PlaygroundNomic [Game Over]

[PirateMonk]

Nomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic) is a game in which the rules can be changed, at least initially, by a vote of the players. It was designed to mimic the self-modifying nature of legal systems. I think it would be entertaining to try a game here. Anyone interested?

Note on Recruitment
Under Rule 19, new players may be accepted if half of the current players vote to accept them. This has been found with the procedures outlined in Rule 11 to not conflict with Rule 7. So, if you want to join, make a post in the thread or PM me saying so, and you'll probably be accepted. Be sure to read the rules while you wait.

(Note that this thread was originally a gauging interest thread, if the replies confuse you.)

Initial Ruleset (Note that this will no longer be in effect after Round 1)
Rule 1: Rules
All players must follow all rules currently in effect. The rules listed as being in the Initial Ruleset are in effect at the beginning of the game.
This rule cannot be repealed or amended by any means.
This rule takes precedence over all other rules.

Rule 2: Precedence
If two or more rules come into conflict and one explicitly states that it takes precedence over or defers to the other rule(s) or rules of a certain class including the other rule(s), this is used to resolve the dispute. If no such statements exist or they are contradictory, the rule with the lowest number takes precedence over the one(s) with the higher number(s).

Rule 3: Rounds
The game is divided into several rounds. Rounds last roughly 72 hours. At the beginning of each round, the proposals submitted in the previous round are announced. At the end of each round, votes are counted and it is announced which proposals passed and which failed, and the next round begins. During a round, players vote on proposals and can submit proposals to be voted on next round via private message to the person charged with announcing proposals.
Rounds are numbered. The first round is numbered 1. Later rounds are labeled with the number one greater than that of the previous round.

Rule 4: Rulesets
Both the Initial Ruleset and the Current Ruleset will be maintained in the first post of the thread in which the game is played. Should some problem arise, such as the rules growing too long for a single post, the player charged with maintaining the rules can amend the first sentence of this rule. Any objection from a player renders such amendments invalid.
Rules are identified by their title, which is included in the Initial Ruleset or specified by the proposal enacting them, and by their number. Rules in the Initial Ruleset have the number designated. Rules enacted later gain the integer after the rule with the greatest number.

Rule 5: Proposals
As noted in rule 3, proposals for the next round can be submitted by any player by private message. The player announcing proposals is not required to PM a proposal to themself, and can instead simply include their proposal along with the others submitted. The person who submits a proposal is referred to as its author. Any single player can make no more than one proposal per round. Proposals can enact one rule, repeal one rule, amend one rule, or do anything else the rules state they can do. Proposals are referred to as Proposal XY (or PXY), where X is the round in which it is to be voted on and Y is the lowercase Roman numeral for the rough order in which it was submitted. For example, Proposal 2viii (P2viii) is the eighth proposal submitted in Round 1, to be voted on in Round 2. When multiple rules are enacted in a single round, they are numbered based on the Roman numerals of the proposals enacting them.
During a round, eligible voters can vote on all announced proposals by posting in the thread. Votes can be either For or Against. As implied by the previous sentence, votes For must be in Green and votes Against must be in Red. At the end of each round, votes are counted up by the person responsible for vote counting, and all proposals which received more votes For than Against pass, while all others fail. Votes should be listed in order of proposal Roman numeral, and specify which proposal they regard. If they do not, they may be declared invalid.

Rule 6: Definitions
If the rules state that any action is impossible or invalid, or that players cannot perform it, any attempts to do it fail.
If the rules state that an action is possible, valid, or can be performed, attempts to do it generally succeed.
If the rules state that players must do something, attempts to not do it fail.
To enact a rule means to put it into effect. To repeal a rule means to take it out of effect. To amend a rule means to change its title or text.
All words not explicitly defined by the rules may be assumed to have the most relevant common English meaning. Use of common sense is advised.

Rule 7: Players
The players consist of PirateMonk and the first several people to post in a recruiting thread to express an interest in playing and not later stop playing. After the recruiting period is over, new players cannot join. Any player can stop playing at any time, with no penalty other than losing and not being allowed to rejoin.

Rule 8: Voting Rights
All players are eligible voters. Each eligible voter can vote no more than once on each decision requiring votes. Eligible voters may vote on exactly as many decisions as they wish. Entities which are not eligible voters cannot vote at all.

Rule 9: No Retroactivity
No rule can have any effect on anything that happened prior to its passage, or otherwise have retroactive effects. This rule takes precedence over all rules which would allow retroactivity.

Rule 10: Victory Conditions
Victory Conditions are a category, consisting of all methods of winning described by the rules as victory conditions. When one or more players achieve a victory condition, they win the game. When one or more players win the game, the game ends.

Rule 11: Adjudication
When there is a disagreement among the players about the rules that can't be resolved with debate and consensus, and no other method of resolving such disputes has been imposed, any player can move for Adjudication. Adjudication motions should be explicit and bold. When they do so, they should specify a form of Adjudication. If they do not, Standard Adjudication is assumed. Furthermore, they should list at least two options for resolving the dispute.
Once a motion has been made, players can vote for any option proposed by the mover, or provide their own. Whichever option receives the most votes is used to resolve the conflict, if possible.
When the vote is held depends on which form of Adjudication is used:
a.) Standard Adjudication. This is appropriate for most conflicts which are not vital to gameplay, but are still in need of resolution. At the beginning of the round after the Adjudication motion, the vote is announced along with any proposals, and voted on in that round.
b.) Immediate Adjudication. If play cannot proceed until the conflict is resolved, voting on adjudication begins immediately after the motion is made and continues for the next 72 hours, delaying the start of the next round.
No player can move for adjudication more than once per round.
Any player can block a motion for Immediate Adjudication after the first one in a round by clearly posting in the thread that they object to it.
This rule defers to all rules regarding the resolution of rules disputes.

Rule 12: Win by Unplayability
If, in the judgment of the players, the game is unplayable, the author of the proposal or the initiator of the action which is determined to have resulted in this state wins the game immediately. When a player wins the game, it ends. If the category Victory Conditions exists, this is a Victory Condition.

Rule 13: Me!
PirateMonk is charged with receiving and announcing proposals, counting votes, maintaining the rules, and posting threads.

Current Ruleset
Rule 1: Rules
All players must follow all rules currently in effect. The rules listed as being in the Initial Ruleset are in effect at the beginning of the game.
This rule cannot be repealed or amended by any means.
This rule takes precedence over all other rules.

Rule 2: Precedence
If two or more rules come into conflict and one explicitly states that it takes precedence over or defers to the other rule(s) or rules of a certain class including the other rule(s), this is used to resolve the dispute. If no such statements exist or they are contradictory, the rule with the lowest number takes precedence over the one(s) with the higher number(s). However, a unanimous vote of all voting players for a new rule grants precedence over all rules save rule 1.

Rule 3: Rounds
The game is divided into several rounds. Rounds last roughly 72 hours. At the beginning of each round, the proposals submitted in the previous round are announced. At the end of each round, votes are counted and it is announced which proposals passed and which failed, and the next round begins. During a round, players vote on proposals and can submit proposals to be voted on next round via private message to the person charged with announcing proposals.
Rounds are numbered. The first round is numbered 1. Later rounds are labeled with the number one greater than that of the previous round.

Rule 4: Rulesets
Both the Initial Ruleset and the Current Ruleset will be maintained in the first post of the thread in which the game is played. Should some problem arise, such as the rules growing too long for a single post, the player charged with maintaining the rules can amend the first sentence of this rule. Any objection from a player renders such amendments invalid.
Rules are identified by their title, which is included in the Initial Ruleset or specified by the proposal enacting them, and by their number. Rules in the Initial Ruleset have the number designated. Rules enacted later gain the integer after the rule with the greatest number.

Rule 5: Proposals
As noted in rule 3, proposals for the next round can be submitted by any player by private message. The player announcing proposals is not required to PM a proposal to themself, and can instead simply include their proposal along with the others submitted. The person who submits a proposal is referred to as its author. Any single player can make no more than one proposal per round. However, players may make proposals contingent upon the passage or failure of a proposal currently being voted on, and submit alternative proposals to count as their proposal should the condition not be met. Furthermore, they may retract a proposal they submitted previously and replace it with a new one, provided they do so before the round ends. Proposals can enact one rule, repeal one rule, amend one rule, or do anything else the rules state they can do. Proposals are referred to as Proposal XY (or PXY), where X is the round in which it is to be voted on and Y is the lowercase Roman numeral for the rough order in which it was submitted. For example, Proposal 2viii (P2viii) is the eighth proposal submitted in Round 1, to be voted on in Round 2. When multiple rules are enacted in a single round, they are numbered based on the Roman numerals of the proposals enacting them.
During a round, eligible voters can vote on all announced proposals by posting in the thread. Votes can be either For or Against. As implied by the previous sentence, votes For must be in Green and votes Against must be in Red. At the end of each round, votes are counted up by the person responsible for vote counting, and all proposals which received more votes For than Against pass, while all others fail. Votes should be listed in order of proposal Roman numeral, and specify which proposal they regard. If they do not, they may be declared invalid.

Rule 6: Definitions
If the rules state that any action is impossible or invalid, or that players cannot perform it, any attempts to do it fail.
If the rules state that an action is possible, valid, or can be performed, attempts to do it generally succeed.
If the rules state that players must do something, attempts to not do it fail.
To enact a rule means to put it into effect. To repeal a rule means to take it out of effect. To amend a rule means to change its title or text.
All words not explicitly defined by the rules may be assumed to have the most relevant common English meaning. Use of common sense is advised.

Rule 7: Players
The players consist of PirateMonk and the first several people to post in a recruiting thread to express an interest in playing and not later stop playing. After the recruiting period is over, new players cannot join. Any player can stop playing at any time, with no penalty other than losing and not being allowed to rejoin.

Rule 8: Voting Rights
All players are eligible voters. Each eligible voter can vote no more than once on each decision requiring votes. Eligible voters may vote on exactly as many decisions as they wish. Entities which are not eligible voters cannot vote at all.

Rule 9: No Retroactivity
No rule can have any effect on anything that happened prior to its passage, or otherwise have retroactive effects. This rule takes precedence over all rules which would allow retroactivity.

Rule 10: Victory Conditions
Victory Conditions are a category, consisting of all methods of winning described by the rules as victory conditions. When one or more players achieve a victory condition, they win the game. When one or more players win the game, the game ends.

Rule 11: Adjudication
When there is a disagreement among the players about the rules that can't be resolved with debate and consensus, and no other method of resolving such disputes has been imposed, any player can move for Adjudication. Adjudication motions should be explicit and bold. When they do so, they should specify a form of Adjudication. If they do not, Standard Adjudication is assumed. Furthermore, they should list at least two options for resolving the dispute.
Once a motion has been made, players can vote for any option proposed by the mover, or provide their own. Whichever option receives the most votes is used to resolve the conflict, if possible.
When the vote is held depends on which form of Adjudication is used:
a.) Standard Adjudication. This is appropriate for most conflicts which are not vital to gameplay, but are still in need of resolution. At the beginning of the round after the Adjudication motion, the vote is announced along with any proposals, and voted on in that round.
b.) Immediate Adjudication. If play cannot proceed until the conflict is resolved, voting on adjudication begins immediately after the motion is made and continues for the next 72 hours, delaying the start of the next round.
No player can move for adjudication more than once per round.
Any player can block a motion for Immediate Adjudication after the first one in a round by clearly posting in the thread that they object to it.
This rule defers to all rules regarding the resolution of rules disputes.

Rule 12: Win by Unplayability
If, in the judgment of the players, the game is unplayable, the author of the proposal or the initiator of the action which is determined to have resulted in this state wins the game immediately. When a player wins the game, it ends. If the category Victory Conditions exists, this is a Victory Condition.

Rule 13: Me!
PirateMonk is charged with receiving and announcing proposals, counting votes, maintaining the rules, and posting threads.

Rule 14: Anonymity in Proposing
The being responsible for receiving and announcing proposals must announce all proposals without giving the authors name and announce them in no particular order unless the author of said proposal specifically states that he wants his name to be known.

Rule 15: Assets
Assets consist of anything players can be in possession of described by the rules as an asset. Assets are owned by exactly one player. Assets can be created (put in the game), destroyed (removed from the game), or transferred between players in a manner described by the rules. Rules defining types or categories of assets should state who is responsible for keeping track of who owns what asset.
Unless the rule defining the asset states otherwise, no entity which is not a player can own assets.
If an entity previously eligible for ownership of assets ceases to be eligible, for example by ceasing to be a player, all assets which they are no longer eligible to own are destroyed.

Rule 16: The Speaker
This proposal introduces the role of Speaker. The Speaker is defined as follows:
The Speaker casts the deciding vote in the case of a tie.
The Speaker is elected by a 2/3 vote of total current players.
The Speaker must willingly accept the role.
The Speaker may be removed from the role via a 2/3 vote of total current players.
The Speaker can not win while in possession of the role of Speaker.
There may only be one Speaker at a time.
Current Speaker: Murska

Rule 17: Cute Kittens
Any player can post a picture of a cute kitten in the thread.

Rule 18: Good Rulemaker Victory condition.
Every player has a score which initially starts at 20 points. Each time a players proposal is successfully adopted that player gains 10 points. Each time a players proposal is not adopted, they lose 5 points. A player wins if they manage to obtain 200 points. This is a Victory Condition.

Rule 19: New Players
New players may be accepted to the game under the following conditions:
A) A vote of 1/2 of total current players FOR said acceptance.
B) A players leaving the game may leave his spot to a new player. This replacement can be rejected by a 2/3 vote of total current players.

Rule 20: Incentives
Each player who votes against winning proposals shall receive 5 points each unless they are the only who does so. In that case of being to only one against, that player loses 10 points. If a player has half as many points as needed for victory or more this rule does not apply to that player.

Rule 21: Subsections
Any and all proposals may have multiple subsections which can be voted on individually.
This rule takes precedence over any rule which would prevent subsections from being voted on individually.

Rule 22: Proxy Voting
By communicating their intentions to the game controller (as defined by rule 13), one player may delegate his voting and/or rule proposal rights to another player. Such rights may be reclaimed by their original owner immediately at any time by again communicating with the game controller.
Any proxies in effect will be announced by the controller at the start of each round.
This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require players to vote personally.

Rule 23: Sacred Abstention
No rule may be created that in any way chastises players for abstaining from sending proposals or voting.
This rule takes precedence over any rule that forces players to vote.

