deal with who can join the game. I see no good reason to pass this amendment as it seems to only encourage further restricting who can join the game, which is not a good idea. Therefore, I have ultimately decided to vote NAY, and thereby reject the proposal.

Proposal 331 on the other hand passes.

Currently active proposals are 322, 329, and 330.

Also, I know Jormengand originally opposed the original motion proposal, and I fear that it'll reject the transmutation proposal related to it. Therefore, as added incentive for it to support the motion, I will give it and everyone else who votes yea to proposal 330 one reputation

if it passes

.

[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.

[Ircher]

VOTE: Yea 333

[Jormengand]

/out sorry I can't keep up with all of this.