Nomic: Wiki Edition --- Finished (More or Less)

[Deimos27]

/in
Am I also welcome here?

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Nay 303
Sets a dangerous precedent imo
VOTE: Yea 306
VOTE: Yea 307

[Deimos27]

Would using "Aye" be allowed as per 209
Cause I vastly prefer "Aye"

[Deimos27]

Proposal 308: Whenever a player makes a proposal, that player automatically votes Yea thereon by default.

VOTE: Yea 308

Isn't this 305
VOTE: Nay 308

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 309
Is it better if 310 clarifies a method of withdrawal (e.g. writing

Withdraw: 308

in bold)?

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 310

[Deimos27]

I feel like this whole getting points for passing proposals rule was implemented without enough critical discussion. Do we really want to incentivise inefficient and superfluous proposals? In the long-term it will inflate the number of rules and make keeping track of them and their interactions a nightmare

[Deimos27]

Also the way it looks like right now that rule quite literally brings people closer to the win condition, and if shiny rocks passes looks like it will also end up giving them more currency.

I think rewarding a certain playstyle is kind of perverse in itself. I think people who are less inclined to propose and more inclined to help debate and assess other people's proposals are being tacitly treated as less valuable.

Furthermore I think this results in people being less likely to float their proposal ideas

before

actually proposing them for fear that someone else will make the official proposal first. Since we can only have 5 proposals at once it is far more efficient if we can discuss potential proposals without actually proposing them: it allows us both to exceed the number 5 as well as to screen the quality of proposals.

[Deimos27]

That would be interesting. We would need the infrastructure for a fair assessment of "purposeful" though

[Deimos27]

A mechanism for determining when an infraction is on purpose. Seems hard to come up with something simple, and punishing even for accidental infractions seems dangerous too, although I am open to the idea.

[Deimos27]

How many players do these games usually amass? It's also worth noting that we'll get more and more proposal congestion and longer and longer voting periods as the number of players grows, so we may eventually have to compromise on either a max number of players or moving away from direct democracy / simple majority voting.

[Deimos27]

I think the current rules leave it ambiguous whether points can be negative. We could amend 213 to read either "All players start with 0 points and can go no lower." or "All players start with 0 points, but it is possible to have negative points." depending on which we prefer.

If we're gonna have a points penalty I think it only makes sense for it to also threaten players who are at 0 and therefore we should permit negative points.

[Deimos27]

I linked to some of the past ones I've done. It varies quite a bit. I think last time, we only had 5, but there are times when there are like 9-11 players.

With those sorts of numbers I don't think we will face significant problems with diseconomies of scale, then.

[Deimos27]

Perhaps it would be interesting if instead of being allocated 10 shiny rocks per point you could trade your point for 10 shiny rocks and vice versa.

[Deimos27]

On second thought it may be undesirable to allow people to trade each other their points in the form of shiny rocks (facilitates kingmaking) but at least a one way points into shiny rocks exchange might introduce interesting strategic decisions

[Deimos27]

Depending of course on what those things are that shiny rocks actually do

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 312
VOTE: Nay 313
I don't really see 313 as necessary either. We are capable of using our words to explain opinions and reservations when we have them.

[Deimos27]

It depends on your interpretation. That's not how I have typically done it in the past, but I do see that we don't have a rule that clarifies that scenario. The way I see it is that a proposal passes when it reaches a majority of votes needed; however, it fails as soon as it can no longer pass. You are free to re-propose the proposal as there is no such rule against such. This keeps proposals that are on the edge of getting the requisite votes but unable to from staying in limbo forever.

To be clear, abstentions are excluded from the calculation for simple majority, right? Otherwise they just become de facto nays. So if we have two abstentions and 7 players it would become 3 to pass. I do agree that proposals should fail when they can't pass, and that therefore includes situations where the vote is tied (or the best possible outcome remaining for the proposition is that the vote is tied).

[Deimos27]

something that I think we should figure out - do we want a more game-y Nomic or some political/life simulation thing that never ends and just makes us angry and eventually kills the game

I was thinking of an RPG or something but that would be extremely difficult to figure out

How about a political rpg lol

[Deimos27]

It depends on your interpretation. That's not how I have typically done it in the past, but I do see that we don't have a rule that clarifies that scenario. The way I see it is that a proposal passes when it reaches a majority of votes needed; however, it fails as soon as it can no longer pass. You are free to re-propose the proposal as there is no such rule against such. This keeps proposals that are on the edge of getting the requisite votes but unable to from staying in limbo forever.

To be clear, abstentions are excluded from the calculation for simple majority, right? Otherwise they just become de facto nays. So if we have two abstentions and 7 players it would become 3 to pass. I do agree that proposals should fail when they can't pass, and that therefore includes situations where the vote is tied (or the best possible outcome remaining for the proposition is that the vote is tied).

Actually it does appear as though this isn't currently the case and that makes no sense to me.

Proposal 314: Amend 206: Proposals require an absolute majority of active votes to pass, where active votes are defined as those held by active non-abstaining players. Proposals fail as soon as they can no longer pass.

For reference, current 206 reads only "New rules require an absolute majority of active votes to pass". This clears up the ambiguities mentioned above and changes out the words "new rules" for the word "proposals" to clarify that it applies also to e.g. proposals of amendments and repeals

[Deimos27]

something that I think we should figure out - do we want a more game-y Nomic or some political/life simulation thing that never ends and just makes us angry and eventually kills the game

I was thinking of an RPG or something but that would be extremely difficult to figure out

How about a political rpg lol

Awful

I kind of like it

Time to run a D&D campaign set in current-day USA.

