Nomic: The Constitution Game - Game Over

[Jake The Wolfie]

I'll yea it after you explain what it's for.

[Ircher]

Up to date as of post 599.

Pending Proposals

1.

Proposal 416

(563) by Ircher: Discussion of ongoing minigames outside of that minigame's thread is not allowed. The penalty is 5 reputation and 20 coins if caught.
Yea - Ircher, StrangerCoug
Nay - logan5123, Allomancer
Not Voting - Jake the Wolfie
(expired on 2020-04-23 21:35:00) time left.

Pending Motions

[Ircher]

ircher.
Also, pls vote on 414. (preferrably YEA)
It's expiring in like 6 hours, and I don't want to have to redo the entire process.

pretty sure 414 passed.

[Jake The Wolfie]

ircher.
Also, pls vote on 414. (preferrably YEA)
It's expiring in like 6 hours, and I don't want to have to redo the entire process.

pretty sure 414 passed.

But there were only 2 Yeas and 2 abstains

[Ircher]

Exactly. 2 abstains means the number of votes to pass decreases from 3 to 2 since you just need a majority of non-abstaining votes for a proposal to pass.

[logan5123]

oh.

oh.
ok then

[Ircher]

VOTE: Abstain 416
It was about to expire anyway, but that kills the proposal. Thus, we have no active proposals. The primary phase of the presidential election still continues until tomorrow afternoon. We currently have two candidates.

Edit: StrangerCoug hasn't posted in 3 days, so it looks like we're gonna need another player or for StrangerCoug to post again for the game to progress any further.

[Jake The Wolfie]

We should just remove rule 105

[logan5123]

honestly I'm kinda with Jake on this one.

Only kinda, though

[StrangerCoug]

I'm still here

[Ircher]

Proposal 419: Except for official moderator communication (e.g.: reminder pms, cards, etc.), private communication is not allowed. Additional exceptions may be made in future proposals as needed.

Proposal 420: If a player trades in two cards of the same rank at once (i.e.: a poker pair), that player gains a bonus of 5 coins.

[Allomancer]

VOTE: Nay 419
VOTE: Yea 420

[logan5123]

VOTE: NAY 419

VOTE: YEA 420

419 is almost impossible to prove having been done, and as a bonus, makes inviting harder.

420 (heh) is fine though. (double heh)

[Ircher]

Well we could make an exception for invitations. As to enforcement, we could use the honor system. After all, enforcement hasn't been a problem for the mafia "don't discuss ongoing games" rule.

[logan5123]

Well, that's fair. Still won't change my vote though.

Here's some proposals as well

421: Players may not make proposals that target specifically named players. Attempting to do so will cause the player to lose 5 reputation.

This doesn't apply to stuff like "The president draws a card" because it doesn't target a specific player.

422: Players may gain strikes. Whenever players gain coins due to time, they have one strike removed if they have one. If a player has 3 strikes at any given time, they are removed from the game and cannot rejoin for 72 hours.

This is currently useless, however you can both:
A. Amend previous proposals dealing with unbreakable rules to add strikes upon being "broken"
and
B. Add new proposals which add strikes upon doing things that you are not supposed to do.

[Allomancer]

VOTE: Yea 421
VOTE: Yea 422

[Jake The Wolfie]

VOTE: Yea 421
VOTE: Nay 422

I don't appreciate having to actually *follow* rules.

[Allomancer]

423: Rules may have explanations, which follow the rule in square brackets. Explanations are not part of the rules, but they are a part of the text of the rules. [This means explanations can be amended and are shown in the first post, but don't have legal weight.]

[logan5123]

I don't appreciate having to actually *follow* rules.

That's both a mood and kinda defeats the purpose of the game

oh, and I'm saving this for later lmao

[logan5123]

VOTE: YEA 423
Time to amend one of my earlier rules later to add an explanation.


Also, Primary Phase is up on the election.

[Ircher]

VOTE: Abstain 421
Good in principle; unsure about the wording.

VOTE: Nay 422
We can always make a motion to remove a player if we have problematic plsyers. I don't like the strike system because 1) we have s shortage of players 2) Players lose strikes way too quickly and 3) As I noted, I think motions are better suited to this.

VOTE: Yea 423

Also I think the general election phase should begin now. Jake the Wolfie and logan5123 are your candidates.

[logan5123]

Yeah Ircher I'm with you on the "unsure on the wording" part of 421. However, it's the only way to word it I can think of...

..right now..


Edit: And as for the "too low player count for strikes" and "the strikes fade away too easily" part, both of those combined work together fine. The only way to even get enough strikes to get removed is to either make a huge mistake 3 times in a row or invalidate a rule that gives you 2 strikes and a rule that gives you 1, or invalidate a rule that for some reason gives you 3 strikes.

[StrangerCoug]

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

[logan5123]

I guess you can say that 422 got...

striked out?

Also pls vote for me

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE: logan5123 for president