Rule 25: The Scorekeeper
The Scorekeeper is an office, charged with keeping track of points. Each round, the Scorekeeper announces in the thread how many points each player has. The Scorekeeper should reply to requests by players for how many points they currently have in a timely manner. At the end of each round, if the author of each proposal is not known publicly, the entity charged with announcing proposals must inform the Scorekeeper by private message which player authored which proposal, so that their scores may be updated accordingly. A proposal can appoint a player Scorekeeper, provided the player accepts, or forcibly remove the current Scorekeeper. The Scorekeeper can resign at any time. If there is no Scorekeeper, the entity charged with announcing proposals must track scores.
Current Scorekeeper: evnafets

Rule 26: Starting Assets
The following assets are created and given to the players as indicated:
PirateMonk: Soup Bowl
Murska: Ping-Pong Paddle
Mordokai: Unicorn Shield
The Bookworm: Encyclopedia
RedScholarGypsy: Scimitar
Haruki-kun: Halo
Orzel: Axe
evnafets: Pony
drakeblood4: Full Faced Helm
Fin: Cake
MOD: Rapier
Reinholdt: Sniper Rifle
Shadowhisper: Lava Lamp
Players entering the game or those without any assets at any time may choose one of the following items. It becomes a created asset in their possession.

Piece of Lint
Bag of Dice
Scissors
Button
Toothbrush
Flashlight
Crayons
Lightbulb
Flea Circus
Moldy Bread


Rule 27: Untitled
The phrase "total current players" in all rules is defined as "the players that have voted in this particular issue."

Rule 28: Disciple of Proposition
This rule introduces the role, "Disciple of Proposition". A player may declare themselves a Disciple of Proposition once per game, which comes into effect at the end of the round in which they declared it. In addition, any Disciple of Proposition may divest themselves of this role at any time (which also comes into effect at the end of that round), but cannot reclaim the role.
A Disciple of Proposition wins the game if they pass 10 proposals while in possession of the role. This counts as a Win Condition. However, all of that player's proposals must forgo anonymity (as per rule 14). Furthermore, all of that players' proposals start with three votes against.

Rule 29: Orzel's 624th Point
Orzel gets 1/624th of a point. Until he loses the 1/624th of a point somehow, he can only vote against one proposal each round.

Rule 30: The Executive Branch
This rule introduces the roles of the President and the Vice President.
The President is elected by a Plurality vote of the Total Current Players. The Vice President is appointed by the President. The Vice President must accept the role.
The President's role in the game is to sign all passing rules. If the President refuses to sign a rule, the rule is Vetoed. However, the President cannot veto rules that received 2/3 of the votes For. The President must announce which proposals he is signing or vetoing before the end of the round. If he fails to do so, all rules are considered signed.
In exchange for this role, the President will relinquish his right to submit proposals and vote during his term as the President, term which will last 4 rounds. The President cannot keep this role for two consecutive periods.
During the fourth round of the President's term, the players must vote for a new President. Each player may vote for only one person, as only one President may exist at a time. In the event of a tie, the first person to reach the tying number of votes wins.
The President may choose to resign, leaving the role to the Vice President. The Vice President will be the Acting President for the remainder of the President's term. If the Vice President becomes the Acting President, all of the Presidents roles and limitations will be transferred to him. If he does not, he will be no different from any other player in the game.
This rule requires that there always be a President, with the sole exception of the round after the rule comes into effect, when the first President must be voted on.
Current President: Haruki-kun
Current Vice President: [Vacant]

Rule 31: Office
An office is any role or position which can be held by a player described by the rules as an office. Anything added to the rules in the same round as this rule may be considered by the players to be an office, if it possesses the characteristics of an office. Anything intended to be an office added in any subsequent round must specify that it is an office, and which type of office it is.
Unless the rules state or strongly imply otherwise, only one player and no nonplayers can occupy any given office at one time.
There are several types of office, divided on the basis of how their occupant(s) are selected.
Appointed Office: The occupant(s) can be appointed to the office by a proposal, provided there are fewer occupants than the maximum allowed. A proposal can also remove the current occupant(s). A single proposal can both add and remove the occupant(s) of a single office, and, if multiple occupants are allowed, as many or as few of the occupants can be removed as desired. However, only one office can have its occupants changed by a single proposal, and each player to be appointed or removed must have a separate subsection. The occupant(s) to be must accept their appointment for it to take effect, and the current occupant(s) can resign at any time, unless the rules state otherwise. The Scorekeeper is an appointed office.
Elected Office: The occupant(s) is voted on by the players outside of proposals, and either serves for a limited term or serves until removed by the players, as described by the rules. The Speaker is an elected office.
Voluntary Office: The first player(s) to announce in the thread that they wish to occupy the office do. Unless otherwise stated by the rules, the occupant(s) may cease to occupy the office at any time by announcing it in the thread. Disciple of Proposition is a voluntary office, which can be occupied by any number of players.
Confirmed Office: If there is a Speaker, the Speaker can, at any time, announce in the thread that they wish to appoint a certain player to a confirmed office. During the next round, the players vote on the appointment in a similar manner to voting on proposals. If the appointment passes and the appointee accepts, the appointee becomes the occupant of the office, and can resign or be removed by the Speaker or a proposal at any time.
Imposed Office: If a player satisfies certain conditions specified by the rules, they become the occupant of the imposed office. They cannot cease to be the occupant except as described by the rules.
Unique Office: The occupant is selected and can be removed in a manner described by the rules.
There are certain powers and duties associated with certain offices, as described by the rules.
If any occupant of an office ceases to be eligible for an office, such as by ceasing to be a player, they cease to occupy that office unless the rules state or imply otherwise.
This rule generally takes precedence over rules describing specific offices, except as noted otherwise.

Rule 32: Gifts, Properties, Curses, Trades, Inventories (and limits thereof), and Creation
If at least one asset exists, an asset may be given by its possessor (an asset created by Rule 26 is possessed by the person who was given it by that rule or who created it by that rule) to any other player, whether they are willing or not. An asset may have any finite nonnegative number of properties. They are decided at the time of creation by the person creating the asset. A property only has an actual effect if a rule forces it to. An item with the "Cursed" property may not be given or traded. To trade an item is to give it to another entity contingent on them first giving you an item that you specify when attempting to initiate a trade. Any player may create one item per round. A player may not possess more than 5 items. The collection of items that a player possesses are referred to as their "Inventory". A player may create one asset once per round. If creation or gifts put a player over the maximum of 5 items in their inventory, they must discard items until they have no more than 5. They may not discard items with the Cursed property. If they cannot discard enough items to keep their inventory to 5 or less items, they must discard all items without the Cursed property in their inventory. Any player whose inventory has more than 5 items in it may remove the Cursed property from one item per round, and they must do so if able. An item created by a player is by default in their possession. If this proposal is passed, during the round immediately afterwards, players are to vote for a player to keep track of all players' inventories. Until such a player is determined, each player must keep track of their own inventory.
Current Miscellaneous Clerk: The Bookworm

Rule 33: Memes
Anybody is allowed to use any memes or anything related to memes as long as it is kept within the rules of the playground. You are encouraged to use lolcats, Kanye West, and mudkipz.

Rule 34: The Magistrate
The Magistrate is an appointed office, charged with interpreting the rules. In general, the unofficial statements of the Magistrate with regards to what the rules mean should be abided by. If warranted, any player can submit a formal case to the Magistrate by posting in the thread. A case should consist of a question about what the rules mean to be resolved by the Magistrate. Once a case has been submitted, the Magistrate can make a post officially accepting the case and requesting that all concerned parties post arguments for their position. Once a reasonable amount of time for debate and deliberation has been allowed, the Magistrate must post a well-reasoned opinion resolving the case. The case can be appealed if any two players post in the thread clearly stating that they wish to appeal it. If no other method for resolving appeals has been imposed by the rules, and the rules describe Standard Adjudication, then Standard Adjudication is used, except that the only options are Uphold, Overturn, and Negate, and players cannot offer their own options. If Uphold wins, the Magistrate's opinion must be abided by. If Overturn wins, the opposite of the Magistrate's opinion is used. If Overturn wins and there is no single clear reversal of the Magistrate's decision, the question immediately enters Standard Adjudication for further resolution. If Negate wins, the opinion is nullified but the question is not resolved in any way, but the same Magistrate cannot issue essentially the same opinion on the case if it is again submitted.
If the Magistrate does not accept a case, other methods of interpreting the rules, such as adjudication, should be used.
Current Magistrate: PirateMonk
Under Rule 2, this rule takes precedence over all rules except Rule 1.

Rule 35: On Stacking Items and Rewards Thereof; Also, On Limitations of Crafting Such Items
You may stack up to 5 of the same item with the Stackable property. Any item may be created with or without this property, simply by choosing such, as per normal. Stacked items take up only a single space in a player's inventory. A player may not create an item that has the same name as a Stackable item in their inventory. A player with a stack of 5 of the same item may trade them in for 10 points.

Rule 36: Secured Assets
"Secured" is an asset property. In general, types and categories of assets individually defined by the rules are Secured, while assets created by players under a more general rule, such as Rule 32 at the time this was written, cannot be Secured. However, any rule which specifically and explicitly contradicts this takes precedence.
Types of assets which are Secured cannot be created, destroyed, or transferred except as allowed by the rules governing assets of that type or category, or by the rules describing Secured assets generally. Secured assets do not take up space in inventories.
The assets created by Rule 26 at the time this was written are unsecured.
This rule takes precedence over any rule allowing the fairly unrestricted creation of assets by players.

Rule 37: Further Incentives
When a player submits a proposal, they gain 3 points. When a player submits a complete set of votes for a round (defined as one vote for every proposal or issue [such as adjucation or election]) in that round, they gain 1 point.

Rule 38: Prime Rounds
In rounds where the round number is Prime, all votes on proposals count as opposite. Thus yes votes count as no, and no votes count as yes.

Rule 39: Coins
Coins are a category of secured assets. There are three types of coins: copper, silver, and gold. One silver coin is worth twenty (20) copper coins, and one gold coin is worth five (5) silver coins. Upon this rule being enacted, each player can create coins worth a total of 100 copper coins in their possession by posting in the thread. If they fail to do this by the end of the round following the enactment of this rule, 100 copper coins are created in their possession.
The Treasurer is an appointed office, charged with keeping track of coins. Each round, the Treasurer should make a post in the thread clearly stating or displaying how many coins and of which types each player possessed at the end of the previous round.
Coins may be transferred and traded freely, provided both players involved send a private message to the Treasurer clearly stating that they agree to the proposed transaction.
Coins may be freely changed once per round to other types of coins according to their current value.(So according to the values in this rule at the time of this proposal one could change ten copper coins for one silver coin, ten silver coins to one gold coin, one gold coin to a hundred copper coins etc.)
Any player with total coins worth 1000 copper coins satisfies the victory condition of wealth.
Current Treasurer: Orzel
Under Rule 2, this rule takes precedence over all rules except Rule 1.

Rule 40: Soshulizm
A player with a value of coins of less than 10 copper coins may choose to call Soshulizm instead of voting. Every other player must give that player one coin.

Rule 41:
Mutability
Mutability (sometimes written as Mutable) is a property that parts of rules can have. When a part of a rule has the Mutability property the Mutable part of the rule is denoted with blue text. The Mutable property denotes that over the course of time the Mutable text can be changed by the being responsible for receiving and announcing proposals without a proposition. Whenever a part of a rule is Mutable the Rules must contain, in non-Mutable text, the why and how the Mutable text may be changed.
Upon enactment of this rule the following rules gain the following Mutable text (shown as bolded text) at the end of each respective rule. This Mutable text is changed when the respective office or role changes to a different player or is vacant to the new role or office holder or to vacant, whichever is most applicable.
Rule 16: Speaker
Current Speaker: Murska
Rule 25: The Scorekeeper
Current Scorekeeper: Evnafets
Rule 30: The Executive Branch
Current President: Reinholdt
Current Vice President: [Vacant]
Rule 32: Gifts, Properties, Curses, Trades, Inventories (and limits thereof), and Creation
Current Miscellaneous Clerk: The Bookworm
Rule 34: The Magistrate
Current Magistrate: PirateMonk

Rule 42: Powers
Players may have what is known as a Power. A Power is a single use ability that has an effect on the game in one way or another. A player may have only one Power at a time and may only use one Power per round. Once a power is used the player who used it loses access to that power, unless the Rules state otherwise. Whether gaining or using a Power (either or) it must come at a cost; thus when a power is proposed the proposal must contain some kind of cost for the use or for the access to that Power. Since Powers must have a cost if that cost involves the loss of a quantifiable item (Coins, Points, Assets, Ect.) the player must either announce in the game thread or to the person responsible for tracking the quantifiable item that they are using/purchasing the power so it may be deducted from their total. The player gaining the power must also contact the Miscellaneous Clerk who will track which players have which Powers.
To gain access to this Power a player must spend 10 points and contact the Miscellaneous Clerk and the Scorekeeper by Private Message so they may update their respective lists.
Power: Target player loses 5 points. Contact the Scorekeeper and Miscellaneous Clerk and inform them of the use of this power. The Scorekeeper shall announce, when updating the points totals in the game thread, that this power was used and on whom.

Rule 43: Motions to Revise
During a round, any player can move to revise a single proposal, by explicitly stating that they do in the thread in bold. No player can do this for more than one proposal per round. Once a motion to revise has been made, other player can support the motion by explicitly stating they do in bold in the thread. The initiator of a motion to revise automatically counts as supporting it. A motion to revise succeeds if, by the end of the round, a majority of the players who submitted at least one valid vote in that round are supporting it. Otherwise, it fails.
If a motion to revise succeeds, all votes on the target proposal are invalid, but the proposal is voted on again in the next round. Between the time a motion to revise is made and the end of the round, the author of the target proposal can submit an altered version of it, in addition to their normal proposal for that round. If the motion to revise succeeds and the author does so, the altered version of the proposal is voted on in the next round. If they fail to submit an altered version, the original version is voted on. If the motion to revise fails, the proposal is voted on normally, in its original form, in the same round in which it normally would be. No proposal can be the target of a motion to revise more than once.

Rule 44: The Empty Office
If at any point during the game there are 7 or less players, the game will end. The (current) player with the most points will be declared the winner. Note that this rule does not declare the game unplayable.

Rule 45: Go Away
To gain access to this Power players must spend X multiplied by 10 number of Points and/or Coins and they must also contact the Miscellaneous Clerk and the Scorekeeper and/or the Treasurer to inform them of gaining this Power and Points/Coins spent.
Power: Announce in the Game Thread which proposal is being targeted by this Power. Target Proposal gains X number of votes Against and the player must announce in thread how many Against votes the Proposal receives based on how much he spent. The targeted proposal is not and cannot be effected by Motions to Revise. Contact the Miscellaneous Clerk to advise that this power has been used.

Players (19)
PirateMonk
Murska
Mordokai
The Bookworm
Haruki-kun
Orzel
evnafets
drakeblood4
Fin[Obligated to make a proposal allowing him to bring Cake (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6832577&postcount=14)]
MOD
Reinholdt
Shadowhisper
Enrgetic Penguin
Uncle Festy
TehSheen
Thelas
Heroic
Freshmeat
Calar

[Murska]

Sure. I've heard of it before, though never played.

[Lord Magtok]

Sure. I've heard of it before, though never played.

Same here.

[Mordokai]

I seem to be all over the Structured again. I shall join this one as well.

