NomicScum, Game 2

[Cybele]

I haven't decided the exact positions, obviously.
Also, I thought there might be a punishment for failing as the Lowly Vote Jockey, and a reward for succeeding as the Honourable Record-Keeper (already in the post). I don't think both a reward and punishment is needed for each role. One of either should be enough motivation to do your job without handing out too much of an imbalance.
EDIT: I guess maybe losing your vote for the current proposal if you're not doing your job as Lowly Vote Jockey?

[Xalxe]

Can we rename the vote jockey to "Lowly Vote Bitch?" Is there a penalty for not referring to the RuleKeeper as "Your Honour?"

[Cybele]

iunno. You just don't do it.
There could be, I guess.

And I rather like the combination of Record-Keeper and Vote Jockey, so I'd rather they stay as named. (unless a much better name comes along?)

[T-Bone]

I dunno, I don't want any extra responsibilities to this game. I just wanna play. Rulemaker and Judge are fine roles, and so far everything else has been done on a volunteer basis.

We could just elect someone to do "x" Job.

[Packbat]

I don't like extra votes as rewards for things.

[Cybele]

Hmm. Well, maybe points, than? I think that feels weak, though, since they're currently pretty meaningless. Also is anyone keeping track of them?

[animorpherv1]

I didn't even know this game had a wiki.

Dibs on not first Honourable Record Keeper. I have no clue how to edit wikis and make them look nice at the same time.

That said, I don't understand the need for any of those. Can we not just tack the responsibilities onto the rule Maker? It'd make more sense that way.

[Cybele]

:\ Not exactly getting a positive reception, so I'll see what else I have.

[Packbat]

Hmm. Well, maybe points, than? I think that feels weak, though, since they're currently pretty meaningless. Also is anyone keeping track of them?

You win via points.

And, um, I forgot to update Chevre's score. Check the Wiki - I keep the score list there.

[MonkeyMan576]

My first proposal is going to rock the game!:)

[Chevre]

Thanks everyone! With Chevre we can make demokrasy work!

[Kcdaspot]

[JDGA]

I'm willing to vote for this one.
To everyone complaining because they don't like the rule: That's what happens when you're running with only a simple majority.

[Chevre]

I think whoever wants to do it has been doing a pretty good job for us. If it's like one vote away from passing I'll vote for it tho.

Also, don't we have a win condition, like "amass FIFTY BAJILLION (positive) points?" so yeah working with points could be kewl.

[Packbat]

Rule 209: The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points. No player's points may increase or decrease except as ordained by a rule.

I'll probably vote against the rule-change, but here's a couple suggestions anyway:

1. Declare the keeper and jockey to be

n

and 2

n

slots after the player taking their turn, where

n

equals the number of players divided by three, rounded up.

2. Does the keeper have to update the set for the

previous

player's proposal, or

this

player's proposal? Proposals don't go into effect until the next player's turn.

[Feirei]

I'll most likely vote against this.

[MonkeyMan576]

How could people get points in a way that's not ordained by a rule?

[T-Bone]

By someone proposing a new rule to get points.

[malthusis]

How could people get points in a way that's not ordained by a rule?

Rule 202, 205 and 207.

I also agree that rewards shouldn't be doled out for what basically amounts to an honour system. Punishments are okay for failing to do so, but don't forget rule 208:

208. Each player always has exactly one vote.

That will get in the way of your proposed law Cybele.......

I do like the idea in theory, though.

[Cybele]

I'm working on another rule proposition. Just wait a bit.

[Packbat]

How could people get points in a way that's not ordained by a rule?

They can't - that's why that clause is in there. By my reading of Rule 118, if there were no such clause in the ruleset, you would be allowed to change your score at will. Which would be obviously problematic.

[Cybele]

303. In which a new action is created to be performed on a rule change proposal in-discussion, by the proponent of said rule change proposal.
At any time after a rule change proposal has been made, and discussion has ended, but voting has not, the proponent may TABLE the proposal. Upon Tabling the proposal, voting ends. All current votes will be tallied and scored and the proposal+current votes will be placed in a hold, to be UNTABLED at a later date. The proponent's turn then ends.
In regards to scoring a tabled proposal: A tabled proposal shall not be treated as having failed or succeeded. Scoring shall be otherwise applied as if voting had ended, as described in Mutable Rule 202.
In regards to Untabling, and scoring an Untabled proposal: Any player may Untable a Tabled proposal in lieu of proposing their own rule change. Discussion continues as per a normal proposal, but when voting begins, votes that were held along with the tabled proposal shall be treated as if still in effect. Votes on record shall not be scored with the passage of a tabled proposal, regardless of whether they are changed during the voting process. All other means of scoring persist for a tabled proposal.
A proposal may only be tabled once. When a proposal is untabled, it does not retain its old proposal number.

Umm, any questions, feel free to ask them. It probably needs to be rewritten.
The goal here is to avoid having to start all over whenever people still want to discuss a proposal after voting has started. Additionally, a proposal can be started by someone who only has a frame in mind, and it may be then tabled for someone else to finish. This way points are given to both parties that assist in a proposal's creation in this manner.

[Packbat]

...what's the motive for untabling proposals if you don't get the points?

[Cybele]

You get the points for it successfully passing, plus any new votes. You get to take an idea that's been partially worked and simply add any changes that are discussed, which is less work than creating one from scratch.
(PS- the other purpose of tabling is to salvage a few points from a proposal that won't pass as it is)

[Lord Mhork]

Sell me, Cybele. Why do we need this Rule?