NomicScum, Game 2

[jackofspades]

As per rule 302 I would like to make it clear that I wish to join the current game.

I have just registered with the forum, but I have read all of the posts in this thread, both game 1 and the current game.

I haven't played Nomic before but I am a law student and find this stuff really interesting.

P.S. Please vote to accept me

[jackofspades]

Interesting! Why try to join

this

game?

Well I was originally considering joining the Agora Nomic but after I started reading the ruleset I decided that their were just too many rules to get my head around.

...so I started reading Game 1 from this thread and I really enjoyed reading it and appreciated being able to read it in a forum-style. I also like how the players have played it so far. Even though there weren't too many developments in the last game, I like that everyone thought a lot about the impact of proposals before embarking on a set that would skew the game off into a completely different direction right from the start.

[jackofspades]

yay, was brainstorming proposals all through the night.

[jackofspades]

Hey guys, just throwing this out there. I'd really like to see Rule 213 amended or repealed.

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.
This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner

I'd love to see a mechanism to avoid the game ending in this way.

Perhaps in the instances where further play is impossible or a move seems equally legal and illegal, judgement could be invoked. In these circumstances the Judge would have the power to make changes to the ruleset to allow play to continue. Such changes would then have to be approved by the majority (or by unanimous consent) of the players.

[jackofspades]

Interesting. Based on the wording of the meta rules, I am assuming that changes can be proposed while a game is in progress?

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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?

[jackofspades]

Well put

Vote 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?

[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.

[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.

[jackofspades]

kcddaspot, you you please explain your comments made about the point structure. i dont understand what youre implying

[jackofspades]

The number of points earned is based on the proposal. If the rule number doesn't update to the number of the proposal then the proposal number would presumably therefore be that of the rule being amended, which would therefore cause it to earn negative points. No one wants negative points.

I disagree.

The number of the proposal will always be one higher than the last proposal as per...

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.

The way I see it, if amended rules retain their numbers, then at turn 100, examples of a proposal could be:

Proposal 400: I propose a new rule where X must happen to Y for Z to occur...

Proposal 400: I propose to amend rule 206 to read....

Proposal 400: I propose to repeal rule 301

Proposal 400: I propose to transmute rule 107

My point is that regardless of which rule a rule-change refers to, the proposal number will

always

be 400, and therefore the player who makes proposal 400 is entitled to up to 109 points if it passes.
---
Keep in mind that I'm only proposing to transmute rule 108. Any future proposals to amend this rule can be discussed later to ensure that the point structure is maintained and any other issues can be addressed.

[jackofspades]

nope. its unanimous for the first two rounds, then simple majority if im not mistaken

[jackofspades]

i'm Naying this. what about low number proposals? where we are right now?

I'm not sure what youre asking. Can you elaborate pls?

Guys, I really don't think there's anything problematic with my suggested proposal. But I don't want to put it up for vote if its not gonna find favor. Does anyone have any suggestions/ideas on rules to propose?

[jackofspades]

Proposal 304

Amend Rule 204 to read: A rule-change is adopted if and only if a simple majority of eligible voters vote for its adoption.

Any thoughts on this guys?

Here is the original rule:

204. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.

[jackofspades]

thanks feirei, is everyone else ok with packbat's wording?

[jackofspades]

I'm gonna

put it to a vote

guys

Proposal 304

: 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.

Vote: Aye

[jackofspades]

Hi Kcda, maybe I missed something...

What is the purpose of this rule??

I'd also rather see a 'neater' version eg where the person is penalized X points per Nay vote or something similar instead of using fractions.

[jackofspades]

vote yea

I'm not too fussed about this either way

[jackofspades]

Oh, crap, I just looked at the wiki, and it's got two major problems:

1. The scores have not been updated.

2. Amendments receive the number of the amending proposal

.

Yes I think this will become problematic both for housekeeping and in terms of trying to remember which rule is which based on their number.

This is why I tried to sort this out on my turn.

Packbat, your proposal looks good to me.

[jackofspades]

vote yea

[jackofspades]

Hi guys sorry, must have missed my subscription email.

I'd like to repeal rule 210.

210. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rule

Thoughts?

[jackofspades]

so that we can have more than 25 mutable rules when required. objections?

[jackofspades]

Any other thoughts on a specific number???

[jackofspades]

I don't like this idea, if we run out of mutable rules then we should start transmuting the ones we're definitely happy with.

Good point.

In that case I'd like to amend:

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

to read:

109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules

and vice versa

may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

However, we will need to first transmute this rule before amending it.

Thoughts on transmuting rule 109?

[jackofspades]

The way I see it - at present it's possible to transmute a mutable rule to immutable by a simple majority, which isn't a good thing and needs to be changed

[jackofspades]

I propose

307

: Rule changes that transmute a rule from a mutable rule to an immutable rule may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

Vote: Yea

[jackofspades]

with the adoption of this rulechange, transmutation must be done by unamity, thats a meaning no?