[Deimos27]

Oh I love economics and I love monetary policy let's do this thing

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Nay 311
shiny rocks can be established automatically under the central bank's mechanism as Ircher outlined

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Nay 315
I see it as unlikely we'll run into scaling issues and I'd like to try not to pass any superfluous rules.
VOTE: Aye 316
Why not? If the money supply gets out of hand the central bank can always pass some deflationary measures

[Deimos27]

Ircher you def have my support for everything in 122, if there are any flaws they can be amended later. It's very well thought out and formatted as is. Though I'd call it the Nomic Central Bank rather than Reserve Bank just because the latter feels like it has an American bias lol. Doesn't actually make a difference.

I say we stop making proposals unrelated to this banking system until we get all its rules through; I'd like them in consecutive lexical order.

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 318
Now that you mention it Iendunistus I'd even suggest that sanctions are the kind of thing that should require a supermajority, to stop abuse by any tyrannical coalition.

How about some basic division of power: the BoD propose the sanctions, they are then approved by the public. Or vice versa

Edit: spelling

[Deimos27]

With regards to the board itself, it is mainly an efficiency thing. Everyone voting on every exchange rate, etc. seems woefully inefficient especially if there is any dissent or absent players. It could work perhaps with our current numbers, but it doesn't scale well at all. Also, 318 passed.

I agree, quantitative decisions like exchange rates sound dreadful to build majority support for in a group of any considerable size.

[Deimos27]

The PHB is not boring!
All my homies read the PHB for fun.

[Deimos27]

I like the idea of us all having our own competing currencies and I like the idea of having the bank to coordinate it.

[Deimos27]

Elections are every two weeks in Ircher's post so that's the length of term and most basic form of accountability. Motions/proposals/executive reviews will always exist for accountability as well. We can consider instituting a vote of no confidence if you're still concerned.

Is it really necessary? Well, if our wincon is going to be based on currencies, it seems logical. We'll need exchange rates and having a smaller body for determining them seems logical. When we get an economy running the bank can take on traditional duties like maintaining price stability.

Besides all that it seems very fun.

p-edit: didn't read that most recent post yet

[Deimos27]

Ok so looks like there basically is a vote of no confidence now which can be used to dismiss the head director. That should allay any lingering doubts about accountability.

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 319
VOTE: Aye 320
VOTE: Aye 321

[Deimos27]

Any opinion on the central bank Coug?

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 322
The temporary rule game sounds like a right old pain to balance.

The room concept is a pretty flexible one that we can certainly consider, but I'm very apprehensive about letting any one player pick a room's rule solely because of its potential to provide huge advantages if not outright break the game. Again, just hard to balance.

If you want to democratically institute special rooms with special rules that can be voluntarily entered or exited by all I think you are free to do so through proposals.

[Deimos27]

What is your qualm with 320/321 exactly?

[Deimos27]

Why

is

it important for motions to bypass mutable rules, Ircher? Do you have any examples in mind?

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye M001
I suppose it is harmless

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 324

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 323
All be warned that Prince Jake, son of the 7th circle will undoubtedly be using 323 as a mechanism for enforcing His new epithet.

[Deimos27]

It would be useful if the central bank were to publish updates also on stats such as the daily or weekly percentage increase of the money supply, to inform pricing decisions on shop items. I would certainly volunteer to do so if I were elected to the board regardless of whether it is an officially required duty.

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 325
VOTE: Aye M002
Is it possible to change one's vote btw?
Like could I still now say Nay 325 and it be binding

[Deimos27]

I'm ok with it not being possible, just checking whether M002 should be given another clause forbidding the player whose name the vote coupon is in from thereafter changing their vote

[Deimos27]

I assume from your response that it totally is possible to change votes (I certainly see no rule forbidding it) and therefore I think we will need to reword M002 accordingly

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Nay M002
I guess this is a safe vote because it won't apply if I am wrong about the changing votes thing.

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye M002

[Deimos27]

Excellent

[Deimos27]

Looks logical to me but will wait for Ircher to chime in as I am considering them an authority on the wiki

[Deimos27]

So relating to statute III of the Nomic Central Bank: it may be wise to require the BoD to approve changes to the supply of a currency, or at least to automatically invalidate the current exchange rate of a currency whenever its supply is changed, to prevent people "printing money" to take advantage of an exchange rate in the short term and buying out the shop.

Perhaps something like:

A player can print more of their currency at any time and in any quantity by posting in bold a request to do so in the format '

Print: X [currency]

', but they may not do so more often than once every 48 hours. The BoD of the Nomic Central Bank is required to produce a statement approving the change and declaring an update to the exchange rate (which may be that the currency is deemed valueless) within 48 hours of the request. When the statement is published the changes in the currency supply and its exchange rate go into effect simultaneously and immediately. When money is printed it is printed into the inventory of the owner of the currency. Some of a currency may be requested to be removed from circulation by the same mechanism by printing a negative X, but this can only remove from circulation money in the inventory of the owner and it cannot bring that quantity below 0.

Am open to fiddling with the time periods.

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 326

[Deimos27]

Of course the ability to print money directly into your own inventory still stands to be problematic since it allows devaluing other people's holdings of your currency — but at least now the frequency with which this can be done is capped. Besides, I kind of feel that's a fun and natural part of the currency politics. If you're seen to regularly devalue others' holdings of your currency you undermine it as a store of value and risk people giving up on using your currency altogether.

[Deimos27]

Hmm, what if we could gain mana like in Magic, where you could gain land (such as from purchasing it from el shoppe) and every 24 hours all tapped land regenerates, or gets untappedn

I'm not opposed to that in fact.
Time to become a landowner.

[Deimos27]

Concept: Vote Tokens. Each vote token is worth 1/X votes, where X is the number of vote tokens that exist. Upon using 1 vote token, it is destroyed.

So there'd be... fractional votes?

