[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 11684290 [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: The Constitution Game - Game Over - Mafiascum.net
Post
Post #77 (isolation #2) » Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:35 pm
Postby 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."
Post
Post #84 (isolation #4) » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:12 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #109 (isolation #9) » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:46 pm
Postby 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.
Post
Post #142 (isolation #14) » Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:27 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #147 (isolation #17) » Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:33 pm
Postby 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 A withdrawn proposal is treated as if it failed immediately upon withdrawal for the purposes of rules affecting failed proposals.
Post
Post #186 (isolation #21) » Wed Apr 01, 2020 9:54 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #201 (isolation #22) » Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:37 pm
Postby 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.
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).
In post 370, StrangerCoug wrote: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.
Post
Post #407 (isolation #46) » Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:03 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #408 (isolation #47) » Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:06 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #413 (isolation #49) » Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:49 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #451 (isolation #53) » Thu Apr 09, 2020 8:09 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #483 (isolation #58) » Mon Apr 13, 2020 5:24 am
Postby 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.
Post
Post #486 (isolation #59) » Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:00 am
Postby 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.