[The Bookworm]

I've heard of Nomic, but it intimidates my friends in the Other World. So, yes, I'd love to try playing it here.

[RedScholarGypsy]

I'd be in on this.:smallamused:

[PirateMonk]

Okay then. I'll start designing an initial ruleset. The original one can be found here (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set), but it isn't well-suited for forum play and has some design decisions that I disagree with. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[Haruki-kun]

Never heard of it, but I'm relatively quite interested.

[Orzel]

Heard of, never played. I'm game

[The Bookworm]

Rule 105: Either we need a small number of players or a time-period for voting.
Rules 112, 202 (except the computer clause, we can use invisible castle), 203, 208, : Tempting as it may be to remove these, keep them around!
Rule 201: This won't work at all and needs changing.
Rule 213: I'm not so sure about this one...

[evnafets]

Sounds interesting. I'll play.

[DrakebloodIV]

Rule 1- Always obey Rule 1, except when Rule 2 supersedes it
Rule 2- There is no rule 2
:smalltongue:

I'll play

[PirateMonk]

Rule 105: Either we need a small number of players or a time-period for voting.

The "everyone has to vote" sentence is definitely out.


Rules 112, 202 (except the computer clause, we can use invisible castle), 203, 208, : Tempting as it may be to remove these, keep them around!

I'm not sure if we want initial victory conditions. They make it a more complete game, but that may not be desirable when the point is to make your own game.

Initial unanimity may or may not be a good idea.


Rule 201: This won't work at all and needs changing.

Agreed. Would it be better to let people make proposals whenever they like, or to have clearly defined rounds where people can submit and vote on proposals? The former could get out of hand, but allows more freedom.


Rule 213: I'm not so sure about this one...

When in doubt, it's probably better to leave it out and let the players enact it. Personally, I think it would make more sense if the author of the proposal that makes the game unplayable is the one who wins, which also works better without turns.

I'm also considering removing the distinction between mutable and immutable rules, and just giving 101 (the rules must be followed) a stronger "this rule cannot be changed or repealed by any means." As the designer notes in the introduction above the ruleset, it makes more sense to have as few tiers of rules as possible and let the players develop any complexity they want.

[Fin]

I would be in if this was played, I would also bring Cake!

[The Bookworm]

PirateMonk: I agree with most of what you say, although I feel that initial victory conditions help keep some form of structure in place.
Also, I approve of getting rid of the mutable distinction.

[PirateMonk]

PirateMonk: I agree with most of what you say, although I feel that initial victory conditions help keep some form of structure in place.

What do we need structure for? If the players want it, they can impose it.

I'll start drawing up a draft of the rules so we can have something more solid to discuss.

Edit: How's this?

Rule 1: Rules
All players must follow all rules currently in effect. The rules listed as being in the Initial Ruleset are in effect at the beginning of the game.
This rule cannot be repealed or amended by any means.
This rule takes precedence over all other rules.

Rule 2: Precedence
If two or more rules come into conflict and one explicitly states that it takes precedence over or defers to the other rule(s) or over rules of a certain class including the other rule(s), this is used to resolve the dispute. If no such statements exist or they are contradictory, the rule with the lowest number takes precedence over the one(s) with the higher number(s).

Rule 3: Rounds
The game is divided into several rounds. Rounds last roughly 72 hours. At the beginning of each round, the proposals submitted in the previous round are announced. At the end of each round, votes are counted and it is announced which proposals passed and which failed, and the next round begins. During a round, players vote on proposals and may submit proposals to be voted on next round via private message to the person charged with announcing proposals.
Rounds are numbered. The first round is numbered 1. Later rounds are labeled with the number one greater than that of the previous round.

Rule 4: Rulesets
Both the Initial Ruleset and the Current Ruleset will be maintained in the first post of the thread in which the game is played. Should some problem arise, such as the rules growing too long for a single post, the player charged with maintaining the rules can amend the first sentence of this rule. Any objection from a player renders such amendments invalid.
Rules are identified by their title, which is included in the Initial Ruleset or specified by the proposal enacting them, and by their number. Rules in the Initial Ruleset have the number designated. Rules enacted later gain the integer after the rule with the greatest number.

Rule 5: Proposals
As noted in rule 3, proposals for the next round may be submitted by any player by private message. The person who submits a proposal is referred to as its author. Any single player may make no more than one proposal per round. Proposals may enact one rule, repeal one rule, amend one rule, or do anything else the rules state they can do. Proposals are referred to as Proposal XY (or PXY), where X is the round in which it is to be voted on and Y is the lowercase Roman numeral for the rough order in which it was submitted. For example, Proposal 2viii (P2viii) is the eighth proposal submitted in Round 1, to be voted on in Round 2. When multiple rules are enacted in a single round, they are numbered based on the Roman numerals of the proposals enacting them.
During a round, eligible voters can vote on all announced proposals by posting in the thread. Votes may be either For or Against. As implied by the previous sentence, votes For must be in Green and votes Against must be in Red. At the end of each round, votes are counted up by the person responsible for vote counting, and all proposals which received more votes For than Against pass, while all others fail. Votes should be listed in order of proposal Roman numeral, and specify which proposal they regard. If they do not, they may be declared invalid.

Rule 6: Definitions
If the rules state that any action is impossible or invalid, or that players cannot perform it, any attempts to do it fail.
If the rules state that an action is possible, valid, or can be perform, attempts to do it generally succeed.
If the rules state that players must do something, attempts to not do it fail.
To enact a rule means to put it into effect. To repeal a rule means to take it out of effect. To amend a rule means to change its title or text.
All words not explicitly defined by the rules may be assumed to have the most relevant common English meaning. Use of common sense is advised.

Rule 7: Players
The players consist of PirateMonk and the first several people to post in a recruiting thread to express an interest in playing and not later stop playing. After the recruiting period is over, new players cannot join. Any player may stop playing at any time, with no penalty other than losing and not being allowed to rejoin.

Rule 8: Voting Rights
All players are eligible voters. Each eligible voter can vote no more than once on each decision requiring votes. Eligible voters may vote on exactly as many decisions as they wish. Entities which are not eligible voters may not vote at all.

Rule 9: No Retroactivity
No rule can have any effect on anything that happened prior to its passage, or otherwise have retroactive effects. This rule takes precedence over all rules which would allow retroactivity.

Rule 10: Victory Conditions
Victory Conditions are a category, consisting of all methods of winning described by the rules as victory conditions. When one or more players achieve a victory condition, they win the game. When one or more players win the game, the game ends.

Rule 11: Adjudication
When there is a disagreement among the players about the rules that can't be resolved with debate and consensus, and no other method of resolving such disputes has been imposed, any player can move for Adjudication. Adjudication motions should be explicit and bold. When they do so, they should specify a form of Adjudication. If they do not, Standard Adjudication is assumed. Furthermore, they should list at least two options for resolving the dispute.
Once a motion has been made, players can vote for any option proposed by the mover, or provide their own. Whichever option receives the most votes is used to resolve the conflict, if possible.
When the vote is held depends on which form of Adjudication is used:
a.) Standard Adjudication. This is appropriate for most conflicts which are not vital to gameplay, but are still in need of resolution. At the beginning of the round after the Adjudication motion, the vote is announced along with any proposals, and voted on in that round.
b.) Immediate Adjudication. If play cannot proceed until the conflict is resolved, voting on adjudication begins immediately after the motion is made and continues for the next 72 hours, delaying the start of the next round.
No player may move for adjudication more than once per round.
This rule defers to all rules regarding the resolution of rules disputes.

Rule 12: Win by Unplayability
If, in the judgment of the players, the game is unplayable, the author of the proposal or the initiator of the action which is determined to have resulted in this states wins the game immediately. When a player wins the game, it ends. If the category Victory Conditions exists, this is a Victory Condition.

Rule 13: Me!
PirateMonk is charged with receiving and announcing proposals, counting votes, maintaining the rules, and posting threads.

This is completely tentative. Currently, there are no points and no victory conditions except destroying the game. I decided to go with the submitting proposals idea to keep things simple. Also, I couldn't figure out a good way to handle Judging, so I replaced it with the clunky Adjudication mechanic to encourage the development of a proper judicial system. Any comments?

[The Bookworm]

I would love to play! I like the ruleset.

[PirateMonk]

I would love to play! I like the ruleset.

Should I add some form of Rule 203 (rule changes must be unanimous in the first two rounds) or leave it as is?

I'll post a recruitment thread soon.

[The Bookworm]

Should I add some form of Rule 203 (rule changes must be unanimous in the first two rounds) or leave it as is?
No real need to add it.

[Murska]

Interesting, though confusing. I'm in. :smallsmile:

[PirateMonk]

Actually, posting a recruitment thread would be too much bother, given the approval process. I'll start recruiting here.

[MOD]

I'll go ahead and join this.

[PirateMonk]

Rules altered slightly to prevent stalling tactics with Immediate Adjudication and so that I don't have to technically PM proposals to myself.

[Fin]

You can upgrade me to 'Confirmed' from 'Expressed Interest' PirateMonk...

In, with Cake!

[PirateMonk]

You can upgrade me to 'Confirmed' from 'Expressed Interest' PirateMonk...

In, with Cake!

Done.

I sent out a PM reminder to some Expressed Interest people. Mordokai confirmed in reply.

[evnafets]

Yep, I'm still in! Looks like it will be interesting...

[Reinholdt]

I'll join in.

[Lord Magtok]

I'm still in.

[The Bookworm]

I'm in if there's room. Does my earlier post count as an in, or not?

[PirateMonk]

I'm in if there's room. Does my earlier post count as an in, or not?

It does.

Once Orzel, Haruki, RSG, and drakeblood4 confirms, we should be ready to start. This seems like a good number of players. Other people are still free to join, though.

Edit- Orzel and drakeblood confirmed by PM.

[The Bookworm]

Yes! This will be fun (that is, if we amend the rules to include a rule about mandatory fun).

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

*Expresses Interest*
I don't know the rules very well, but...


I would be in if this was played, I would also bring Cake!

Ohwait, there'll be Cake! Must be in!
(even though school is an evil...)
*Confirms*

[RedScholarGypsy]

Consider me confirmed.
In. Giggity.

[Haruki-kun]

I'm in. I have not, I should point out, read the rules yet.

[PirateMonk]

Recruitment is now nominally closed, though if you really want to play, you still can. Players should start sending in proposals to be voted on in Round 1.

We could always use an odd number of players.

Round 1 will probably start in 72 hours, on Friday. Please be sure to read the Initial Ruleset. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

[Orzel]

I think we should work on win conditions soon before we get too far in.

[Murska]

Hmm. What about 'win condition : If your nick is 'Murska' you win.' :smallsmile:

[RedScholarGypsy]

Sorry again PM. Didn't notice the 'one sumission per turn' part. And I looked for it too. Your poor inbox. >.> <.<

[PirateMonk]

Sorry again PM. Didn't notice the 'one sumission per turn' part. And I looked for it too. Your poor inbox. >.> <.<

Don't worry about it. I'm not in too many WWs, and I'm going to clear it out after every round, so I should be able to limit the amount I have saved.

I now have five out of fourteen proposals, which is good, given that the pregame period is now about 1/3 gone. If you have not already, please remember to send in a proposal in the next two days.

[Fleeing Coward]

This should be fun to watch. I'd have signed up too but I havn't got the time :smalltongue:

[evnafets]

How large/small detailed a rule are we allowed to submit?
Some of those initial rules are fairly long.

[Murska]

Do we have to submit proposals? :smalltongue:

[MOD]

I don't think so, the rules don't say anything about being required to submit or to vote or consequences for doing so.

So for now you are free to abstain...

[PirateMonk]

How large/small detailed a rule are we allowed to submit?
Some of those initial rules are fairly long.

Make it as long as is necessary to fully communicate the intended effect.

No, you are not required to send in a proposal. It just gives you more influence over the game.

[PirateMonk]

ROUND ONE BEGINS NOW. Remember to vote and send in any proposals you wish to have voted on in the second round.

Some proposals have been edited somewhat to clarify their meaning. If I changed anything important, please tell me as soon as possible.

Proposal 1i Author: Reinholdt Type: Amendment
Rule 3: Rounds is to be changed as the following:

The game is divided into several rounds. Rounds last roughly 72 hours. At the beginning of each round, the proposals submitted in the previous round are announced. At the end of each round, votes are counted and it is announced which proposals passed and which failed, and the next round begins. During a round, players vote on proposals and can submit proposals to be voted on next round via private message to the person charged with announcing proposals.

Rounds are numbered. The first round is numbered 10. Later rounds are labeled with the number one fewer than that of the previous round. At the end of round 0, if no winner has been declared by that time, then everyone loses.

Proposal 1ii Author: MOD Type: Enactment
Anonymity in Proposing
The being responsible for receiving and announcing proposals must announce all proposals without giving the authors name and announce them in no particular order.

Proposal 1iii Author: PirateMonk Type: Enactment
Assets
Assets consist of anything players can be in possession of described by the rules as an asset. Assets are owned by exactly one player. Assets can be created (put in the game), destroyed (removed from the game), or transferred between players in a manner described by the rules. Rules defining types or categories of assets should state who is responsible for keeping track of who owns what asset.
Unless the rule defining the asset states otherwise, no entity which is not a player can own assets.
If an entity previously eligible for ownership of assets ceases to be eligible, for example by ceasing to be a player, all assets which they are no longer eligible to own are destroyed.

Proposal 1iv Author: The Bookworm Type: Enactment
Amendments
Each proposal may have any number of amendments proposed to it while it is still a proposal. Amendments are numbered by greek letters (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc.) Amendment numbers are separate for each proposal (i.e. Proposal 2viii could have Amendment 2viiiAlpha, and Amendment 2viiiBeta.) Amendments are posted in the main thread, and are voted on in the same round they are proposed, in the same manner as proposals. If the proposal they are attached to passes, any amendments on it that passed are immediately enacted onto the proposal (now rule) immediately.

Proposal 1v Author: RedScholarGypsy Type: Enactment
The Speaker
This proposal introduces the role of Speaker. The Speaker is defined as follows:
The Speaker casts the deciding vote in the case of a tie.
The Speaker is elected by a 2/3 vote of total current players.
The Speaker must willingly accept the role.
The Speaker may be removed from the role via a 2/3 vote of total current players.
The Speaker can not win while in possession of the role of Speaker, and for 25 rounds afterwards.
There may only be one Speaker at a time.

Proposal 1vi Author: Shadowhisper Type: Enactment
Cute Kittens
Any player can post a picture of a cute kitten in the thread.

Proposal 1vii Author: Orzel Type: Enactment
Special Titles
There are 3 special titles players may be awarded: Chambermaster, Grandmaster, and Speaker. A player may hold any number of these titles at a time. Should a player hold all 3 titles at once, that player wins the game. The first 3 players to author an apporved rule shall be the first 3 holders of the titles in their and the titles respected order. A player may forfiet a title, passing the title to the next eligible player, at any time before voting in a round as long as they are not in danger of losing the title for a reason.