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 327
Kinda niche but sure
VOTE: Aye 328
Yessss

[Deimos27]

I'm not gonna be doing much creative labour myself for about two days as I'm working on an important essay irl, but will check in regularly to vote on other people's proposals

[Deimos27]

So is it the case btw that Prince Jake, son of the 7th circle is currently 1 vote coupon away from winning. While majority is 3 doesn't it take only 2 vote coupons to force a proposal giving yourself 100 points

[Deimos27]

I know I said I wouldn't exercise creative energy but, uh, if that's how that works it needs fixing somehow. Now someone else figure out the somehow ~

[Deimos27]

Hmm we may have to just keep it in mind (and recruit more players!)
There's like always gonna be a loophole

[Deimos27]

Actually maybe capping ownership of other players' vote coupons at simple majority minus 1 is fairly direct

[Deimos27]

Or rather simple majority - 2 cause your own vote counts for one

[Deimos27]

Btw I'd love if we agreed some nomenclature to differentiate the person who owns the vote coupon and the person whose name it's in cause it makes writing about them really annoying

Edit: grammar

[Deimos27]

Or rather simple majority - 2 cause your own vote counts for one

I think a cap would prevent that scenario. We'd have to address what happens when a player has too many vote coupons because of changes in how many constitutes a simple majority (or even with the passage of the proposal, since I have two vote coupons and would currently have one too many).

Yes it would be annoying if people could invalidate each others' vote coupons by going inactive. Certainly there would at the least have to be some compensation for the cancellation of the excess vote coupon, such as perhaps its shop face value (or its shop face value multiplied by some modifier).

Btw I'd love if we agreed some nomenclature to differentiate the person who owns the vote coupon and the person whose name it's in cause it makes writing about them really annoying

Edit: grammar

Owner vs issuer, perhaps. Just trying to think of a word I could appropriate from finances. So the ownership cap would be on vote coupons "from other issuers" so you can own as many as you like that were issued by yourself (they do not help you pass proposals after all).

[Deimos27]

Certainly there would at the least have to be some compensation for the cancellation of the excess vote coupon, such as perhaps its shop face value (or its shop face value multiplied by some modifier).

Perhaps the coupon simply goes dormant such that it reappears if and when the cap increases again, and only in the meanwhile are you temporarily refunded by its shop face value.

[Deimos27]

I would like to think about the implementation of 329 also. 5 points is rather significant and I'd rather wait on point rewards for the time being (I did even suggest repealing the point reward for passing proposals and continue to think that would be a reasonable course of action)

[Deimos27]

An ownership cap for vote coupons is also not foolproof I've just realised because you could figure out ways to use them sequentially such that only some are in your possession at a time.

Even simpler solution: cap

uses per proposal/motion

at simple majority minus 2. If the majority decreases (e.g. due to a player going inactive) mid-voting such that the number of vote coupons you previously used would exceed the new cap (and pass the proposal/motion), then simply cancel the use of the most recent vote coupon and return it to the inventory.

[Deimos27]

Proposal 330: Uses of vote coupons are capped to [[simple majority] - 2] per proposal/motion. If [simple majority] changes while a proposal/motion is pending such that previously used vote coupons on that proposal/motion would exceed the new cap, the use of the most recent vote coupon is cancelled instantly (and simultaneously with the change in cap). The cancellation involves removing the vote the use of the coupon dictated and returning it to the "not voting" category, and returning the vote coupon back into the inventory of the player who used it.

[Deimos27]

We could just amend 314 to read, "Proposals require an absolute majority of active votes to pass unless the proposal would cause a player to win immediately or within 72 hours without further action from said player. If the latter is true, unanimous consent is needed, and furthermore, at least one of the votes must not be forced. (Examples of forced votes would include but are not limited to using vote coupons.) Proposals fail as soon as they can no longer pass." (Note, I removed the redundancy of defining active votes since those are already defined in rule 113.)

Naw there'll always be a loophole.
I don't want to allow insta-wins even set up to occur in, say, 100 hours.

The redundancy is good to remove though.

[Deimos27]

72 hours is more than enough to repeal any rule that would cause a win of some sort. It's vulnerable to two players acting in concert, sure, but at that point, there isn't much you can do anyway.

VOTE: Abstain 330

"M00X: In 100 hours, player Y will receive points sufficient to set them equal to the total required for victory in 214. 214 cannot be amended or repealed for the duration of this motion. This motion cannot be repealed or amended."

Since motions supercede mutable rules there are no new rules that you could pass that would circumvent this motion once it is in action, correct? Any attempt to do so would need to be transmuted to immutable but that requires unanimous consent.

[Deimos27]

I do feel like there will always exist a loophole, you just need to be creative enough to find it. At any rate I don't want to risk that the reason I cannot find one is indeed only due to a lack of creativity.

[Deimos27]

Proposal 329: Proposals and motions to instantly give a player or a group of player a set amount of points are forbidden.

might solve the problem of just being able to win outright if you have enough vote coupons

or just abolish vote coupons idk

Oh I did not see this.
A workaround could be for example to give someone a currency and provide them a unique mechanism to exchange it for points

[Deimos27]

Anyway,
Bid N$300

[Deimos27]

The exact same board of directors may not be elected three times in a row.

Can I ask for clarification on this?
I assume it means the same 3 people cannot be re-elected three times in a row even if the head director changes between them. Will this be enforced by going directly into another election if the results end up the same for the third time? Or is it done by e.g. excluding the person of the 3 with the lowest vote total and replacing them for the 4th place finisher? There are many ways to implement this in practice.

[Deimos27]

I like what you've done with clause III

[Deimos27]

I will clarify it, but yes, it means the same set of people regardless of role. With regards to how it is implemented, we will go with the latter: if the same board is elected, the fourth place winner shall replace the third place winner.

Ok I'm cool with that!

