NomicScum, Game 2

[Packbat]

That's the only way I see

to

propose changes, in fact. The meta rules themselves don't include any rule-change mechanisms.

[JDGA]

I think a better approach might be through the Meta Rules - let the player win by paradox, but force the winner afterwards to patch the hole. I believe that, once we have five players, such a change could be effected through the ordinary rule-change method - it would simply fail unless the rule-change passed unanimously.

Brilliant idea is brilliant, IMO.

[Feirei]

Let him in.

[Packbat]

Rad.

Current Playerlist:

• Feirei - 0 points
  
• jackofspades - 0 points
  
• Kcdaspot - 0 points
  
• Packbat - 10 points
  
• Robotnick2 - 11 points

[jackofspades]

coolies, thanks guys

[jackofspades]

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

I'm happy with Packbat's wording Feirei if you still wish to make a proposal to this effect.

[jackofspades]

hey guys, anyone else keen to play?

Although Feirei hasn't yet put a rule to vote, I would say that it is still his/her tern as per rule 203:

203. Each player shall be given one game week from the beginning of their turn to propose a rule-change and bring it to vote. When a rule-change has been brought to vote, each player shall be given one game week to vote on that rule change.

I don't see that the rule explicitly limits the time to one week ONLY. Thoughts?

[Kcdaspot]

does anything define what is a "game week"?

[jackofspades]

Yes,

the same rule

203. Each player shall be given one game week from the beginning of their turn to propose a rule-change and bring it to vote. When a rule-change has been brought to vote, each player shall be given one game week to vote on that rule change.

Each game week shall last at least 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes, ending at the first occurrence of 11:59 p.m UTC on a Saturday after that length of time is complete

I think if the rule said that:

"each play shall be given ONLY one game week...to propose a rule change and bring it to vote"

then Feirei's turn would have ended the previous Saturday night. However, as it stands I would say that it is still Feirei's turn.

[Kcdaspot]

but what is there to say he gets more time?

[jackofspades]

Nothing says he gets more time than one week.

This is hard for me to explain...

My argument is that rule 203 does not actually limit a turn to just one game week despite its intention.

It says

203. Each player shall be given one game week...

In my opinion, just because a player is given one week, it does not necessarily mean that they must finish their turn in that week. This is because it doesn't say something like:

Each player has

only

one game week to bring their proposal to vote otherwise they are skipped...

In the same way, if there was a rule that said:

399. I must give you $1

I think it would be legal for me to give you $2, because I have given you $1 (plus a little extra).

Under the current wording of 203, the rule arguably could be interpreted as "Each player shall be given at least one game week..."

I dunno, maybe I'm just going a bit crazy.

Invoking judgment might be a good idea to solve the issue, but then if we are disagreeing upon whose turn it is we do not know who should become the judge.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment...

[Robotnick2]

Hmm. I see where you're coming from, but I do think that your analogy is flawed somewhat.
"He gives her £1" ... "she is given £1". I think it call comes down to whether you treat the verb "given" as a description of a finite quality - whether "only given" is redundant, as it were, which to my mind it is.

(also, we'd be invoking judgement on Feirei's actions, therefore the one who preceded her would be Judge)

[Packbat]

I.E. you. Incidentally, there is Game 1 precedent for declaring that the expiration of the game week automatically put the proposal up to vote, but I don't know if it should be honored.

[jackofspades]

I'm happy to go with precedents when rules are ambiguous, though I'm not sure about everyone else.

Let's just

Invoke judgment:
1. Whose turn is it now?
2. When is the deadline for them to make a proposal?
3. When is the deadline for for them to bring it to vote?

[Robotnick2]

Hmm. Curious; I am indeed Judge.

By mechanism of Rule 203, it is implicitly expressed that players shall be given one week and one week only to propose a change AND bring it to the vote. Feirei failed on the second of these points - she proposed a change (which is constituted by her acceptance of Packbat's suggestion) but did not bring it to the vote. However, there is no rule on exactly what happens should this rule be broken, except that of Rule 115, which states that she loses the game should she break a rule. By Rule 212, a Judge may, at their discretion and in accordance with game custom and the spirit of the game, address matters that are not

clearly

portrayed under the current ruleset. Unfortunately, the matter is very clear - Feirei broke Rule 203, and is therefore dealt with by Rule 115. Therefore,

it is my Judgement that Feirei should be removed from the game, as per Rule 115

. Furthermore,

it is the turn of jackofspades

, as he is next in the turn order.

He will have

forty-eight (48) hours to make a proposal

, as decreed by Rule 202. He will have

one game week (defined by Rule 203) to bring a suggested proposal to vote

, from the start of his turn, as per Rule 203.

Remember we now have to vote on whether his turn can start.

Vote Aye

[jackofspades]

Well put

Vote aye

[Kcdaspot]

AYE

[jackofspades]

Proposal 304

Rule 108 shall be transmuted to a mutable rule.

Here is Rule 108:

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.
If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

I think it'll make our lives easier if we can amend this rule, but it needs to be transmuted first.

I'd like to see us amend this rule in the future. I don't like that at the moment if we amend a rule it receives a new number (the number of the proposal). Id much rather amend this rule in a way that will allow amended rules to retain their original rule numbers. This will not only make it easy for us to remember which rules we refer to in conversation, it also will retain the superiority of the existing rules when there is a conflict as per Rule 211.

211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

Thoughts?

[Kcdaspot]

but it will mess up the scoring system we have here.

[jackofspades]

Do you mean in regard to rule 202?

202. A player's turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) adding a number of points to their score. The number of points added shall be calculated by subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiplying the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)

I don't see how it would make a difference to the scoring. Proposal numbers will always be one more than the previous proposal, regardless of whether the proposal is to create, amend, repeal, or transmute a Rule.

.......

Another reason that I want to see my proposal passed is that if a Rule number is changed when said Rule is amended, then any other Rules that refer to said Rule could become redundant. This needs to be solved by making sure that that Rule numbers are not changed when Rules are amended.

[JDGA]

Or by simply adding a clause that when a rule's number is changed, all other rules referring to it automatically update the rule number to the new one, regardless of mutability of these other rules.
And 'cause I feel like someone should be nice and make up Feirei's number,

/in

.

[Robotnick2]

Hmm. I wonder if I can vote for JDGA's accession yet... may as well find out.

Vote Aye to JDGA

[jackofspades]

vote aye for JDGA

Hmm. I wonder if I can vote for JDGA's accession yet... may as well find out. Vote Aye to JDGA

Yes the vote starts as soon as someone /ins.

Or by simply adding a clause that when a rule's number is changed, all other rules referring to it automatically update the rule number to the new one, regardless of mutability of these other rules.

I think my suggested amendment is simpler, also I like the idea that if rule numbers stay the same then we can remember them better.

Does anyone object to my proposal, keeping in mind that I'm only proposing to transmute the rule, not to amend it?

Proposal 304

Rule 108 shall be transmuted to a mutable rule.

[Robotnick2]

I see no reasonable objection to the intended purpose, but I'll wait for Packbat before I vote. He's better at nitpicking the game mechanics than I am.

[Kcdaspot]

AYE for JDGA

okay... i may nay though. it feels like you are taking points off the table for pedantry.