Proposal 1viii Author: Mordokai Type: Enactment
Roll Call
At the beginning of each round, there will be roll call. Any player who does not show up for it cannot vote in the round.

Proposal 1xi Author: evnafets Type: Enactment
Good Rulemaker Victory condition.
Every player has a score which initially starts at 20 points. Each time a players proposal is successfully adopted that player gains 10 points. Each time a players proposal is not adopted, they lose 5 points. A player wins if they manage to obtain 100 points. This is a Victory Condition.

Proposal 1x Author: drakeblood4 Type: Amendment
Add to following to Rule 8, after the second sentence:
However, in case of a draw, the first person to reverse their vote receives one bonus vote which may be used on any other election for as long as this rule continues to exist. Voters who abstain until a draw occurs do not receive a bonus vote for voting though, and bonus votes spent to end a draw do not generate additional bonus votes

[PirateMonk]

Proposal 1i: FOR. Though I have some concerns that the relabeling of Round 1 as Round 10 may conflict with Rule 9, the idea is too fun to pass up.

Proposal 1ii: FOR. Down with accountability!

Proposal 1iii: FOR. It will make the game much more interesting, and will make it easier for Fin to bring Cake.

Proposal 1iv: AGAINST. Though it may be useful at times, it will add needless complexity and is to easy to abuse.

Proposal 1v: FOR. We can always use a Speaker.

Proposal 1vi: FOR. You can never have too many cute kittens, or trivial rules.

Proposal 1vii: AGAINST. While I like the idea, having two Speakers would just be confusing, and 1v does it better.

Proposal 1viii: AGAINST. The point of having 72 hour rounds is to give plenty of time to vote.

Proposal 1ix: FOR. Victory Conditions are good.

Proposal 1x: FOR. If 1v fails, or a Speaker isn't elected in a timely fashion, we should have another tiebreaking method.

[DrakebloodIV]

1i- Against - Win Conditions are for suckers. Not to mention the game would be like a month long then.

1ii- For- What Piratemonk said.

1iii- For- I wanna pile up schwag with uniqe effects

1iv- Against-
I dunno. There's gotta be a better way to do that

1v- Against-
If not for the win thing, I might choose it.

1vi- For-
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LUVZ TEH KITTEHZZZZZ!!!!!

1vii- Against-
Not really liking this one. I don't really see it working out all that well.

1viii- For-
It works. Period.

1ix- Against-
Victory Conditions R EVOL!!

1x- For (duh)-
I like this one. Cause I made it.

[Murska]

Proposal 1i: AGAINST. Nah, we'll just tear it down when the timer starts ticking down. I see no real use.

Proposal 1ii: FOR. Yeah, that's good. Anonymity!

Proposal 1iii: FOR. Sounds good and lets us create more complex stuff.

Proposal 1iv: AGAINST. Complexity. :smalleek:

Proposal 1v: FOR. I'd rather the Speaker could win though.

Proposal 1vi: FOR. Yes. :smallbiggrin:

Proposal 1vii: AGAINST. Complexity and it doesn't really do much as of yet anyway.

Proposal 1viii: AGAINST. Not everyone is always there.

Proposal 1ix: FOR. I suppose we need some way to win.

Proposal 1x: AGAINST. Nooonono. No tiebreakers. :smallbiggrin:

[Fin]

Proposal 1i Against - Will lead to too much confusion and I also agree with Murska on this one.

Proposal 1ii Against - I think in this type of game we need accountability.

Proposal 1iii For - So I can have my cake!!

Proposal 1iv Against - Same reasons as PirateMonk

Proposal 1v For - Brings a bit of order to the madness. Plus its an easy way to resolve ties.

Proposal 1vi For - I challenge anybody to deny the need for kittehs!

Proposal 1vii Against - Conflicts with RSGs which I was 'For' so...

Proposal 1viii For - I don't know if this game has auto's but this rule will prevent them.

Proposal 1xi For - Gives people something tangible to aim for.

Proposal 1x For - Because it promotes fair play and compromise.

[RedScholarGypsy]

Proposal 1i: AGAINST. Same as above. I want this to last.:smallamused:

Proposal 1ii: AGAINST. If you had the option to be known as the author, then maybe.

Proposal 1iii: FOR. I want a hoard of kitties!:smallbiggrin:

Proposal 1iv: FOR. I like this idea a lot. I do wish for simplicity, but Arbitration can solve any problems that come up.

Proposal 1v: FOR. The lack of ability to win is to ensure that the position isn't abused. If it's a concern then we can alter it later to allow the holder to win.

Proposal 1vi: AGAINST. Because Fin challenged me.:smalltongue: And this rule implies that I couldn't beforehand; I don't like those implications. A rule lawyer can have fun with that.

Proposal 1vii: AGAINST. Sorry Orzel. We should talk about coordinating our proposals, as we seem to be thinking along similar lines.

Proposal 1viii: AGAINST. I work in theater and my schedule is hectic as hell. Plus with time zone difference, I think this is against the spirit of the forum.

Proposal 1ix: AGAINST. This will interfere with the passage of good Proposals later on when people start point counting.

Proposal 1x: FOR. I think this is a good substitute for 1v tie-breaking, and would be quite useful.

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

Proposal 1i:Against. Same reasons as above. Sorry Reinholdt.
Proposal 1ii: Against. Yeah, if you had the option to be known, and the being important for recieving and announcing the proposals still announced them in that specific order, then sure.
Proposal 1iii: For. I joined for Cake, what's the point if I can't have any?:smallamused: (Answer: this game is fun!)
Proposal 1iv: Against. While it could be very helpful if it was simpler, it's too complex.
Proposal 1v: For. Same reasons as Fin.
Proposal 1vi: For. How dare you defy kitties, RSG!
Proposal 1vii: Against. However, if we combined this rule with RSG's...
Proposal1viii: Against. Hmmm... I just thought of something.
Proposal 1ix: Against. Yeah... what RSG said...
Proposal 1x: Against. I didn't understand most of it.

[PirateMonk]

It occurs to me that a major flaw with this method of proposing and voting is that one can't be sure what the rules will look like when a proposal is being voted on. For next round, I'll propose an amendment to allow proposals contingent on the passage of certain proposals, and for alternative proposals if they are not. For now, I suggest that we either allow it despite it technically being against the rules, or just struggle along.

(Sorry if the above is too confusing.)

[Murska]

The rule 10 states this:
When one or more players win the game, the game ends.


I claim victory based on this (http://xkcd.com/391/).

[PirateMonk]

Rule 6: Definitions
If the rules state that any action is impossible or invalid, or that players cannot perform it, any attempts to do it fail.
If the rules state that an action is possible, valid, or can be performed, attempts to do it generally succeed.
If the rules state that players must do something, attempts to not do it fail.
To enact a rule means to put it into effect. To repeal a rule means to take it out of effect. To amend a rule means to change its title or text.
All words not explicitly defined by the rules may be assumed to have the most relevant common English meaning. Use of common sense is advised.

No, you don't win.

[Murska]

:smallbiggrin: That was fast. I still claim 'The Game' is the most relevant common English meaning for the words 'the game' at least on the internet.

[PirateMonk]

The Game has no relevance to this thread unless the rules say it does.

[Murska]

The Game has no relevance to this thread unless the rules say it does.

The rules don't say it has to be relevant to this thread, just the most relevant common english meaning. Since english is commonly most used over the internet...

[Orzel]

Proposal 1i:Against. Same reasons as everyone else.

Proposal 1ii: Against.

Proposal 1iii: For. Sure why not.

Proposal 1iv: Against.Way too complex and probably not needed.

Proposal 1v: For. I was hoping for someone to make this rule.

Proposal 1vi: For. Meow!

Proposal 1vii: For. My rule does not really conflict with 1v and it adds a good win condition.

Proposal 1viii: Against. Nah!

Proposal 1ix: Against. Good idea but the point count is too low and will create rules just to gain votes.

Proposal 1x: Against. It rewards votes based on time. No good.


I will be creating another title based rule. Please PM me if you will create a rule including titles also.

[Reinholdt]

Proposal 1i: FOR. Cause it'd be hilarious if everyone lost. Plus it allows for a reasonable amount of time to declare a winner and move on to the next iteration.

Proposal 1ii: AGAINST. Too easily abused. Probably by Murska somehow.

Proposal 1iii: FOR. Never can have too much stuff.

Proposal 1iv: AGAINST. It's good, but will slow the game down immensely.

Proposal 1v: FOR. The ability to break ties doesn't really outweigh the whole wait 25 rounds to win. However, since it's voluntary, if someone wants the position they can have it.

Proposal 1vi: FOR. KITTIES!! This rule really should say must though.

Proposal 1vii: AGAINST. Overly complicated.

Proposal 1viii: AGAINST. Slows down the game to see who will vote... ahead of time. Doesn't seem worth it. Though another variation... hmmm... *gets ideas*

Proposal 1ix: Against. Because and only because I see a lot of silly, pointless rules getting passed to try and win by this victory condition.

Proposal 1x: Against. Rewarding tie breakers... too dependent on time zones.

[Mordokai]

Proposal 1i: Against. Lets not make this too short.

Proposal 1ii: For. Sure, why not. Guessing is always fun.

Proposal 1iii: Against. Hell no! We all need to be equal. As soon as we start having assets we're gonna get envious and that'll be the end of everything. Everything!!!

Proposal 1iv: Against. Too complicated indeed.

Proposal 1v: Against. Just because.

Proposal 1vi: For. Cute kitties are always nice.

Proposal 1vii: Against. Makes it somewhat too easy and too fast.

Proposal 1viii: For. What the hell, I have to put the fact I'm here all the time to good use and get me some advantage :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

Proposal 1ix: For. Sounds reasonable enough.

Proposal 1x: Against. 'Cause I agree with what has already been said.

[Haruki-kun]

((To be clear, it's OK to not send in a proposal, right? I just wanted to watch a round first.))


Proposal 1i Against. This would make the game unnecessarily limited.

Proposal 1ii For, no comment.

Proposal 1iii For. Interesting.

Proposal 1iv For.

Proposal 1v Against. I see no reason why the speaker can't win.

Proposal 1vi For.

Proposal 1vii For.

Proposal 1viii For. Though I'm sure I'll regret it.

Proposal 1xi Against.

Proposal 1x Against.

[PirateMonk]

((To be clear, it's OK to not send in a proposal, right? I just wanted to watch a round first.))

The rules do not currently have a penalty for not submitting a proposal.

[RedScholarGypsy]

As of Post #77
Round 1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6865286&postcount=45)
i 3/10
ii 8/5
iii 12/1
iv 4/9
v 9/4
vi 11/2
vii 3/10
viii 4/9
ix 7/6
x 5/8

Voting is interesting. Clearly the group mind has declared:
A) KISS is the golden rule
2) We like the kitties.
d) We want this game to last a while

The ones that intrigue me most are the close calls, especially Proposal ii. These designate where the gray areas are. That's where the fun will be had.:smallamused:

[Murska]

I still stand behind me winning The Game and thus the game. :smallbiggrin:

[RedScholarGypsy]

Yea, right: Take it up with adjudication, and let's see what happens :smalltongue:.

[MOD]

Proposal 1i For I like this idea mainly b/c the rules do not include any reference so far to the consequences of losing the game. Go go ambiguity.

Proposal 1ii For, Its mine so I like it.

Proposal 1iii For. A way to spice things up.:smallsmile:

Proposal 1iv Against Way too easily abused.

Proposal 1v Against. I like the idea wholeheartedly, however it needs some adjustments before it gets my vote. Like not being able to win the game or for 25 rounds after needs to be changed.

Proposal 1vi For Umm... I'll almost always vote for kittens.

Proposal 1vii Against I don't care for it as a way to win the game.

Proposal 1viii Against This game will be long and this will make it longer. Also there is no time limit specified on the length that role call will allowed or who is to initiate the time limit.

Proposal 1xi For I like this one. So much room to work with this.

Proposal 1x Against. We need a better design for draw rules and this doesn't do it for me.

[The Bookworm]

Proposal 1i-Against- It makes the game too short.
Proposal 1ii-For- Hooray for intrigue!
Proposal 1iii-For- Hoarding!
Proposal 1iv-For- Makes the game more spontaneous.
Proposal 1v-For- Interesting, although 25 rounds is a long time.
Proposal 1vi-For- Kittens! They should count as assets!
Proposal 1vii-Against- It's not clearly defined.
Proposal 1viii-Against- Why do we have long rounds? So we can vote!
Proposal 1ix-For- Good victory condition, especially with Prop 1ii.
Proposal 1x-Against- No comment.

[Orzel]

Can we discuss the creation of future propsals in this thread in order to avoid wasting time having them fail hard?

[PirateMonk]

Can we discuss the creation of future propsals in this thread in order to avoid wasting time having them fail hard?

There is currently no rule against it.

[RedScholarGypsy]

In that case, here's my next Proposal:
New players may be accepted to the game under the following conditions:
A) A vote of 1/2 of total current players FOR said acceptance.
B) A players leaving the game may leave his spot to a new player. This replacement can be rejected by a 2/3 vote of total current players.

Any objections to the language?

[Haruki-kun]

In that case, here's my next Proposal:
New players may be accepted to the game under the following conditions:
A) A vote of 1/2 of total current players FOR said acceptance.
B) A players leaving the game may leave his spot to a new player. This replacement can be rejected by a 2/3 vote of total current players.

Any objections to the language?

Should I assume you have someone in mind who wants to join? Would be nice to know first.

[RedScholarGypsy]

Nope, not really. I figured that, if the game goes on a while, new people can keep it fresh.

[The Bookworm]

That's a good idea, and I fully support that proposal.

[DrakebloodIV]

Same here.......

[Murska]

Sure, sounds good.

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

Yeah, same.

[evnafets]

Proposal 1i: AGAINST

Proposal 1ii: FOR

Proposal 1iii: FOR

Proposal 1iv: AGAINST. Not Necessary. Can always amend in later rounds.

Proposal 1v: FOR. I think the bit about the speaker not winning is too much of a detriment for people to take it seriously. But I like the concept, so will support it so we can amend it to how we want later.

Proposal 1vi: AGAINST Becuz we hatez dem!

Proposal 1vii: FOR

Proposal 1viii: AGAINST

Proposal 1ix: FOR - particularly when combined with proposal 1ii.

Proposal 1x: FOR.

[RedScholarGypsy]

Prop 1ix is down to the wire! Shall Lord Magtok allow it's passage it lock it in a tie, forcing it to fail? We shall see:smallbiggrin:.

[PirateMonk]

Prop 1ix is down to the wire! Shall Lord Magtok allow it's passage it lock it in a tie, forcing it to fail? We shall see:smallbiggrin:.

Or will he continue to not notice that the game has started, leading to its passage anyway?

Edit: He just PMed me to say that he's dropping out. There are now 13 players, so 1ix passes, unless someone changes their vote by tomorrow.