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Nay 329
I'd just rather the reward was either much lesser or something other than points.
VOTE: Aye 331
VOTE: Aye 332
VOTE: Aye 333

[Deimos27]

After we get the central bank passed the next order of business imo is gamification of the currencies, figuring out good objectives to award points for

[Deimos27]

The economic win condition is far more interesting than scoring points for a bunch of random unrelated mechanical tasks like catching cheating or passing proposals

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Nay M004
In fact I agree with all of Ircher's points

[Deimos27]

(the misuse of "whom" is particularly irksome on the grammatical front)

[Deimos27]

If:
Currency is gamified and required to win
And:
There is a small number of individuals who are all able to control the currency

Then:
You get fucking capitalism

Yo I didn't know that capitalists are democratically elected I should try running for Minister of Being Rich irl.

Naw but the BoD pretty much only controls exchange rates and if you think they're doin' a rubbish job you can say so and/or try to vote them out at the next election and/or try to get the head director dismissed and/or executive review their decisions.

[Deimos27]

The central bank as we've designed it is not a bad approximation of representative democracy. I'm confident that there are sufficient measures of accountability.

[Deimos27]

But strictly speaking we are in fact very close to having a capitalist economy here given that we have markets (an item shop) and property rights (in currency and shop items) so the only feature we're actually missing is firms.

[Deimos27]

Why is representative democracy good in your opinion?

In this case we are electing representatives instead of using direct democracy for one of the same reasons that we do it in real life: administrative efficiency. Decision-making will be faster and more feasible, especially given the quantitative nature of exchange rates (building a majority in a large group of people is hard when one person wants 2.61 and another 2.59 and another two 2.44 etc.) while the mental energy of the people not on the board of directors can be spared for other productive duties, facilitating gains of efficiency from specialisation.

[Deimos27]

We should agree not to re-elect corrupt board members.

[Deimos27]

If:
Currency is gamified and required to win
And:
There is a small number of individuals who are all able to control the currency

Then:
You get fucking capitalism

Yo I didn't know that capitalists are democratically elected I should try running for Minister of Being Rich irl.

Naw but the BoD pretty much only controls exchange rates and if you think they're doin' a rubbish job you can say so and/or try to vote them out at the next election and/or try to get the head director dismissed and/or executive review their decisions.

By the way, only the head director can call for an executive review of their actions.

I don't understand what you mean by this; anyone can initiate an executive review. It's the head director who is the subject of the review (represents the board).

We can also chain dismiss the entire board using motions in an emergency, since we can dismiss the head director and upon the dismissal of one head director the second place finisher automatically becomes head director.

[Deimos27]

The board members will be communicating with each other on decisions. Further, their decisions will be documented for the public. There is far too much transparency for any significant corruption to be a realistic outcome, at least unnoticed, even assuming that we don't all have a basic level of integrity for the game.

If someone on the board were trying to sneak in advantages for someone else that would translate into an apparent lack of competence to everyone else in the game who simply would thereby opt not to re-elect them.

[Deimos27]

I for one do not intend to communicate in DMs except to make my vote, and I am not opposed to explicitly banning it in the rules

[Deimos27]

Coug's vote passed the first three proposals. This is happening with or without you.
I will be supporting Ircher for first head director.

[Deimos27]

If you insist :)

[Deimos27]

I'll take only the next three

Proposal 334:

Decision Making in the Nomic Central Bank Board of Directors

: All decisions made by the board of directors shall be done in a way agreed upon by the current board of directors. This decision in turn shall be decided by simple majority vote with the head director breaking any ties if need be. All decisions made by the board of directors should be archived, and for decisions requiring a vote, the archive shall indicate the position taken by each director on the decision.

Proposal 335:

The Powers Granted to the Nomic Central Bank Board of Directors

: The following powers are hereby granted to the board of directors: 1) the power to determine exchange rates between various currencies 2) the power to dissolve currencies 3) the power to sanction players by imposing various restrictions on their currencies. The latter two powers shall be further described in future rules; however, if rules pertaining to those powers are not passed, then those powers are not granted. All exchange rates shall be officially posted in terms of Nomic dollars, and exchanges may be made both to and from Nomic dollars.

Proposal 336:

The Power to Dissolve Currencies

: As established in Proposal 335, the Nomic Central Bank Board of Directors wields the power to dissolve currencies. They may do so simply by declaring in bold, "Currency [Currency Name] is hereby declared void," with the following restrictions: 1) the currency must be out of circulation; this means that only the original creator of the currency possesses any nonzero amount of the currency and 2) the original creator of the currency must approve of the dissolution of the currency.

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Nay 337
VOTE: Aye 338
VOTE: Aye 339

[Deimos27]

vote = submitted

[Deimos27]

So, uh, I won the auction right

[Deimos27]

Election ends in 13min get those votes in

[Deimos27]

I do wish we had just two more players or so. How about a recruitment incentive in Nomic dollars

[Deimos27]

Perhaps one that decreases in value per player recruited or is gone altogether after the first few

[Deimos27]

I do wish we had just two more players or so. How about a recruitment incentive in Nomic dollars

Too fucking bad. The last time something like that was suggested, it was shot down because the Nomic Bank would give out money, not new players.

As far as I could see everyone who shot it down did so for the same reason: an incentive is good but it shouldn't be points

[Deimos27]

It is interesting that since we cannot vote for ourselves, not voting provides a significant mathematical advantage

[Deimos27]

Ircher could've won if Coug gave them 1st preference, and the order between the other board members could also have been affected.

Since there was no legislation against it I nonetheless suppose that the results of this election must be considered legitimate.
I would however recommend that we amend the election rules before next time e.g. by requiring the submitting of a complete voting ballot for eligibility as a candidate.

[Deimos27]

I still think 330 is good but it's not indispensable if we are diligent about keeping track of how many vote coupons people have and make sure not to trade anyone too many at a time.
Can we get some ayes for 338 and 339 at least?
Perhaps from our esteemed chairman, Coug?

[Deimos27]

I hereby establish the currency Crowns. Its symbol is kr. An initial supply of 1 000 kr shall be printed.

I better get in on this.

