NomicScum, Game 2

Feirei · Post Post #176 (isolation #0) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:15 pm

The prods should not carry over, IMO. Some people, like me, DO have a life.

Feirei · Post Post #181 (isolation #1) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:07 pm

Three consecutive skips mean an automatic forfeiture, or you get a Nay from me.

Feirei · Post Post #183 (isolation #2) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:33 pm

Oh. Didn't see nor think about 3rd in 5. I'll support that as well.

Feirei · Post Post #188 (isolation #3) » Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:43 pm

Or what about 3rd in 5, 5th in all?

Feirei · Post Post #253 (isolation #4) » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:24 pm

Aye

-aye, captain!

Feirei · Post Post #270 (isolation #5) » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:39 pm

If JDGA doesnt change his vote, he will earn my ire and only Nay votes from me.

Feirei · Post Post #365 (isolation #6) » Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:21 am

I'll most likely vote against this.

Feirei · Post Post #391 (isolation #7) » Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:27 pm

Vote: Nay

Feirei · Post Post #405 (isolation #8) » Fri May 04, 2012 5:48 am

Hmm. Give me a day or so.

Feirei · Post Post #407 (isolation #9) » Sat May 05, 2012 5:59 am

Fire away.

Feirei · Post Post #419 (isolation #10) » Sun May 06, 2012 7:52 am

Should a player be removed from the game for any reason, any potential candidate must contact the thread creator via PM.

This is NOT being voted on currently. Anything to make it better?

Feirei · Post Post #422 (isolation #11) » Sun May 06, 2012 8:21 am

You just want your turn faster. >_>

Feirei · Post Post #449 (isolation #12) » Sat May 12, 2012 7:45 am

It's up to vote.

(Psst, chances are, if you dont like a player wanting to enter, everyone else likely won't either)

Yea

Feirei · Post Post #452 (isolation #13) » Sun May 13, 2012 1:35 pm

In post 439, Packbat wrote:Ooh, just saw a problem - fixing:

Should a player be removed from the game for any reason, any person with an unbanned Mafiascum.net account may become a candidate to replace the removed player by posting a request to that effect in the thread within 24 hours of the removal. If, after these 24 hours have passed, one or more such candidate has posted, each current player shall be given 24 hours during which they may vote for the admittance of one of these candidates or against the admittance of any candidate. If at the end of the voting one of these candidates has the support of a simple majority of players, that candidate shall become a player.

Oh yeah. >.<

Feirei · Post Post #456 (isolation #14) » Mon May 14, 2012 6:32 am

Obviously they keep their points. They ARE replacing a player, correct?

Feirei · Post Post #507 (isolation #15) » Mon May 28, 2012 6:55 am

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.

Feirei · Post Post #509 (isolation #16) » Mon May 28, 2012 7:13 am

He is unable to complete his turn because its too late to submit a rule proposal, and his turn, by Rule 201, cannot be skipped. Further play is impossible.

Feirei · Post Post #511 (isolation #17) » Mon May 28, 2012 7:19 am

If that rule is there, he'd have been skipped. Funny how half of us (including me, mind you) killed the game from the beginning.

Feirei · Post Post #516 (isolation #18) » Mon May 28, 2012 9:53 am

We should. Does ani start first in every game, or does the winner start...or does it go to the one after JDGA.

Feirei · Post Post #527 (isolation #19) » Wed May 30, 2012 2:49 pm

Bump.

Feirei · Post Post #529 (isolation #20) » Wed May 30, 2012 3:02 pm

Feirei · Post Post #532 (isolation #21) » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:19 am

Change the time limit to 48 hours. I doubt someone as busy as myself can come up with a rule in two 24 hour periods.

Feirei · Post Post #536 (isolation #22) » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:35 am

/in for the remainder of the nomicscum series

that way when i cant do anymore, i can just out

Feirei · Post Post #546 (isolation #23) » Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:27 pm

I'll vote for it in it's current wording, Packbat.

Kcdaspot, you can /in for game 3 if that's allowed, as I see no rule against it.

Feirei · Post Post #549 (isolation #24) » Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:14 pm

Vote: Aye

Feirei · Post Post #563 (isolation #25) » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:33 pm

Yeah. I prefer the ABC order bit.

Feirei · Post Post #570 (isolation #26) » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:06 pm

Barred from joining/applying to join for three games. Perma-disqualification is too harsh, and "the current game" is too lenient.

Feirei · Post Post #572 (isolation #27) » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:03 pm

Then I'd just stick with the "Barred for the remainder of the current game"

Feirei · Post Post #575 (isolation #28) » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:20 pm

I'll vote for it. I'd rather have more than 3 players in here anyways.

Feirei · Post Post #580 (isolation #29) » Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:18 pm

Feirei · Post Post #585 (isolation #30) » Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:27 pm

Admit

Trying to word a proposal requiring only a simple majority (51% of votes or more) to pass a proposition, but I find myself unable to word it properly. Help?

Feirei · Post Post #588 (isolation #31) » Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:51 pm

That'll work.

And I'm not changing my admittance vote. If you aren't, then we wouldn't need Robotnick's vote.

Feirei · Post Post #602 (isolation #32) » Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:32 pm

Let him in.

Feirei · Post Post #632 (isolation #33) » Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:50 pm

So, instead of taking my "That'll work." two-three pages ago as a declaration of putting it up to vote (there is no rule regarding it requiring boldface!) and voting for it there, you decide to instead boot me and continue to require unanimous votes for a potential forever? You guys are jerks!

Feirei · Post Post #638 (isolation #34) » Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:32 pm

jack, I believe another wording of it can be found a few pages back. Probably could iso Packbat, maybe it'll show up...

EDIT:

In post 586, Packbat wrote:
In post 585, Feirei wrote:Trying to word a proposal requiring only a simple majority (51% of votes or more) to pass a proposition, but I find myself unable to word it properly. Help?

Amend 204 to read: "A rule-change is adopted if and only if it receives support from a simple majority (greater than 50%) of eligible voters.

Feirei · Post Post #642 (isolation #35) » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:52 am

That's because you asses removed me. Good things that Judgement can be passed by the previous player to break ties......oh wait!

Feirei · Post Post #650 (isolation #36) » Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:21 pm

Whoever was voted in after your disappearance minus myself.

Feirei · Post Post #654 (isolation #37) » Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:39 am

Bump.

Feirei · Post Post #656 (isolation #38) » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:34 am

Also, guys, you could have been nice and let me stay via Rule 202. (Just skipping me and moving on)

By Rule 203: the vote has until the end of the day (in said timezone from which the rules operate from), as his turn began over one week ago.

Feirei · Post Post #665 (isolation #39) » Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:13 pm

It did.

Feirei · Post Post #706 (isolation #40) » Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:41 am

who is after you in the alphabet?....

Why -- it's PACKBAT!