[evnafets]

Of course any rules that get passed today are up for amendment as the game goes on.
So maybe if we like the idea of a rule, and agree like 80-85% with it we vote aye, and then propose an amendment next turn.
For instance I kinda like the idea of a speaker, but I think the cooldown time on him not being able to win is a little long? And as such is a disincentive to being speaker.

So I am changing my vote for rule 1v to For(edited above), and will consider an amendment to it if it gets passed.

[Orzel]

I want to propse a new tittle that allows the holder's votes to count as double for the round if they choose to. the catches are:

1) They cannot win as long as they hold the title.
2) Upon using the doublevote ability, the title is removed and given to another player next round.

[DrakebloodIV]

For Cause we still need a tiebreaker. But I ask for several clarifications as to your proposition, none of which will affect my for vote.

1.) Does the tiebreaker title get immediately awarded to anyone, if so, who?
2.) How is the next player chosen?
3.) Can there be more than one tiebreaker title given out?

I like it, but be more specific.

[DrakebloodIV]

http://www.superlaugh.com/fun/killerkitty.jpg
Usin mah sekond amendmint rites an mah prop six rites!

[Mordokai]

http://www.blowinginthewind.com/shop/dbimages/1350-OrangeKitten30pcSmall.jpg

Good enough for some time :smalltongue:

Abstain of voting until new round.

[Reinholdt]

http://www.superlaugh.com/fun/killerkitty.jpg
Usin mah sekond amendmint rites an mah prop six rites!
Stop posting my picture! :smallannoyed:

[PirateMonk]

Usin mah sekond amendmint rites an mah prop six rites!

Under Rule 9, you do not yet have any rights from Proposal 1vi. However, the rules do not say that you cannot post such pictures.

[The Bookworm]

When does the round end? How many props are in?

[PirateMonk]

When does the round end? How many props are in?

I have eight, including my own. The round ends tonight, or sooner if everyone's ready.

[PirateMonk]

I might not have time later, so I'm updating now.

ROUND ONE ENDS.

Proposal 1i has FAILED. Votes For: 3. Votes Against: 10.

Proposal 1ii has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 14. Votes For: 8. Votes Against: 5.

Proposal 1iii has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 15. Votes For: 12. Votes Against: 1.

Proposal 1iv has FAILED. Votes For: 3. Votes Against: 10.

Proposal 1v has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 16. Votes For: 8. Votes Against: 5.

Proposal 1vi has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 17. Votes For: 11. Votes Against: 2.

Proposal 1vii has FAILED. Votes For: 3. Votes Against: 10.

Proposal 1viii has FAILED. Votes For: 4. Votes Against: 9.

Proposal 1ix has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 18. Votes For: 7. Votes Against: 6.

Proposal 1x has FAILED. Votes For: 5. Votes Against: 8.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

ROUND TWO BEGINS. Remember to vote and send in any proposals you wish to have voted on in the Round Three.

Proposal 2i Type: Enactment
Victory Condition of Solitude
If at any time only one person votes on a specific proposal, they win. This is a Victory Condition.

Proposal 2ii Type: Enactment
Cake Is Mandatory
All players proposing rules must conclude the description of their rule with the phrase 'with Cake!'

Proposal 2iii Type: Enactment
Political Death
Players who do not vote in three consecutive rounds become dead. Dead players may not submit proposals, nor are they eligible voters.

Proposal 2iv Type: Amendment
Rule 17 is amended to read:
Everyone must post a picture of a lolcat in the thread along with their votes.

Proposal 2v Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 5 to state the following:
As noted in rule 3, proposals for the next round can be submitted by any player by private message. The player announcing proposals is not required to PM a proposal to themself, and can instead simply include their proposal along with the others submitted. The person who submits a proposal is referred to as its author. Any single player can make no more than one proposal per round. However, players may make proposals contingent upon the passage or failure of a proposal currently being voted on, and submit alternative proposals to count as their proposal should the condition not be met. Furthermore, they may retract a proposal they submitted previously and replace it with a new one, provided they do so before the round ends. Proposals can enact one rule, repeal one rule, amend one rule, or do anything else the rules state they can do. Proposals are referred to as Proposal XY (or PXY), where X is the round in which it is to be voted on and Y is the lowercase Roman numeral for the rough order in which it was submitted. For example, Proposal 2viii (P2viii) is the eighth proposal submitted in Round 1, to be voted on in Round 2. When multiple rules are enacted in a single round, they are numbered based on the Roman numerals of the proposals enacting them.
During a round, eligible voters can vote on all announced proposals by posting in the thread. Votes can be either For or Against. As implied by the previous sentence, votes For must be in Green and votes Against must be in Red. At the end of each round, votes are counted up by the person responsible for vote counting, and all proposals which received more votes For than Against pass, while all others fail. Votes should be listed in order of proposal Roman numeral, and specify which proposal they regard. If they do not, they may be declared invalid.

Proposal 2vi Type: Enactment
New Players
New players may be accepted to the game under the following conditions:
A) A vote of 1/2 of total current players FOR said acceptance.
B) A players leaving the game may leave his spot to a new player. This replacement can be rejected by a 2/3 vote of total current players.

Proposal 2vii Type: Enactment
The Egyptian Voider
At the beginning of each round, a player will be selected at random. Said player has the ability to instantly void a proposal via PM. The Void cannot be saved for a later round, and no player can be Voider a second time unless every other player has already been a Voider as well.
A Void can be nullified only if every other player in the game votes in favor of the proposal in question.
Void must be written with a capital V.

Proposal 2viii Type: Enactment
Spanish Inquisition
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! The Spanish Inquisition are an asset controlled by the first player to reach exactly one asset! (fear) No wait, two assets! (fear and surprise) Three assets! (fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency) You know what, let's settle this. The first player to get five assets gets the Spanish Inquisition. However, they can always give it away.

Proposal 2ix Type: Enactment
Currency
That the currency of PlaygroundNomic be gold pieces (gp).
Every player receives an income of 10gp per turn.
Gold pieces are a type of asset.

SCORE
PirateMonk: 20
Murska: 20
Mordokai: 20
The Bookworm: 20
RedScholarGypsy: 20
Haruki-kun: 20
Orzel: 20
evnafets: 20
drakeblood4: 20
Fin: 20
MOD: 20
Reinholdt: 20
Shadowhisper: 20

[PirateMonk]

P2i: For. More incentive to vote, not that we seem to need it.
P2ii: Against. It will get old quickly.
P2iii: Against. Conflicts with Rule 8 by penalizing people for voting on no proposals.
P2iv: Against. Lolcat overdose.
P2v: For. Gives people more flexibility in submitting.
P2vi: For. New people are always good.
P2vii: Against. Vetoes shouldn't be handed out at random.
P2viii: For. It's so unexpected.
P2ix: Against. It would conflict with 2viii, and doesn't have a mechanism for keeping track of gp.

[The Bookworm]

Proposal 2i: For- Encourages voting!
Proposal 2ii: For- It's fun with cake!
Proposal 2iii: Against- No autolynching, but let's add the rule that allows people to drop (Prop 2vi).
Proposal 2iv: For- Fun!
Proposal 2v: For- More schemes...
Proposal 2vi: For- As agreed.
Proposal 2vii: Against- Go Greeks! Boo Egypt!
Proposal 2viii: For- Assets!
Proposal 2ix: For- More assets!Against-This isn't compatible with 2viii, which I like better.

[RedScholarGypsy]

P2i: For. Meh, why not? Make things interesting in the long run with hidden proposals and such.
P2ii: Against. I prefer pie myself:smalltongue:.
P2iii: Against. I'd like to be able to vote on that instead of it just happening, as sometimes S Happens and RL comes at you.
P2iv: Against. I voted against Rule 17; you think I'll back this:smallamused:?
P2v: For. Oy. I came back to this one because of the size, but it makes sense and I'm all for.
P2vi: For. Gee, I wonder who put that in there:smallbiggrin:.
P2vii: Against. This would piss me off, and I'm sure it'd do the same to others. A Voider for a voted position, on the other hand....
P2viii: Against. No thanks. The Inquisition and Gypsies didn't get along so well:smallyuk:.
P2ix: Against. I'll vote for if whoever put this up comes forward in pm or whatnot and promises to codify an economy.

[DrakebloodIV]

FOR- All of them*, surprisingly, we had a pretty epic round of props this time.

*To clarify for the rule nazi bookworm, by this I mean propositions 2i,2ii,2iii,2iv,2v,2vi,2vii,2viii,2ix,2x

[The Bookworm]

FOR- All of them, surprisingly, we had a pretty epic round of props this time.
Unfortunately, I believe this breaks Rule 5 and is an invalid vote. I would recommend changing it.

Votes should be listed in order of proposal Roman numeral, and specify which proposal they regard. If they do not, they may be declared invalid.

Edit: Also, Proposal 2vi contradicts Rule 7. If it is going to work, it should be an amendment to Rule 7.

[RedScholarGypsy]

Yea, just noticed that. Can it be switched to be an Amendment to rule 7 now PM? I don't see any rule expressly forbidding the altering of a Proposal as such. Did I miss it again?
Round 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6883676&postcount=89)
As of Post #116
P2i: 6/6
P2ii: 4/8
P2iii: 4/6
P2iv: 5/7
P2v: 11/1
P2vi: 12/0
P2vii: 4/8
P2viii: 6/6
P2ix: 4/7

RSG: 4/4
Murska: 3/2

Looks like no speaker today. Boo.

[PirateMonk]

Yea, just noticed that. Can it be switched to be an Amendment to rule 7 now PM? I don't see any rule expressly forbidding the altering of a Proposal as such. Did I miss it again?

There is no rule that expressly says that you can, which is the bigger issue. Rule 5 currently states that proposals are submitted and then announced, with no opportunity for change. A method more within the rules would be to have Adjudication find that it does not conflict with Rule 7. To that end, I move for Standard Adjudication on the question, "Does Proposal 2vi conflict with Rule 7?", with possible resolutions Yes, No, and Irrelevant. A vote on this will be held next round. "Irrelevant" should be selected if P2vi does not pass.

[The Bookworm]

DB's asterisk to the rule nazi (:smallbiggrin:) is legal, right? Also, Godwin's Law.

[RedScholarGypsy]

Fine by me. Also, I'm submitting myself for role as Speaker. Since it's just a 2/3 vote, and not a proposal, I believe this is legal. Please vote FOR or AGAINST me being elected. as I need 2/3 total players, a non-vote is a vote against. I'd need 9 votes FOR.

I vote FOR myself being elected as Speaker

[PirateMonk]

DB's asterisk to the rule nazi (:smallbiggrin:) is legal, right? Also, Godwin's Law.

Let's just say yes.

FOR RSG as Speaker, since it only matters when an odd number of people forget to vote unless we give him more power.

Also, I changed my vote on P2iii to Against as it conflicts with the statement in Rule 8 that players may vote on as few proposals as they wish to.

[The Bookworm]

I vote AGAINST RSG as the Speaker; you're too serious! :smalltongue:

[Reinholdt]

P2i: Against
P2ii: Against
P2iii: For That's what? 9 days?
P2iv: For KITTIES!
P2v: For Needed.
P2vi: For
P2vii: For Resulting chaos fun!
P2viii: Against I never liked them. *shoots the Spanish Inquisition with a shotgun*
P2ix: Against Keeping track of things as it is is difficult.

And just to muck things up, I vote Against RedScholarGypsy as speaker...
While simultaneously nominating Murska as speaker. Vote For Murska.

[evnafets]

P2i: For. Pretty much everyone votes on everything anyway
P2ii: Against with cookies!
P2iv: Against. I hatez dem I says. Don' make me do this!
P2v: Against. Can always just wait a turn or two to modify things.
P2vi: For.
P2vii: Against.
P2viii: For.

[Fin]

P2i: For - Although I'd like to see someone pull it off!
P2ii: For - I disagree it will get old, I have entered every WW game I have elver played with that phrase and it has never got dull!
P2iii: For - Encourages voting.
P2iv: Against - Too lazy to find so many Lolcats
P2v: For - Increase the proposal systems ease of use.
P2vi: For - Increases participation.
P2vii: For - Sounds sneaky, I like that!
P2viii: For - It's totally unexpected
P2ix: For - MOAR BOAR WANTS MOAR... Assets that is!

Also, FOR Murska as Speaker.
Against RSG as Speaker, because if he asks for it he must be up to something. Hios reign will be 25 rounds, in that time we could forget he was the Speaker and vote in his proposal to give the Speaker and insta-win!

I'm on to you RSG!

[Murska]

P2i: Against. Eh. Not that useful.
P2ii: Against. Less things to remember = good.
P2iii: Against. No requirement to vote is good?
P2iv: Against. Again things to remember.
P2v: For. Makes sense.
P2vi: For. New people!
P2vii: Against. Veto-right should be given to me and to me only! :smallbiggrin:
P2viii: For. I didn't expect that.
P2ix: Against. Maybe some day we'll have currency but... nah.

Me as a speaker? That way I can't win! FOR RSG as the speaker. AGAINST Murska as the speaker.

[The Bookworm]

Unfortunately, we can't force Murska to become the Speaker. It's against the rules, the Speaker must accept the position willingly.

[Murska]

Mwahaha! I ruined your evil plan! :smallbiggrin:

Then again, I'm totally going to accept the position if I accumulate enough votes and then ruin all your ties by voting for... uh, the less-wanted side? But if it's a tie... :smallconfused:

[The Bookworm]

Well, if you want it, I'll vote FOR Murska as Speaker.

[RedScholarGypsy]

...I'm not really interested in 'winning'. Man, why are you guys paranoid? You're afraid I'm going to manipulate the system, yet vote for Murska?:smallconfused:

You know what? FOR Murska. You can vote for both canidates; doesn't say you can't.:smalltongue: Take that!

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

P2i: Against
P2ii: Against
P2iii: Against
P2iv: For Mine!
P2v: For because I think I may have done that myself with P2iv. I was fairly sure P1vi would pass, though. And it did! Huzzah!
P2vi: For
P2vii: Against
P2viii: Against Though I don't see how it conflicts with P2ix.
P2ix: For

And For Murska as Speaker. We can't let Murska win! Also For RSG as speaker, because confusion is fun.:smalltongue:

[EnrgeticPenguin]

Can I join?

[PirateMonk]

Can I join?

Not yet, but we're working on changing the rules so that you can. Ask again in a few days.

[Orzel]

P2i: Against
P2ii: Against.
P2iv: Against.
P2v: For.
P2vi: For.
P2vii: Against. That'll just anger people
P2viii: Against. Too unexpected
P2ix: Against. We got points.

Against RSG and Murska as speaker
For whoever makes Post 114

[Haruki-kun]

Proposal 2i Type: Enactment - Against. I don't think people should win like this. Even if it's unlikely.

Proposal 2ii Type: Enactment - For. Something to remember. *thumbs up*

Proposal 2iii Type: Enactment - For. Auto-lynches, basically.

Proposal 2iv Type: Amendment - For.