[Deimos27]

Intuitively I'd like making decisions elsewhere to keep this thread streamlined on legislation but I also appreciate that it decreases transparency and might be less convenient than having everything related to the game in the same place.

[Deimos27]

I'd say formal voting is unnecessary if we get verbal consensus from everyone, and in general we should aim for such consensus first and use formal majority voting as a last resort.

[Deimos27]

I refer you to the rest of that post as well as the one directly prior

[Deimos27]

Currently there is a perverse incentive not to vote because it increases your probability of winning
(when you don't vote you lose nothing because you cannot vote for yourself, but other people lose out on the points from your vote and may still vote for

you

)

[Deimos27]

It is hard to judge an election as fair when the winner is the only one who does not vote, especially when with their vote someone else might have won

[Deimos27]

I don't understand what the relevance of the first fact you stated is
I also don't understand in what sense it is incentivising players to "become polarised" or what the downside in that is supposed to be

[Deimos27]

The goal of the election is to establish what the collective group preference is. When someone does not participate it hinders that goal

and

unfairly furthers that individual's electoral prospects

[Deimos27]

If we necessarily want to allow a way to express "no preference" while maintaining electoral eligibility then to keep the things fair that could involve e.g. making a 3 + 3 + 3 point structure (for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd preference) rather than 5 + 3 + 1 permissible

[Deimos27]

It seems highly unnecessary to me though I don't get this "polarisation" angle at all really.
If your preferences aren't strong and people get mad(?) at you for your vote you can always just say "my preferences were not strong" like I don't get how this is gonna cause any real negative effects for group cohesion or whatever it is you're implying exactly

[Deimos27]

It makes people become polarized in the sense that if you literally do not care, but will still take the job if offered, then this prevents that from happening. If everyone wants one player to be in the board, a desirable position, then that player would need to show bias towards other players first, even if they don't care about voting.

If you don't have a preference, that shouldn't hinder you from being elected. It would be like if voting abstain or not voting at all on proposals costed you 1 point each time you did it, it would incentivize polarization, and we would never have that.

If "showing bias" has any actual negative effects we shouldn't publicise results at all because 4 out of the 5 people showed bias by voting so now our entire group dynamic is like 4 times as polarised apparently so we're doomed now. You've not demonstrated any mechanism for the tangible harm that removing a perverse incentive to abstain will create. Because that's what this is. You can still abstain, you just shouldn't be strategically incentivised to do so.

This is deeply disanalogous to a point penalty for abstaining on proposals because abstaining on proposals does not currently create an unfair advantage in favour of your own proposals passing at the expense of other people's proposals. So there is no perverse incentive attached to abstaining on proposals and therefore no reason to attach a point penalty to it. If we

did

attach a point penalty to it for some reason, however, that wouldn't be bad because it generates some abstract "polarisation". If it's bad at all it's for far more nuanced reasons. The ethics around abstentions are actually very interesting. I drafted a whole rant about it that makes reference to practices e.g. in European parliament that I can post if anyone is interested.

If you want to partake in the benefits of the electoral system (i.e. stand a chance to be elected) you incur a moral obligation to partake in the costs that make that electoral system possible: namely, to make a vote (and thereby aid the electoral prospects of your opponents). They, after all, do the same for you.

If you don't have an alternative solution we absolutely need to amend the electoral system because these "polarisation" effects are so abstract and unrealistic that they are easily outweighed by the fact that abstaining provides an obviously significant unfair advantage.

[Deimos27]

This game is actually perfect for people who study my degree I should get them to join the forum just for it.
I'm reading for a BA joint honours in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.

[Deimos27]

As the name implies, Knowledge Points are earned based on demonstrating knowledge of some sort. This can take a variety of forms.

Ummm in addition to the abstentions in the European Parliament thing I also drafted two moral arguments for why we should institute the electoral amendment I suggested. With citations. So if you want to see that let me know lol

[Deimos27]

Aw dang this was def in my IB physics. Not Ohm. Not Kirchhoff. I don't remember whose law it is rn.

F = k(q₁q₂)/r^2

Think the formula looked like this though
k is a constant
q1 and q2 are the charges
r is the distance between the charges

[Deimos27]

You misunderstand what I'm saying then. I am not saying that polarized players are bad, I am saying that

requiring a player to commit to beliefs that they do not hold

is bad, and should not be encouraged. I don't know how you misread this simple and basic idea.
It is not disanalogous, mainly because we should not encourage players to lie. At all. What I just described is called lying, and we should not encourage that. Furthermore, the more a player lies about their stance, the less it will be them lying and the more it will be them telling the truth, a truth that they didn't arrive at organically, but in which they were forced to choose something. Sure, they got a choice in what they chose, but they didn't have the option of "no choice". Attempting to remove "No Choice" is how you get persecution, on all scales and of every measure.

Just because Player A wants power doesn't mean that they are morally obligated to choose other players who want power too. That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works. You're just throwing the term morally obligated around as a buzzword, without backing it up.

What do you even mean by incentivising lying do you actually think we're gonna have a situation where someone has

exactly

0 preference between alternatives. Even then they wouldn't have to lie about it, they could vote and say "I was forced to do it to stay eligible" and there would be no lying involved. Or they

could

make no choice. Then they just don't have the option of still reaping personal gains from other people making a choice. As they shouldn't.

I didn't mean to use "moral obligation" as a buzzword. I meant to summarise in layman's terms a real idea in moral philosophy. Since you want me to back it up I will provide two groundings (this includes that exact quote which I decided to include in my earlier post):

Spoiler:

"When a number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to these restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission." (H. L. A. Hart, "Are There Any Natural Rights?", 1955)

It sounds complicated but this principle is always summarised as basically "when we work together to create mutual benefits, each of us who receives from the benefit has an obligation to share in the costs of creating that benefit". If you want to benefit from the existence of the electoral system (i.e. you want to stand a chance to win), you have an obligation to share in the costs that make that electoral system possible: to make a vote (and thereby improving the prospects of your opponents). After all, they do the same for you.

