NomicScum, Game 2

[malthusis]

I am alive, by the way. Just waiting till you guys can actually get a solid proposal together

Honestly, why can't we just get the majority voting rule in? It will make this game a lot easier to play.

[animorpherv1]

Maybe that should be the next thing we work on. Integrating the proposal and amending the rule at the same time.

[MonkeyMan576]

I prefer the strictest option.

[Xalxe]

As do I, but compromises must be made.

[animorpherv1]

As do I, but compromises must be made.

QFT

[Packbat]

I am alive, by the way. Just waiting till you guys can actually get a solid proposal together

Are you saying the proposal is not solid? What needs to be changed?

Honestly, why can't we just get the majority voting rule in? It will make this game a lot easier to play.

Assuming no-one beats you to it, feel free to try.

[MonkeyMan576]

You could reward players that are dependable, like extra votes or more points.

[T-Bone]

I prefer the strictest option.

YES!

[Packbat]

I prefer the strictest option.

Right now, I'm looking less at "prefer" and more at "is willing to allow passage of without vetoing". I prefer #2, but I prefer any of them

enacted

to #2

not enacted

, so I have listed myself as supporting all options.

Preview Edit:

You could reward players that are dependable, like extra votes or more points.

Extra votes would require an amendment to or overruling of #208.

[animorpherv1]

You could reward players that are dependable, like extra votes or more points.

I like this to.

[MonkeyMan576]

I would be willing to compromise if a version of my suggestion was added.

[Chevre]

That's another rule entirely, in my opinion.

[MonkeyMan576]

Doesn't mean we can't agree to adopt something on a later turn.

[Packbat]

I would be willing to compromise if a version of my suggestion was added.

I would not support that - if players are booted for not posting rule changes quickly, then the player list will

only

include players who do ... and therefore

everyone

will be regularly getting whatever bonus you propose. That makes bonus points act as nothing more than shortening the game, and bonus votes universally shared and therefore meaningless.

[MonkeyMan576]

I would be willing to compromise if a version of my suggestion was added.

I would not support that - if players are booted for not posting rule changes quickly, then the player list will

only

include players who do ... and therefore

everyone

will be regularly getting whatever bonus you propose. That makes bonus points act as nothing more than shortening the game, and bonus votes universally shared and therefore meaningless.

It doesn't have to be a major reward. Say if you propose a rule on your turn within 8 hours on four consecutive turns, you get 5 extra points or one extra vote on one proposal. Then your turn counter starts over and you need to wait another 4 turns to get a reward.

[MonkeyMan576]

And if dependability was universal than there wouldn't be an uproar over having the strictest 24 hour rule.

[Chevre]

OMFG

we are never going to get anything done

[Packbat]

I would be willing to compromise if a version of my suggestion was added.

I would not support that - if players are booted for not posting rule changes quickly, then the player list will

only

include players who do ... and therefore

everyone

will be regularly getting whatever bonus you propose. That makes bonus points act as nothing more than shortening the game, and bonus votes universally shared and therefore meaningless.

It doesn't have to be a major reward. Say if you propose a rule on your turn within 8 hours on four consecutive turns, you get 5 extra points or one extra vote on one proposal. Then your turn counter starts over and you need to wait another 4 turns to get a reward.

Something like that could work - I wasn't imagining a counter that reset after the reward was given. That said, I think it should be a separate proposal for three reasons.

1. It requires overruling or modifying #208, while this one overrules #201.
2. It adds another new mechanic, with its own bookkeeping requirements.
3. It adds a host of new questions which need to be discussed and resolved (e.g. "How many votes can I save up?") - these may well take longer than the remaining five days to hammer out, particularly given that we have not finalized the existing clauses of #302.

I think the odds of getting both proposals passed is better if they are passed separately.

[MonkeyMan576]

Ok, if a majority of people agree in principle to my rule then I will compromise on the 24 hour rule.

[Packbat]

Ok, if a majority of people agree in principle to my rule then I will compromise on the 24 hour rule.

Two questions:

1. There has been no compromise on the 24 hour rule - do you mean the three-strikes-ever rule?

2. Conditional on your proposal finding support in principle, which compromises would you be willing to accept?

[MonkeyMan576]

Ok, if a majority of people agree in principle to my rule then I will compromise on the 24 hour rule.

Two questions:

1. There has been no compromise on the 24 hour rule - do you mean the three-strikes-ever rule?

2. Conditional on your proposal finding support in principle, which compromises would you be willing to accept?

Any compromise that been proposed so far and agreed to by a majority of players.

[MonkeyMan576]

Any rule that has been proposed so far, rather, and agreed to I will compromise on. Not any future rules.

[Packbat]

Duly noted. Put me down as supporting your proposal in principle.

Straw vote:

Forfeiture rule	Players supporting	Players opposing	Players uncommitted
After third skip, full stop	animorpherv1, Chevre, Cybele, MonkeyMan576, Packbat, Xalxe	Feirei	JDGA, Lord Mhork, malthusis, Robotnick2, T-Bone
After third skip in five consecutive circuits	Chevre, Cybele, Feirei, MonkeyMan576*, Packbat	animorpherv1, Xalxe	JDGA, Lord Mhork, malthusis, Robotnick2, T-Bone
After third consecutive skip	Chevre, Feirei, MonkeyMan576*, Packbat, Xalxe	animorpherv1	Cybele, JDGA, Lord Mhork, malthusis, Robotnick2, T-Bone
After third skip in five consecutive circuits or fifth overall skip	animorpherv1, Chevre, Feirei, MonkeyMan576*, Packbat, Xalxe		Cybele, JDGA, Lord Mhork, malthusis, Robotnick2, T-Bone

* Conditional on support in principle for a future rule offering bonuses to active players.

[Lord Mhork]

I'll take 1 or 3, but 2 and 4 are too complicated in my opinion.

I also will vote nay on any 'bonuses' to active players.

[Packbat]

I'll take 1 or 3, but 2 and 4 are too complicated in my opinion.

I also will vote nay on any 'bonuses' to active players.

Okay. (I'm going to be logging off for the night pretty soon - please feel free to update the table in my absence.)

Straw vote:

Forfeiture rule	Players supporting	Players opposing	Players uncommitted
After third skip, full stop	animorpherv1, Chevre, Cybele, Lord Mhork, MonkeyMan576, Packbat, Xalxe	Feirei	JDGA, malthusis, Robotnick2, T-Bone
After third skip in five consecutive circuits	Chevre, Cybele, Feirei, MonkeyMan576*, Packbat	animorpherv1, Lord Mhork, Xalxe	JDGA, Lord Mhork, malthusis, Robotnick2, T-Bone
After third consecutive skip	Chevre, Feirei, Lord Mhork, MonkeyMan576*, Packbat, Xalxe	animorpherv1	Cybele, JDGA, Lord Mhork, malthusis, Robotnick2, T-Bone
After third skip in five consecutive circuits or fifth overall skip	animorpherv1, Chevre, Feirei, MonkeyMan576*, Packbat, Xalxe	Lord Mhork	Cybele, JDGA, Lord Mhork, malthusis, Robotnick2, T-Bone

* Conditional on support in principle for a future rule offering bonuses to active players.