Proposal 2v Type: Amendment - For. Makes the game more fluent.

Proposal 2vi Type: Enactment - For. No reason to object.

Proposal 2vii Type: Enactment - For. Makes it interesting.

Proposal 2viii Type: Enactment - Against. What is this i dont even

Proposal 2ix Type: Enactment - For. Let's see where it goes.

EDIT:

I have a question: Can scores become negative? I believe the score rule does not specify.

[Murska]

*makes the post 114* I think that if it doesn't specify, there's no reason for them to not go negative.

[Haruki-kun]

*makes the post 114* I think that if it doesn't specify, there's no reason for them to not go negative.

I agree. I suppose if it says 5 points are subtracted, the final result does not matter.

[MOD]

Proposal 2i Against. Lets give the speaker a chance to act mwhahahaha.

Proposal 2ii Type: Enactment - Against. I don't like it.

Proposal 2iii Type: Enactment - Against While I agree in principle the dead players need to be removed from the game not just lose voting and proposing privileges.

Proposal 2iv Type: Amendment - Against. Poor kitties I just can't give'em a chance this time...

Proposal 2v Type: Amendment - For.

Proposal 2vi Type: Enactment - For. New players = fun!

Proposal 2vii Type: Enactment - Against. Don't care for it as an automatic thing. However if if were a purchasable asset...

Proposal 2viii Type: Enactment - Against. I gotta say as much as I love Monty Python this asset does them no justice.:smallfrown:

Proposal 2ix Type: Enactment - Against I think we could use something more valuable the gps for currency...

[PirateMonk]

I have four proposals right now, and the round ends tonight. If you wish to make a proposal, please do it now.

[Orzel]

Okay guys, let's go for some more good proposals this time.

[PirateMonk]

ROUND TWO ENDS.

Proposal 2i has FAILED. Votes For: 6. Votes Against: 6.

Proposal 2ii has FAILED. Votes For: 4. Votes Against: 8.

Proposal 2iii has FAILED. Votes For: 4. Votes Against: 6.

Proposal 2iv has FAILED. Votes For: 5. Votes Against: 7.

Proposal 2v has PASSED. Rule 5 will be modified accordingly. Votes For: 11. Votes Against: 1.

Proposal 2vi has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 19. Votes For: 12. Votes Against: 0.

Proposal 2vii has FAILED. Votes For: 4. Votes Against: 8.

Proposal 2viii has FAILED. Votes For: 6. Votes Against: 6.

Proposal 2ix has FAILED. Votes For: 4. Votes Against: 7.

Please remember to review the new ruleset.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

ROUND THREE BEGINS. Remember to vote and send in any proposals you wish to have voted on in the Round Four.

Proposal 3i Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 17 to state the following:
Cute Kittens are a type of asset. The first time a player posts a lolcat in the thread during a round, one Cute Kitten is created in their possession. They can be transferred provided that both the giver and the recipient agree to it. A player can destroy Cute Kittens in their possession, but doing so makes them guilty of the heinous crime of Felicide, causing them to no longer be eligible to own Cute Kittens.
The Ceiling Cat is an office, charged with keeping track of Cute Kittens. The player with the most Cute Kittens holds the office. In the case of a tie, the previous holder retains it. Once per round, the Ceiling Cat must make a post in the thread stating how many Cute Kittens each player owns. The Ceiling Cat should also accurately respond to requests by players for the number of cute kitties they won. When players transfer or destroy Cute Kittens, they must inform the Ceiling Cat. The former Ceiling Cat must send their records to the new officeholder.

Proposal 3ii Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 11 to state the following after the description of Immediate Adjudication:
c.) Arbiter Adjudication, abbreviated as Arbitration. Arbitration may be invoked only if two or more players are involved in the dispute, and agree to Arbitration.
Each player involved in the dispute shall select an Arbiter, who together shall decide how best to resolve the dispute while maintianing the integrity and spirit of the Rules. If no unanimous agreement is reached after 72 hours, then it defaults to Standard Adjudication.
The Speaker is always an Arbiter, unless the Speaker is involved in the dispute; then the player shall be recused from the Arbitration, but is still allowed to appoint an Arbiter.
Any resolution resulting from Arbitration may be Vetoed by a 2/3 vote of total current players. If Vetoed, the dispute reverts back to Standard Adjudication.

Proposal 3iii Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 18 to state the following:
Every player has a score which initially starts at 20 points. Each time a players proposal is successfully adopted that player gains 10 points. Each time a players proposal is not adopted, they lose 5 points. A player wins if they manage to obtain 200 points. This is a Victory Condition.

Proposal 3iv Type: Amendment
Rule 16 is amended to read:
This rule introduces the role of Speaker. The Speaker is defined as follows:
The Speaker casts the deciding vote in the case of a tie.
The Speaker is elected by a 2/3 vote of total current players.
The Speaker must willingly accept the role.
The Speaker may be removed from the role via a 2/3 vote of total current players.
The Speaker can not win while in possession of the role of Speaker, and for 15 rounds afterwards.
There can only be one Speaker at a time.

Proposal 3v Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 3 to state the following:
The game is divided into several rounds. Rounds last roughly 72 hours. At the beginning of each round, the proposals submitted in the previous round are announced. At the end of the 72 hour period in a round the end of the round is announced and is a roughly 24 hour period. Votes can no longer be made for the current round. Votes are counted and it is announced which proposals passed and which failed. During the round, players vote on proposals. During the round or end of the round players can submit proposals to be voted on next round via private message to the person charged with announcing proposals.
Rounds are numbered. The first round is numbered 1. Later rounds are labeled with the number one greater than that of the previous round.

Proposal 3vi Type: Enactment
Wolf
Murska is a wolf. This is an asset that belongs to Murska. Anytime Murska's name comes up in thread after this proposal is passed it must be in red font color.

Proposal 3vii Type: Enactment
Incentives
Each player who votes against winning proposals shall receive 5 points each unless they are the only who does so. In that case of being to only one againt, that player loses 10 points.

Proposal 3viii Type: Enactment
Subsections
Any and all bills may have multiple subsections which can be voted on individually.
This rule takes precedence over any rule which would prevent subsections from being voted on individually.

Proposal 3ix Type: Enactment
Proxy Voting
By communicating their intentions to the game controller (as defined by rule 13), one player may delegate his voting and/or rule proposal rights to another player. Such rights may be reclaimed by their original owner immediately at any time by again communicating with the game controller.
Any proxies in effect will be announced by the controller at the start of each round.
This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require players to vote personally.

Proposal 3x Type: Enactment
Majority
If during any given round more than two thirds of the proposals are rejected, players must vote (during the next round) for a single one of the previous round's rejected proposals to be passed.

Adjudication: To resolve the question of, "Does Proposal 2vi [now Rule 19] conflict with Rule 7?" The choices are YES, NO, IRRELEVANT, or some other option you devise yourself. As Proposal 2vi passed, IRRELEVANT should not be chosen. If you vote for an option not listed and would like it to count the same as another player's vote, please say so explicitly.

NEW PLAYER: Enrgetic Penguin shall become a player. Vote FOR or AGAINST. Note that if YES wins in the Adjudication, this fails automatically.

SCORE
PirateMonk: 30
Murska: 20
Mordokai: 20
The Bookworm: 15
RedScholarGypsy: 30
Haruki-kun: 15
Orzel: 20
evnafets: 15
drakeblood4: 15
Fin: 15
MOD: 20
Reinholdt: 15
Shadowhisper: 15

[PirateMonk]

P3i: FOR. More, easy to acquire assets!
P3ii: FOR. A little weird, but could work.
P3iii: FOR. Wouldn't want anyone to win too soon.
P3iv: FOR. Makes being Speaker slightly more desirable, though it doesn't go far enough.
P3v: AGAINST. Confusing.
P3vi: AGAINST. Annoying.
P3vii: FOR. A similar system was in the original ruleset, but I left it out because I thought it should be imposed by the players.
P3viii: FOR, though keeping track of it all may get tiresome.
P3ix: FOR. People can't always be on the Internet.
P3x: AGAINST. People should have the right to reject as many rules as they want.

Adjudication: NO. While probably false, it saves the effort of amending Rule 7. Also, this thread could be considered to be recruiting once this is resolved.
New Player: FOR, though it will give us an even number.

[Haruki-kun]

Proposal 3i Against. For three reasons: One, too long. Did read, but too long and complicated. Two, gaining assets made ridiculously easy. Three, I love Memes, everyone here knows that, but LOLcats have become so incredibly overused that the Meme's been beaten to the point that it's barely even funny anymore. Besides, the point of Memes as far as comedy is concerned is to make them funny and unexpected, whereas here people would simply force them into the thread. Let's not do that.

Proposal 3ii For.

Proposal 3iii Against. 150, TOPS.

Proposal 3iv Against.

Proposal 3v For.

Proposal 3vi Against. My very nature says "let's bring in the sillies" but my in-game mind tells me "it'll get boring pretty fast and then you'll have to put up with it". Also: Yes, Murska's a wolf, I get it.

Proposal 3vii For, but I would like us to discuss amending this one a little in the next round.

Proposal 3viii For. Things are getting legal. :smalltongue: It would make voting for specific parts of a rule easier.

Proposal 3ix Against.

Proposal 3x For.

Adjudication: YES. Rule 7 must be amended right away.
Meh, NO, I guess.

NEW PLAYER: For

[RedScholarGypsy]

3i: ABSTAIN:...WTF?!?:smallconfused::smalltongue:
3ii:FOR: I don't know...I think the system we have is fine, but I like options. And it uses the Speaker, so yeah, it gets my vote:smallsmile:.
3iii:FOR: I voted against the 100 pt victory, so extending it further away is the next best thing.
3iv:FOR: Alright, I get it, yeesh.:smalltongue:
3v:AGAINST: I don't think this is necessary now, with Prop 2v passing. And it'll slow things down.
3vi:FOR: This made me giggle. Any prop that makes me giggle gets my vote.
3vii: AGAINST: This seems counterproductive, and I'm wholly against points for the sake of points.
3viii: FOR: I get the feeling my Speaker bill would have had a lot less trouble with this, and it may happen in the future.
3ix: FOR: I was probably going to write this soon. I fully back this.
3x: FOR: Given some close calls we've had, I wouldn't mind this.

Adjucation: NO I don't want my rule to die:smallfrown:.

New Player: FOR The more the merrier!

[RedScholarGypsy]

Dude, Haruki, YES means you think there is a conflict, and thus the new rule dies. You mean NO, right? YAY!:smallbiggrin: *My apologies. The u and i are next to one another. Ask Mordokai how I butchered that name some time >.>.
Round 3 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6904791&postcount=119)
As of post #135
3i: 3/5
3ii: 6/3
3iii: 7/2
3iv: 8/1
3v: 1/8
3vi: 4/5
3vii: 6/3
3viii: 5/4
3ix: 6/3
3x: 2/7

Adjudication(Y/N): 0/8

Player: 9/0

[Reinholdt]

P3i: FOR. KITTIES!
P3ii: FOR. Sure I guess.
P3iii: AGAINST. I prefer the short to the long. Or at the very least the reasonably timed.
P3iv: FOR. Do we have a speaker yet?
P3v: AGAINST. Tempting though it was to vote for.
P3vi: FOR. Gives Murska an asset.
P3vii: FOR. Makes things... intriguing. Get a rule you want passed or get 5 points?
P3viii: AGAINST It'll cause extreme voting and points related mayhem.
P3ix: FOR. RL woes.
P3x: AGAINST. So we're supposed to pick the least of the evils to get passed? Nah.

Adjudication: NO. To save Litigation
New Player: FOR This time...

[Haruki-kun]

Hariki

........... :smallfrown:

[Orzel]

P3i: AGAINST
P3ii: FOR. Sure I guess.
P3iii: FOR
P3iv: FOR.
P3v: AGAINST.
P3vi: FOR.
P3vii: FOR.
P3viii: AGAINST
P3ix: FOR. RL woes indeed.
P3x: AGAINST The rule needs something

Adjudication: NO.
New Player: FOR

[Mordokai]

Proposal 3i: Against Too complicated.

Proposal 3ii: Against Read the above.

Proposal 3iii: For I guess it's more reasonable.

Proposal 3iv: For

Proposal 3v: Against

Proposal 3vi: Against Oh hell no! I have enough problems with formating these posts as it is.

Proposal 3vii: For Should make things more interesting.

Proposal 3viii: Against

Proposal 3ix: Against

Proposal 3x: Against

Adjudication: Irrelevant.

NEW PLAYER: For

[Murska]

P3i: AGAINST. Eh. Don't like.
P3ii: FOR. Sounds good.
P3iii: FOR. The whole point of the game is to take a long time and amass a large ruleset. Thus, it needs to not end.
P3iv: FOR. Um. How'd the speaker voting go last round?
P3v: AGAINST. Meh.
P3vi: AGAINST. But I'm not a wolf!
P3vii: AGAINST. I don't like the point system anyway.
P3viii: AGAINST. Isn't that like multiple proposals?
P3ix: FOR. Yeah. Someone might be away.
P3x: AGAINST. What Piratemonk said.

Abjudication: NO
New Player: FOR

EDIT: Right, no speaker yet. Well, I say FOR Murska and FOR RSG as the speaker since we need a decision.

[RedScholarGypsy]

Oh, yea. Same, FOR Murska and FOR RSG. Maybe 2/3 was asking too much. I think I'll alter that.

[The Bookworm]

Proposal 3i: AGAINST- Lolcats, you may be posted, but you have NO game effect!
Proposal 3ii: AGAINST- It's still clunky, and I don't see the point.
Proposal 3iii: FOR- Makes it take a little longer.
Proposal 3iv: FOR- More reasonable.
Proposal 3v: AGAINST- 72 hour rounds are good; they don't need to be shorter!
Proposal 3vi: FOR- This is funny, and not too game-effecting.
Proposal 3vii: FOR- Mixes things up, in a good way! Fun with points.
Proposal 3viii: FOR- What I was going for with the Amendment Proposal in Round 1, but more elegant.
Proposal 3ix: FOR- RL struggles. Just don't let anyone get too much power.
Proposal 3x: AGAINST- No.
Adjucation: NO.
New Player: Yes.

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

ABSTAIN from voting.

Adjudication: Will update once I've read the new ruleset. Complicated.:smallsigh: No.
New Player: YES.

[Haruki-kun]

How much time left? A day?

[PirateMonk]

How much time left? A day?

Two days. If anyone wants to shorten it, they are free to, but updates do take awhile.

[Haruki-kun]

Two days. If anyone wants to shorten it, they are free to, but updates do take awhile.

I wouldn't mind shortening it to 48 hours, but first I wanna hear what the others think, before even considering a proposal.

[DrakebloodIV]

Proposal 3i For- I so wanna commit some felicide.

Proposal 3ii Against- Time consuming and confusing.

Proposal 3iii For- More time is good, and we can eventually get some serious point insanity in this.
Proposal 3iv For- Don't really care much about this one, but I'm sure that the speaker will like it.