I also refer you to the first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative—universalisability: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785). What this principle essentially means is that only actions which could consistently be done by everyone (are universalisable) are moral. If no one voted in the election, what would happen? No one would be elected; an election, strictly speaking, could not even be considered to have happened. So "not voting in elections" results in a logically inconsistent (or at least morally undesirable) outcome when universalised as a maxim, and so it cannot be moral.

[Deimos27]

I am only judging the bonus question if you get the initial question correct.

Bruhhhh I hope no one gets this before I have time to go to the library tomorrow.

[Deimos27]

Yes. Or at any rate, I believe that people who would see such people as twats are themselves twats.

Your point that it's ok to benefit from the system while not contributing to it "because your overall impact will be much less the more people who contribute in that system" is undermined by the case study right before us. We have only one person not contributing and their lack of vote demonstrably had an impact, because we cannot know if they would have had a 1st preference for Ircher (in which case Ircher would currently be the legitimate winner) or if they would have had a preference over you vs me or lendunistus vs me (in which case you or lendunistus would be legitimate board members and I would be holding an illegitimate place). Even one vote is currently demonstrably of utmost significance in "overall impact".

The fee for standing to receive votes from other people is to agree to also give votes to other people. If someone wants to opt in for a chance at power but is unwilling to give anyone else a chance at power they are the twattiest of the twats.

People who abstain in the status quo and thereby gain an unfair strategic advantage either have an arguably legitimate reason (literally

exactly

0 preference between candidates) or they do not. If eliminating the latter cases also creates minor difficulties for someone holding the former reasons (really very minor due to the multiple options they have available as I outlined in my previous post on this matter)

and

that situation is exceedingly rare in the first place (consider how unlikely it actually is to be a participant in this game, having read the posts, and nonethelesss having

literally

no opinion about who among the other players would be a better director)

and

even in that former case it may have been fairer for the abstainer to make arbitrary votes in order to give at least some competitors an equal chance at winning ... then I continue to believe that the issue of which consideration outweighs which is fairly clear.

[Deimos27]

What do you think about the suggestion then that someone who wants to abstain can do so while continuing to participate at the cost e.g. of all other candidates receiving 2nd preference points (3). That eliminates the relative advantage they would have gained without distorting the relative rankings of the other players. Would that

still

be disagreeable to you?

[Deimos27]

Because I think at this rate it appears unlikely that we will be making progress through reasoning, a compromise such as that should cover your concerns.

[Deimos27]

Can others chime in? Are people in agreement broadly at least that the electoral rules need amending?

[Deimos27]

I have responses but it's so late at night that I can procrastinate going to sleep no longer.
We can talk more in the morning.

p-edit: ok this is progress we can talk about this

[Deimos27]

p-edit: ok this is progress we can talk about this

in the morning that is
or rather in the afternoon for me at this rate

[Deimos27]

Each player has some amount of voting power X. If that player distributes their voting power such that the total amount of votes they submitted is less than or equal to X, then each individual vote will be worth 1. However, if a player distributes their voting power such that the total amount of votes is greater than X, then each vote will be worth X/Y, where Y is the total amount of votes submitted by that player, and where Y > X.

I am ok with this

[Deimos27]

What do you plan on doing with these Crowns?

I was thinking of making people beat me at games to win them.
I'll get the ball rolling with what is essentially a giveaway, awarding some 10 crowns to anyone who rolls a higher value on a single dice than I do.
You may choose how many sides the dice has. Use dice tags and roll exactly once. I will reply to each of you individually :)

[Deimos27]

Coulomb's Law or Coulomb's Inverse Square Law

I am dumb :D
The coulomb is literally the SI unit of electric charge

[Deimos27]

Which well-known Russian author's works include "Eugene Onegin", "The Belkin Tales", "The Queen of Spades", and "I Loved You"? (Again, spelling counts; however, I will accept two forms for the author's name. You must provide both a first and last name.)

I don't recognise any of these names.
It was 1 guess per 8 hours right
Let's start with Fyodor Dostoyevsky

[Deimos27]

Also, the board should decide on an exchange rate for Crowns and Knowledge Points. I am currently thinking maybe N$1 = 50 KP for now would be reasonable. For crowns, since there are less of them, perhaps N$1 = 20 kr would be a good initial exchange rate. I expect these exchange rates to improve over time as the owner's supply of the currency decreases with time.

Maybe, or perhaps N$1 = 25 kr as an alternative if we think that 20 crowns to the Nomic dollar overvalues the crown a bit. I'd like to know what's on Deimos's mind as regards a fair exchange rate.

Note that there are 25 times more KP in circulation rn than crowns I'm not convinced that a crown is fairly valued at only 2KP.
However, I'm also ok with keeping crowns as valueless currently as they're not really yet integrated into the economy. I'm still figuring out what I want to do with them.
Ircher's mechanisms for KP are fairly clear so they deserve the exchange rate.

[Deimos27]

We need more proposals. Anyone have some?

We should think of more uses for Nomic Dollars.

[Deimos27]

Let's do N$1 = 50KP for now I'm ok with that

[Deimos27]

Would that mean I'll be able to buy KP with nomic dollars
I quite like these quizzes and wouldn't mind doing some of my own

[Deimos27]

What do you plan on doing with these Crowns?

I was thinking of making people beat me at games to win them.
I'll get the ball rolling with what is essentially a giveaway, awarding some 10 crowns to anyone who rolls a higher value on a single dice than I do.
You may choose how many sides the dice has. Use dice tags and roll exactly once. I will reply to each of you individually

Original Roll String: 1d271 (STATIC)

1 271-Sided Dice: (210) = 210

Original Roll String: 1d271

1 271-Sided Dice: (187) = 187

[Deimos27]

Big

Give Ircher 10 kr

[Deimos27]

Could maybe be perceived as unfair to those players with a lower point total than the median.
I'm pretty ok with that policy though if it helps incentivise people to join

[Deimos27]

Let's do N$1 = 50KP for now I'm ok with that

Coug confirm this still?

