NomicScum, Game 2

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #28 (isolation #0) » Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:22 pm

I'll play.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #31 (isolation #1) » Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:09 am

If the players thought there was an imbalance couldn't we just make our own rule?

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #57 (isolation #2) » Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:42 pm

Isn't there a limit to the number of rules that can be established?

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #81 (isolation #3) » Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:55 am

Vote: Nay

I'm not in the business of voting yes just to vote yes. It obviously needs more thought and discussion.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #83 (isolation #4) » Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:12 am

Are the ammendments still on Ani's turn or the next persons turn?

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #87 (isolation #5) » Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:44 pm

I voted nay.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #96 (isolation #6) » Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:08 am

I actually think 48 hours is excessive. There should not be a prod the second time, just a PM notice.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #97 (isolation #7) » Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:09 am

Meaning you can PM someone without giving them an extra 24 hours.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #117 (isolation #8) » Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:11 pm

Do we have to revote?

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #140 (isolation #9) » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:57 pm

I might be up for a simple majority rule if there is a harsher penalty for a vote failing.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #158 (isolation #10) » Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:18 am

24+24 is good.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #178 (isolation #11) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:38 pm

Seems like too much recordkeeping to me.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #202 (isolation #12) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:54 pm

I prefer the strictest option.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #206 (isolation #13) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:59 pm

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

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #210 (isolation #14) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:04 pm

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

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #212 (isolation #15) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:21 pm

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

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #214 (isolation #16) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:27 pm

In post 213, Packbat wrote:
In post 210, MonkeyMan576 wrote: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 · Post Post #215 (isolation #17) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:27 pm

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

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #218 (isolation #18) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:08 pm

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

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #220 (isolation #19) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:13 pm

In post 219, Packbat wrote:
In post 218, MonkeyMan576 wrote: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 · Post Post #221 (isolation #20) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:15 pm

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

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #248 (isolation #21) » Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:52 pm

vote: yea

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #359 (isolation #22) » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:34 pm

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

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #366 (isolation #23) » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:05 am

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

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #387 (isolation #24) » Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:24 pm

Vote: Nay

I have an upcoming rule proposal that would pretty much make this proposal moot.

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #459 (isolation #25) » Mon May 14, 2012 12:17 pm

Vote: Yay

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #472 (isolation #26) » Tue May 15, 2012 10:24 am

unvote yay
vote nay

MonkeyMan576 · Post Post #508 (isolation #27) » Mon May 28, 2012 7:01 am

In post 507, Feirei wrote:
In post 500, Packbat wrote:Oh, you sonofa...

Calling for Judgment: did JDGA just win by #213?

There's no clause allowing for the situation in which a player does
not
submit a rule-change within the deadline.

You have a point.

Rule 201 forbids a turn to be skipped. And yes, there could be an argument that he proposed a null rule change, but there's no evidence of such an action.

By Rule 213, this game is over.

213 identifies a situation where a player is

unable

to make a move, not when they merely choose not to.