Proposal 3v Against- Slows the game, quite a bit. And not much use to the slowing.

Proposal 3vi Against- Murska, quit trying to give yourself superpowers.

Proposal 3vii Against- Makes the voting pattern look wierd. People will intentionally vote against close bills if this happens.

Proposal 3viii For

Proposal 3ixAgainst- Cause if this one is enacted Im going to make myself some proxy slaves to abuse it. Just for gigs.

Proposal 3x Against- What if they're crappy props, like this one?

Adjudication: IRRELEVANT, or No

NEW PLAYER: FOR

[Uncle Festy]

*applies to join*

[TehSheen]

Could I also apply to join? Thanks.

[DrakebloodIV]

Next two applicants: For

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

Next two applicants: For as well.

[Reinholdt]

Uncle Festy: For
TehSheen: For

[RedScholarGypsy]

Uncle Festy: FOR
TehSheen: FOR

[PirateMonk]

Uncle Festy: FOR
TehSheen: FOR

If we get too many more players, we should probably move away from the centralized submission model of proposals, to avoid breaking my Inbox.

[Haruki-kun]

Uncle Festy: FOR
TehSheen: FOR

If we get too many more players, we should probably move away from the centralized submission model of proposals, to avoid breaking my Inbox.

FOR Both.
Anything in mind?

[Mordokai]

For both new players.

[PirateMonk]

Anything in mind?

I'm contemplating several options, including a committee system as seen in many legislative bodies and simply allowing people to submit proposals into a pool where they remain until they can be voted on.

[Haruki-kun]

I'm contemplating several options, including a committee system as seen in many legislative bodies and simply allowing people to submit proposals into a pool where they remain until they can be voted on.

OK, I have an idea. Tell me what you guys think:

I propose an amendment for Rule 13. The amendment would make the players take turns being in charge, so no single person would be overwhelmed with proposals.

Another reason why I'd like to implement this rule is that PirateMonk is a player, too. But while we all see the Anonymous proposals, he is able to see who submitted what every round. This would make everyone an equal player.

Sound right?

[PirateMonk]

OK, I have an idea. Tell me what you guys think:

I propose an amendment for Rule 13. The amendment would make the players take turns being in charge, so no single person would be overwhelmed with proposals.

Another reason why I'd like to implement this rule is that PirateMonk is a player, too. But while we all see the Anonymous proposals, he is able to see who submitted what every round. This would make everyone an equal player.

Sound right?

That could work in the short term, but eventually we should move toward something more decentralized. We don't have to, but it would make things more manageable and interesting.

[RedScholarGypsy]

Making it decentralized while keeping Proposals Anonymous is going to be rather difficult. I've tried to think of a solution but I got nothing.

[DrakebloodIV]

Howbout we outsource it to a nonvoting third party that just posts up the anonymous props?

[PirateMonk]

Making it decentralized while keeping Proposals Anonymous is going to be rather difficult. I've tried to think of a solution but I got nothing.

Rule 14 is not a permanent part of the game.

Anyway, update coming soon, get any proposals you want to submit in.

^: In general, people who aren't playing either don't have time, haven't noticed it yet, or aren't interested in being involved, and thus are unlikely to be interested in updating for us.

[Haruki-kun]

That could work in the short term, but eventually we should move toward something more decentralized. We don't have to, but it would make things more manageable and interesting.

True dat. Well, adding a power division sort of thing would be a good option but we'd need to plan ahead a lot.

[PirateMonk]

ROUND THREE ENDS.

Proposal 3i has FAILED. Votes For: 3. Votes Against: 5.

Proposal 3ii has PASSED. Rule 11 will be amended accordingly. Votes For: 6. Votes Against: 3.

Proposal 3iii has PASSED. Rule 18 will be amended accordingly. Votes For: 6. Votes Against: 3.

Proposal 3iv has PASSED. Rule 16 will be amended accordingly. Votes For: 7. Votes Against: 2.

Proposal 3v has FAILED. Votes For: 1. Votes Against: 8.

Proposal 3vi has FAILED. Votes For: 4. Votes Against: 5.

Proposal 3vii has PASSED. It will be added to the Ruleset as Rule 20. Votes For: 5. Votes Against: 4.

Proposal 3viii has PASSED. It will be added to the rules as Rule 21. Votes For: 5. Votes Against: 4.

Proposal 3ix has PASSED. It will be added to the rules as Rule 22. Votes For: 6. Votes Against: 3.

Proposal 3x has FAILED. Votes For: 2. Votes Against: 7.

It has been resolved that no conflict exists between Rule 19 and Rule 7.

Enrgetic Penguin, Uncle Festy, and TehSheen have received sufficient votes to become players.

Please remember to review the new ruleset.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

ROUND FOUR BEGINS. Remember to vote and send in any proposals you wish to have voted on in the Round Five.

Proposal 4i Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 2 to add the following to the end:
However, a unanimous vote of all voting players for a new rule grants precedence over all rules save rule 1.

Proposal 4ii Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 14 to state:
The being responsible for receiving and announcing proposals must announce all proposals without giving the authors name and announce them in no particular order unless the author of said proposal specifically states that he wants his name to be known.

Proposal 4iii Type: Enactment
Sacred Abstention
No rule may be created that in any way chastises players for abstaining from sending proposals or voting.
This rule takes precedence over any rule that forces players to vote.

Proposal 4iv Type: Enactment
Fruits and Vegetables
Any proposal that involves a fruit or vegetable starts with 4 votes for it.
This rule takes precedence over any rule limiting votes to players.

Proposal 4v Type: Enactment
The Scorekeeper
The Scorekeeper is an office, charged with keeping track of points. Each round, the Scorekeeper announces in the thread how many points each player has. The Scorekeeper should reply to requests by players for how many points they currently have in a timely manner. At the end of each round, if the author of each proposal is not known publicly, the entity charged with announcing proposals must inform the Scorekeeper by private message which player authored which proposal, so that their scores may be updated accordingly. A proposal can appoint a player Scorekeeper, provided the player accepts, or forcibly remove the current Scorekeeper. The Scorekeeper can resign at any time. If there is no Scorekeeper, the entity charged with announcing proposals must track scores.

Proposal 4vi Type: Enactment
Starting Assets
The following assets are created and given to the players as indicated:
PirateMonk: Soup Bowl
Murska: Ping-Pong Paddle
Mordokai: Unicorn Shield
The Bookworm: Encyclopedia
RedScholarGypsy: Scimitar
Haruki-kun: Halo
Orzel: Axe
evnafets: Pony
drakeblood4: Full Faced Helm
Fin: Cake
MOD: Rapier
Reinholdt: Sniper Rifle
Shadowhisper: Lava Lamp
Players entering the game or those without any assets at any time may choose one of the following items. It becomes a created asset in their possession.

Piece of Lint
Bag of Dice
Scissors
Button
Toothbrush
Flashlight
Crayons
Lightbulb
Flea Circus
Moldy Bread


Proposal 4vii Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 13 to state the following:
Upon approval of this amendment a thread will be created by PirateMonk with the intent of finding a player to oversee the posting of anonymous propositions on the main Nomic thread. Once a volunteer is found, Piratemonk will immediately give all proposition information to him/her for that round, post the name of the volunteer on the main thread and all propositions after that time will be sent to the new candidate. Piratemonk may still count votes, maintain the rules, and post threads if he wishes. Otherwise, those rights are ceded to the candidate. If the candidate at any time resigns those rights are immediately voted off in the next round.

SCORE
PirateMonk: 25
Murska: 30
Mordokai: 20
The Bookworm: 25
RedScholarGypsy: 40
Haruki-kun: 10
Orzel: 30
evnafets: 25
drakeblood4: 25
Fin: 15
MOD: 15
Reinholdt: 10
Shadowhisper: 15
Enrgetic Penguin: 20
Uncle Festy: 20
TehSheen: 20

[PirateMonk]

P4i FOR, though I doubt we'll see many unanimous votes, given Rule 20.
P4ii FOR. Choices are good, though you could just claim it.
P4iii FOR. I agree.
P4iv FOR. I've been considering a rule making Fruit a category of asset.
P4v FOR. Mine. Having to track scores makes updates longer.
P4vi FOR. Uh...
P4vii AGAINST, for reasons stated on the previous page. Also, it would create thread clutter.

[Uncle Festy]

Proposal 4i For. Sounds fun.
Proposal 4ii For. Why not.
Proposal 4iii For. Awesome.
Proposal 4iv Against. The vegetablesss! They burnsss usss!
Proposal 4v Against. Meh.
Proposal 4vi Against, if only because I don't get a unique asset. :smallfrown:
Proposal 4vii Against. I doubt anyone would want to bother with that.
Also, *pokes PM to put in the new scores*

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

P4i: For
P4ii: For
P4iii: For
P4iv: For
P4v: For
P4vi: For Yay, Lava Lamp! Sorry Festy!
P4vii: Against Complicated rule is complicated.

[MOD]

P4i Against, Rule 20.
P4ii FOR. Sounds decent enough.
P4iii Against. We may need to be able to remove players at some point and the word "Chastize" is incredibly vague and could lead to bad situations.
P4iv FOR. Um, Yes.
P4v FOR. Sounds pretty good and reasonable.
P4vi FOR. Sure why not.
P4vii AGAINST, If this rule goes into effect it could lead to a win by unplayability for the proposer. Also its needlessly complicated and not in an oots ha ha sort of way.

[Haruki-kun]

Proposal 4i For.

Proposal 4ii For. Though I see no reason people can't just say which rule belongs to them in the thread.

Proposal 4iii For. Life happens.

Proposal 4iv Against

Proposal 4v For

Proposal 4vi For. Yay!

Proposal 4vii Against.

[Reinholdt]

P4i: Against
P4ii: Against
P4iii: Against
P4iv: Against
P4v: Against
P4vi: Against
P4vii: Against

*waves hand with Jedi Mind trick*
There is no pattern.

[RedScholarGypsy]

4i: FOR: Little to lose, and seeing as how 2/3 votes can't be had...:smallannoyed:.
4ii: FOR: Fine by me. Credit where credit is due.
4iii: FOR: Keep the game friendly.
4iv: AGAINST: No, this sounds like a sneaky way to get bad proposals a lot of votes.
4v: AGAINST: Oh no. No sneaky "Find out who wrote what" roles. Either everyone knows, or only the proposal Master.
At the end of each round, if the author of each proposal is not known publicly, the entity charged with announcing proposals must inform the Scorekeeper by private message which player authored which proposal, so that their scores may be updated accordingly. Nice try. I smell a Murska:smallyuk:.
4vi: FOR: I'll all for me having a scimitar. I remember I played a Red Head in Forlorn, Ravenloft. Innate Flame Scimitar and only subduel damage coming from the goblyns, because they wanted to take me alive. Heh, good times, good times.
4vii: AGAINST: Good catch MOD. Didn't see that until you pointed it out.

Once again, please vote for a player to fill the position of Speaker. You can vote for as many people as you want.
RSG FOR Speaker
Murska FOR Speaker

[RedScholarGypsy]

Round 4 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6923145&postcount=152)
As of Post #165
4i: 8/3
4ii: 10/1
4iii: 7/4
4iv: 6/5
4v: 7/4
4vi: 9/2
4vii: 0/11

Speaker:
RSG: 4
Murska: 5

[EnrgeticPenguin]

P4i FOR.
P4ii FOR.
P4iii Against.
P4iv Against.
P4v FOR.
P4vi FOR.
P4vii AGAINST.

Edit: For Murska as speaker.

[Orzel]

P4i: For
P4ii: For
P4iii: For
P4iv: For
P4v: For
P4vi: For
P4vii: Against Makes game unplayable


RSG FOR Speaker
Murska FOR Speaker

[The Bookworm]

P4i: AGAINST- All hail the natural order of precedence!
P4ii: FOR- Seems straightforward.
P4iii: AGAINST- I don't like protected categories.
P4iv: FOR- They're good for you...
P4v: FOR- If it's easier for PirateMonk...
P4vi: FOR- I want an encyclopedia!
P4vii: AGAINST- Not a neat system.

[Reinholdt]

I vote For everyone to be speaker. Except me.

There. That should cover all the bases.

[Murska]

P4i: For
P4ii: For
P4iii: For
P4iv: For
P4v: Against RSG has a point.
P4vi: For
P4vii: Against Makes game unplayable


RSG FOR Speaker
Murska FOR Speaker

Blatant copying. :smallsmile:

[PirateMonk]

P4vii AGAINST, If this rule goes into effect it could lead to a win by unplayability for the proposer.

How, exactly?

[MOD]

Rule 13
Rule 13: Me!
PirateMonk is charged with receiving and announcing proposals, counting votes, maintaining the rules, and posting threads.

Proposal
Amend Rule 13 to state the following:
Upon approval of this amendment a thread will be created by PirateMonk with the intent of finding a player to oversee the posting of anonymous propositions on the main Nomic thread. Once a volunteer is found, Piratemonk will immediately give all proposition information to him/her for that round, post the name of the volunteer on the main thread and all propositions after that time will be sent to the new candidate. Piratemonk may still count votes, maintain the rules, and post threads if he wishes. Otherwise, those rights are ceded to the candidate. If the candidate at any time resigns those rights are immediately voted off in the next round.

Because the proposal replaces the current text of rule 13 there would be no person responsible for announcing or receiving proposals.

[PirateMonk]

Because the proposal replaces the current text of rule 13 there would be no person responsible for announcing or receiving proposals.

That's mostly my fault, I recommended that it be an amendment to Rule 13 and then didn't have it edited thoroughly enough. However, it's pretty much impossible to win under Rule 12 without removing Adjudication, as that can be used to reach any conclusion the players wish, no matter how absurd. In this case, it would be a relatively minor stretch to say that "oversee the posting of anonymous proposals" means actually posting them.

[Haruki-kun]

I switched my vote from for to against on that proposal.

[MOD]

That's mostly my fault, I recommended that it be an amendment to Rule 13 and then didn't have it edited thoroughly enough. However, it's pretty much impossible to win under Rule 12 without removing Adjudication, as that can be used to reach any conclusion the players wish, no matter how absurd. In this case, it would be a relatively minor stretch to say that "oversee the posting of anonymous proposals" means actually posting them.

Sad to say but in this game having to stretch any portion of the rules to accommodate a continuance of play could lead to unplayability. After all this game is basically all about understanding exactly how the literal text of a proposal effects the entirety of the ruleset.

That's why when anyone posts an amendment to the original 13 rules the amendment needs to be especially scrutinized b/c even leaving out a single sentence could end the game.

[PirateMonk]

Sad to say but in this game having to stretch any portion of the rules to accommodate a continuance of play could lead to unplayability. After all this game is basically all about understanding exactly how the literal text of a proposal effects the entirety of the ruleset.

That's why when anyone posts an amendment to the original 13 rules the amendment needs to be especially scrutinized b/c even leaving out a single sentence could end the game.