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 340
VOTE: Aye 341

[Deimos27]

Exchange N$10 for 500KP

Ok my questions have the same ruleset as Ircher's. The theme is ancient Greek and Roman literature.

1. "Divine command theory" grounds morals in the word of a deity (i.e. it answers the question "what is good?" with "that which [deity] commands"). A famous dilemma for divine command theory can be paraphrased roughly as follows: is x good because the gods judge that it is good, or do the gods judge that x is good because it is good?

10KP for the name of the author of the ancient work in which this dilemma first appeared. 10KP for the title of the work. 10KP if you can explain why this might be considered a dilemma for divine command theory.

2. "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres..." is how one famous ancient work begins in its original language.

10KP for the name of the author. 10KP for the title of the work (you may give it in English). 10KP for an approximate translation of the quoted phrase.

[Deimos27]

What atheist might that be btw

[Deimos27]

Anyway, it's a dilemma because you either have to admit that Morality is subjective [even if it is subjective to god], or Morality is objective [and therefore does not need god to exist, since morality would exist either way]

Yes I accept this answer. The main point in the first horn of the dilemma is that this subjectivity to the gods appears to make morality

arbitrary

; it results in the unintuitive conclusion that if the gods were to change their judgements then morality itself would also change. If they were suddenly to approve of [insert morally abhorrent action here] we would be committed to believe that [morally abhorrent action] is morally good.

Give Prince Jake, son of the 7th circle 10KP

[Deimos27]

Ahh, Viced Rhino? I think that's the one, and he was probably responding to something Eric Hovind did.

Ah I'm afraid I don't know these people.
I thought if it was cosmicskeptic I would've had the anecdote of actually having met him on the street a week ago.

[Deimos27]

Exchange N$10 for 500KP

Ok my questions have the same ruleset as Ircher's. The theme is ancient Greek and Roman literature.

1. "Divine command theory" grounds morals in the word of a deity (i.e. it answers the question "what is good?" with "that which [deity] commands"). A famous dilemma for divine command theory can be paraphrased roughly as follows: is x good because the gods judge that it is good, or do the gods judge that x is good because it is good?

10KP for the name of the author of the ancient work in which this dilemma first appeared. 10KP for the title of the work. 10KP if you can explain why this might be considered a dilemma for divine command theory.

2. "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres..." is how one famous ancient work begins in its original language.

10KP for the name of the author. 10KP for the title of the work (you may give it in English). 10KP for an approximate translation of the quoted phrase.

1 is talking about Euthypro's dilemma (sorry if I butchered the spelling of his name), so Euthypro for the ancient author.
I believe 2 is by Cicero and means "All Gaul is divided into three parts".
Shoot me if I know either work title off the top of my head, but I swear I've heard of them both.

Ah in fact the author was not Euthyphro, though you are correct that it is the Euthyphro dilemma.
2 is not by Cicero but it does mean "All Gaul is divided into three parts."

Give StrangerCoug 10KP

[Deimos27]

Those are very good guesses indeed so I will will give you some brownie points

Give StrangerCoug 2KP

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 342
Can't be assed to go read the original text of 306 so I'll hold on 341 for a quick sec

[Deimos27]

Oh wait.
343 is what I meant to Aye
Oh whatever
VOTE: Aye 343
I'm sure 342 is fine too

[Deimos27]

Oh yeah I think my 8 hours has gone by surely
Ircher my second guess is Leo Tolstoy

[Deimos27]

1. A 1,600 kg car is traveling due north at 60 km/h when it collides perfectly inelastically with an 1,800 kg car traveling due east at 50 km/h. For 10 KP each:
   1. What is the total momentum of both cars?
      
   2. What is the velocity of both cars immediately following the collision?
      
   3. What is the total kinetic energy lost by both cars in the collision?

a)

m1 = 1600kg, m2 = 1800kg
v1 = 60km/h ≈ 16.67m/s, v2 = 50km/h ≈ 13.89m/s
momentum is just mass times velocity so for total momentum we have
p = m1v1 + m2v2 = (1600kg)(16.67m/s)+(1800kg)(13.89m/s)
p ≈ 51 700 kgm/s

b)

perfectly inelastic collision so we know they'll stick to each other. From conservation of momentum we have

for eastward (x) component of velocity:
m2v2 = (m1+m2)v
v = (25002kgm/s)/(3400kg)
v ≈ 7.354m/s

for northwards (y) component of velocity:
m1v1 = (m1+m2)v
v = (26672kgm/s)(3400kg)
v ≈ 7.845m/s

So for total velocity we have
√(7.354^2 + 7.845^2) ≈ 10.8m/s

The direction of the velocity will be given by
tan(theta) = 7.845/7.354
theta ≈ arctan(1.0668)
theta ≈ 46.9° north of east

c in a bit

[Deimos27]

initial kinetic energy for eastward car:
(1/2)m2(v2)^2 ≈ 173 639 J
initial kinetic energy for northward car:
(1/2)m1(v1)^2 ≈ 222 311 J
-> total initial Ek ≈ 395 950 J

total final Ek = (1/2)(m1 + m2)(final velocity)^2
= (1/2)(3400kg)(10.8m/s)^2
Ek ≈ 198 288 J

So ∆Ek ≈ 198 288 J - 395 950 J ≈ -198kJ

[Deimos27]

I hope there were no mistakes cause that was ass
war flashbacks to physics finals last may

[Deimos27]

I want to purchase a car that costs $25,000. The sales tax is 7.5% added to the price of the car. The title, registration, and other fees cost me $500. I make a down payment of 10% of the price of the car (before taxes and fees) and take out auto loan with a term of 60 months at 5% simple interest for the balance, with the tax and fees bundled into the loan. Loan payments are due monthly. For 10 KP each, to the nearest cent:

1. How much will the auto loan be for?
   
2. How much is each monthly payment?
   
3. What is the total interest I will pay on the loan?
   
4. How much would I save over the life of the loan if, instead of the taxes and fees being bundled into the loan, I were required to pay the taxes and fees upfront with my 10% down payment (all else being equal)?

Yuck sales tax, imagine having to deal with something like that
Anywayyy

a)

Total cost = 25 000 × 1.075 + 500
= $27 375
Our down payment is for 10% before taxes and fees so 10% of the $25 000 so $2500. So our loan covers the remaining
$27 375 - $2500 = $24 875

b)

$24875 / 60 months ≈ $414.58 excluding interest

c)

I have suddenly realised that this question is also ass and I will go back to doing my

actual

econ problem set (due for Tuesday) rather than messing with finances calculations we haven't been taught yet

[Deimos27]

I understand being unable to guess at the titles but can people not come up with any other guesses of ancient Greek or Roman authors?

[Deimos27]

Oh man you were both so close in different ways, I'm sorry but those are incorrect

Give Ircher 1KP

[Deimos27]

So the real tragedy is that Euthyphro would have been correct for the title of the 1st work and Plato would have been correct for the author, but Euthyphro was only guessed for the author and Plato only for the 2nd work.

The 2nd work is Commentarii de Bello Gallico (commentaries on the Gallic War) by Julius Caesar.

[Deimos27]

New questions when I wake up hopefully

[Deimos27]

I still care about this game just uber busy with school and have other on-site commitments. Will be back

[Deimos27]

This one is so far outside my wheelhouse ngl

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 344[/vote]

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 344

[Deimos27]

Which algorithm for finding the minimum spanning tree of a graph is a variation of another algorithm that is used to find the shortest path between two nodes provided the graph has no nonpositive weighted nodes? (As always, spelling counts.)

I have no idea what any of this means and will guess alpha-beta pruning

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye M006
This was the victory trophies one right
May as well

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye M007
VOTE: Aye M008

[Deimos27]

Ok time to maybe finally set some new questions

Comparative politics could be interesting

1. Categorise the following countries according to whether they are parliamentary, semi-presidential, or presidential democracies: USA, South Korea, Brazil, UK, France (2KP each)

2. What is the difference between a vote of no confidence and a constructive vote of no confidence? (10KP)
- 3. Name two countries that use a constructive vote of no confidence (5KP each)

4. Tsebelis (1995) defined the notion of veto players. What is the current number of (a) institutional and (b) partisan veto players in the political system of the United Kingdom? (5KP each)

5. Linz (1985) argued that presidential systems are more prone than parliamentary systems to what phenomenon? (15KP)
Hint: 20th century Latin America is often pointed to for correlational evidence of this

[Deimos27]

USA - Presidential
UK - Parliamentary
South Korea - Semi-Presidential
Brazil - Parliamentary
France - Presidential
I am guessing on 3/5 of these.

AYYYY someone tried (clearly my questions were much too hard)
UK is correct and US is correct
South Korea and Brazil are presidential
France is semi-presidential

Give 5KP to Ircher

Extra KP for trying (thank you)

[Deimos27]

Buy 2 Victory Trophies

If they're still around

[Deimos27]

Ok new questions (I can provide answers to old questions on demand)

Given that we are the Nomic Central Bank, let us consider European Central Bank (ECB) monetary policy (some of these may be generalisable outside that institution)

1. Who is the president of the ECB? (5KP)
2. ECB governors are often described as "doves" or "hawks". What is the difference? (10KP)
3. How did the ECB adjust its inflation target as a result of the 2021 strategy review? (15KP)
4. Why is the ECB's current deposit facility interest rate considered "unconventional"? (15KP)

Surely one of you is an expert 'bout to hoover up those 45KP?

EDIT: Fixed numbering

[Deimos27]

I exist
I am busy irl
I would've known enzyme and circle of fifths ;-;

[Deimos27]

Don't even know what UML is

[Deimos27]

Now that we got a sixth player I might end up going inactive due to low wim
In general I'm unmotivated recently for non-dancesport related stuff cause I was training for a competition I had last weekend and I have another next weekend and it's taking up all my mental real estate
Will keep an eye out occasionally for when win conditions might get implemented

[Deimos27]

competition I had last weekend

and by this I mean yesterday

[Deimos27]

Welp looks like I'm not the only one with low wim
I do recommend implementing some win conditions
I do not care enough atm to attempt to think about how to do so myself sadly

[Deimos27]

Good luck at your competitions!

Thank you I am aiming to win at least waltz or quickstep

[Deimos27]

Hello, I live

[Deimos27]

(Did end up winning waltz and placing 2nd in quickstep :D)

[Deimos27]

For all the aid stack overflow has provided me over the years I have no clue who its founders are.

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 348
VOTE: Aye 349

[Deimos27]

VOTE: Aye 350
VOTE: Nay 351

[Deimos27]

the question is: do we want to let players kill each other or do we make some sort of dungeon crawling system?

Depends on the execution.
Could try designing both and then see which is preferred.

[Deimos27]

I'm pleased to see that some comprehensive proposals have been brought forth. Sadly I've no intention to read them at this time but consider this post my return to activity so that you lot can keep playing

[Deimos27]

It's a bit redundant at this point but I suppose I will formally /out
My last ongoing mafia game ended so I'm taking a hiatus from this site (as I do about every year after playing just a handful of games because for some reason my wim is very sporadic like that)

[Deimos27]

Too bad recruitment efforts have been unfruitful because I love this game conceptually but apparently it's a niche taste

[Deimos27]

That last post talking about Nomic if that wasn't clear