Under Rule 11, the literal text of a proposal affects the ruleset exactly as a majority of the players say it does.

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

Oh ya, whoops.

RSG For Speaker
Murska For Speaker

[Orzel]

Orzel wants to start selling votes for assets and future votes.

Of course...

A proposal limiting the amount of purchased and sold votes used at once will be needed.

[RedScholarGypsy]

My next proposal will be a method of increasing the assets in game in a fun manner. So with any luck, we can start a pseudo-economy.

[PirateMonk]

ROUND FOUR ENDS.

Proposal 4i has PASSED. Rule 2 will be amended accordingly. Votes For: 8. Votes Against: 3.

Proposal 4ii has PASSED. Rule 14 will be amended accordingly. Votes For: 10. Votes Against: 1.

Proposal 4iii has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 23. Votes For: 7. Votes Against: 4.

Proposal 4iv has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 24. Votes For: 6. Votes Against: 5.

Proposal 4v has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 25. Votes For: 7. Votes Against: 4.

Proposal 4vi has PASSED. Votes For: 4. Votes Against: 5.

Proposal 4vii has FAILED. Votes For: 0. Votes Against: 11.

Please remember to review the new ruleset.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

ROUND FIVE BEGINS. Remember to vote and send in any proposals you wish to have voted on in the Round Six.

Proposal 5i Type: Appointment
Evnafets is appointed Scorekeeper.

Proposal 5ii Type: Enactment
Auction House
This proposal creates the Auction House. It shall work as follows:
Each player is given 100 credits(C), which shall be the unit of currency for auctions, and is given an additional 10C at the beginning of each new round. During the round after this proposal passes, each player may submit up to three ideas for Assets to be auctioned. Ideas are submitted via pm to the Auctioneer, who may be replaced by a majority vote.
Subsection 1: The first Auctioneer is RedScholarGypsy
Subsection 2: Players joining the game after this proposal passes receive 100 credits plus 5 for each round since the passing, and may submit an Asset idea to the pool.
Subsection 3: Players joining the game after this proposal passes receive 100 credits plus 10 for each round since the passing, and may submit an Asset idea to the pool. This Subsection supersedes Subsection 2
The next round and every round after, 3 Assets are randomly selected by the Auctioneer and placed for auction. Bids are public, separate for each Asset, and start at 1C. Bidding ends when the round ends. The player with the highest bid for each Asset receives the Asset; the player with the second highest bid for each asset submits a new Asset idea to replace the one auctioned off.
Subsection 4: No idea that duplicates an idea already in the pool will be accepted. This includes minor alterations of an item. Example:Strawberry Cake, Cheescake, and Ice Cream Cake are all duplicates of Cake. The player who proposes the duplicate may propose a different item.

Proposal 5iii Type: Enactment
Untitled
The phrase "total current players" in all rules is defined as "the players that have voted in this particular issue."

Proposal 5iv Type: Enactment
Hold
Instead of voting, a player can choose to place a proposal on HOLD. Proposals on HOLD lose all votes and cannot be voted on until the next round. Any player can add any changes on proposals on HOLD.

SCORE
PirateMonk: 35
Murska: 45
Mordokai: 20
The Bookworm: 35
RedScholarGypsy: 60
Haruki-kun: 25
Orzel: 40
evnafets: 25
drakeblood4: 20
Fin: 15
MOD: 25
Reinholdt: 55
Shadowhisper: 15
Enrgetic Penguin: 30
Uncle Festy: 35
TehSheen: 20

[PirateMonk]

P5i FOR. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their proposals, and me doing less work. AGAINST because of Rule 20.
P5ii AGAINST. This either creates lots of useless assets or allows people to create assets do anything they want. Both sound like bad ideas.
P5iii FOR. Maybe we'll finally get a Speaker. AGAINST because of Rule 20.
P5iv AGAINST. I'm not really sure what this is trying to say, but it sounds like it allows for unilateral veto and amendment of proposals. Bad idea.

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

I Abstain from voting this round.

[Murska]

P5i FOR. Eh, why not?
P5ii AGAINST. I think this has to somehow give restrictions on what the assets do?
P5iii FOR. Yeah.
P5iv AGAINST. What Piratemonk said.

FOR RSG and Murska as Speaker.

[Uncle Festy]

P5i FOR.
P5ii AGAINST.
P5iii FOR.
P5iv AGAINST.

For RSG and Murska as speaker.

[Haruki-kun]

Proposal 5i For

Proposal 5ii Against Blah.

Proposal 5iii For

Proposal 5iv Against People already voted against vetoes. This is the same.

[Murska]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/funny-pictures-cat-sits-on-cat.jpg

*plays with his ping-pong paddle*

[RedScholarGypsy]

5i: FOR As long as we watch for win conditions based on roles, sure.
5ii: FOR Oh well, they can't all be winners.
5iii: FOR Fine by me.
5iv: AGAINST Same as above

[Reinholdt]

P5i AGAINST.
P5ii AGAINST.
P5iii AGAINST.
P5iv AGAINST.

For Everyone as speaker.

[evnafets]

P5i no vote. I shall abstain from this issue.
P5ii AGAINST. Heck the rule already has overridings within itself (section 3 overriding section 2). Why would we start with such a convoluted rule.
P5iii AGAINST. I think a better definition for "Total Current Players" can be defined. This one basically says only consider the people who have actually voted on any given issue, which can potentially leave people out. Also how long is a vote to be kept open? If you leave it open for 5 minutes, one person votes, and it closes, by this definition of "total current players" the rule would pass.
P5iv AGAINST. If anyone is allowed to do this, it should only be the person who is proposing the issue in the first place.

[Orzel]

5i: FOR
5ii: AGIANST too many assests
5iii: FOR Fine by me too.
5iv: FOR It's not a meant as a veto. It's is supposed to allow players to change proposals before voting. This is for when a propsal is a good idea but has a flaw. You could give up voting for the round and change the proposal, instead of creating a new one next one after the old one fails.

I was going to make a HOLD can be overturned by any appointed officer buy I feared the "Oh! too complex! AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST".

[Murska]

But eh, you can still just have a proposal fail and submit it again with changes the next round?

[RedScholarGypsy]

But we can vote for or against subsections now can't we? That's why I included them. Grrr...

[Orzel]

But we can vote for or against subsections now can't we? That's why I included them. Grrr...

When a long proposal that doesn't grant assets or is not absolutely needed passes, I might use subsections.

[Haruki-kun]

But eh, you can still just have a proposal fail and submit it again with changes the next round?

You can even submit the same proposal again. I believe there's no rule against it.

[MOD]

P5i FOR.
P5ii AGAINST.
P5iii FOR.
P5iv AGAINST.

I WANT MORE PROPOSALS TO VOTE ON! START PROPOSING! COME ON PEOPLE!

For Murska as Speaker

[The Bookworm]

P5i: FOR- Huzzah! Evnafets!
P5ii: AGAINST- No dice.
P5iii: AGAINST- No.
P5iv: AGAINST- Likewise.

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

Everyone except me For Speaker.

[TehSheen]

P5i: FOR
P5ii: AGAINST
P5iii: FOR
P5iv: AGAINST

[Orzel]

Orzel is selling and buying votes at a rate of 1 vote for 5 points.

Get them while they are hot!

[PirateMonk]

Orzel is selling and buying votes at a rate of 1 vote for 5 points.

Get them while they are hot!

Currently, we are not allowed to get them, as there is no mechanism for point exchange.

[Orzel]

Booo.

Can I sell votes for votes at least?

[PirateMonk]

Booo.

Can I sell votes for votes at least?

As long as you don't mind it being completely informal and unenforceable.

[Haruki-kun]

Mental Note: Do not approve rules for point exchange....

[Mordokai]

P5i Against.
P5ii For.
P5iii Against.
P5iv For.

*pilfers the pockets of the first pirate to show up*

[PirateMonk]

Update coming soon. Send in any last-minute proposals as soon as you can.

[PirateMonk]

ROUND FIVE ENDS.

Proposal 5i has PASSED. Evnafets is now the Scorekeeper. He should begin tracking scores, and, starting in round 7, make a post listing scores every round. Votes For: 8. Votes Against: 3.

Proposal 5ii has FAILED. Votes For: 2. Votes Against: 10.

Proposal 5iii has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 27. Votes For: 7. Votes Against: 5.

Proposal 5iv has FAILED. Votes For: 2. Votes Against: 10.

Please remember to review the new ruleset.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

ROUND SIX BEGINS. Remember to vote and send in any proposals you wish to have voted on in the Round Seven.

Proposal 6i Type: Amendment
This proposal has two subsections, both amending Rule 26.
a. Amend the text between the lists of assets to read:
Players entering the game or those without any assets at any time may choose one of the following items or an item of their choice not mentioned anywhere in the rules. If this is done, the new item must be declared in the thread. It becomes a created asset in their possession.
b. Add the following to the end of the rule:
When this proposal is put into effect, a random player will be given the Rubber Chicken. This is an Asset, and has no effect.

Proposal 6ii Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 27 to read the following:
The phrase "total current players" in all rules is defined as "the players that have voted in this particular issue." Players may choose to vote "Abstained" in order to make their votes count.

Proposal 6iii Type: Enactment
Asset Responsibility
Each round, once per round, each player must post what assets they currently possess, if any. Failure to do so invalidates any votes they made that round.

Proposal 6iv Type: Amendment

Proposals can enact one rule, repeal one rule, amend one rule, or do anything else the rules state they can do.

This proposal amends sentence six of rule 5 to the following.
Proposals can enact rules, repeal rules, amend rules, or do anything else the rules state they can do. If a proposal includes more than one change to the rules it must have a subsection per change.

Proposal 6v Type: Enactment; Author: PirateMonk
Political Parties
The Voter Registrar is an office, charged with tracking the existence, membership, and leadership of political parties. Each round, the Voter Registrar must make a post in the thread clearly listing the active political parties, and all the members and the leaders of each. A proposal can appoint a player Voter Registrar, provided the player accepts, or forcibly remove the current Voter Registrar. The Voter Registrar can resign at any time. The Voter Registrar cannot be a member of any political party.
When there is a Voter Registrar, political parties can be formed. To form a political party, all players who are to be members must send a private message to the Voter Registrar stating what they wish their party to be called, who they wish their leader to be, and who they wish to be the members of the party. If there is any meaningful inconsistency between the messages, or one or more of the people listed as members in the message fail to send a message to the Voter Registrar in a timely manner, the attempt to form a party fails. Otherwise, the party is formed, and the Voter Registrar must make a post in the thread announcing the name, members, and leader of the party as soon as is convenient.
For most purposes, the leader of a political party counts as a member of it.
If there is no Voter Registrar, the membership and leadership of all political parties cannot change.
New members can be added to the party after formation if the person wishing to join and a majority of the current members of the party, including the leader, send a message to the Voter Registrar stating that the person should be added. Current members can be removed through a similar process. Any member can remove themself from a political party by sending a message to the Voter Registrar to that effect. The leader can be replaced if a majority of current members send a message to the Voter Registrar stating that they wish to replace the current leader with the same specific person. The former leader becomes an ordinary member of the party.
The members of a single political party can never consist of a majority of the eligible voters or control a majority of the votes. If, at any time, this would be the case, the Voter Registrar must randomly select a member of the offending political party and remove them from their party. Membership in political parties is restricted to players. If a person ceases to be a player, they cease to be a member of their political party, if any. Each player cannot be a member of more than one political party at a time.
If, at any time, one or more members of a political party would win the game, all other members of that party satisfy the Victory Condition of Partisanship, and also win the game before it ends. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would cause the game to end before the other members of the party win.

Proposal 6vi Type: Enactment
Exchange
Players can buy and sell points, assets, or future votes. A player cannot spend more than 5 purchased votes on a single proposal.

Proposal 6vii Type: Enactment
Item Avatars
Anyone who owns a unique item may recieve a bonus vote for making or having made an avatar of the item, and an additional bonus vote if five or more people think the avatar is funny. Bonus votes are useable in any round unless removed by another rule.

Proposal 6viii Type: Enactment
The Spanish Inquisition
Did you expect us? Of course not! Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, and a nice red uniform! All of these are assets controlled by the first player to post a python inspired link/video/picture. Second player, right, second. Wait, no third. The third player to post a python inspired picture/link/video gets those assets, as well as the asset Spanish Inquisition. Wait,, we'll come in again.

Officers
Scorekeeper: Evnafets

SCORE
PirateMonk: 55
Murska: 45
Mordokai: 30
The Bookworm: 40
RedScholarGypsy: 55
Haruki-kun: 25
Orzel: 35
evnafets: 30
drakeblood4: 20
Fin: 15
MOD: 35
Reinholdt: 45
Shadowhisper: 15
Enrgetic Penguin: 30
Uncle Festy: 35
TehSheen: 20

[PirateMonk]

P6i a. FOR. b. AGAINST. Let's try the minimize the superfluous assets.
P6ii AGAINST. An Abstain vote would be indistinguishable from an Against vote.
P6iii AGAINST. Sounds like an attempt to abuse Rule 26.
P6iv FOR. Makes proposals more powerful, though things could get hard to keep track of.
P6v FOR. Yes, it's very, very long, but it's trying to define and describe every facet of an complex concept. If this passes, I have some other political proposals lined up to expand on it.
P6vi AGAINST. Poorly worded and a bad idea.
P6vii AGAINST. Rewards people who can draw too much.
P6viii AGAINST. Just because you can slightly modify and repropose something doesn't mean you should.

[The Bookworm]

P6i: a) AGAINST, b) AGAINST- Nope.
P6ii: AGAINST- What PM said: How is abstain different than against?
P6iii: AGAINST- Discourages assets.
P6iv: AGAINST- Too powerful.
P6v: FOR- Adds a new element.
P6vi: AGAINST- Expand the mechanic!
P6vii: FOR- Avatars are fun!
P6viii: FOR- I didn't expect them to pop back up.

[Reinholdt]

P6i a. AGAINST. b. AGAINST.
P6ii AGAINST.
P6iii AGAINST.
P6iv AGAINST.
P6v AGAINST.
P6vi AGAINST.
P6vii AGAINST.
P6viii AGAINST. Go away you annoying inquisition. *backhands*

For everyone besides me as speaker.

[PirateMonk]

I misread or misremembered Rule 20, thinking it caused the sole opposition to a proposal to gain 10 points instead of losing 10. I know it's a little late, but if there are no objections, I'll lower Reinholdt's score by 20 points for P4ii.

[Reinholdt]

I misread or misremembered Rule 20, thinking it caused the sole opposition to a proposal to gain 10 points instead of losing 10. I know it's a little late, but if there are no objections, I'll lower Reinholdt's score by 20 points for P4ii.
Wait. It does? :smalleek:
*scrambles off to reread*
I misread too. Bah! :smallfrown:

[PirateMonk]

The scores have been fixed. I'm now tied for first (with RedScholarGypsy), which is completely coincidental. Honest.

[Reinholdt]

The scores have been fixed. I'm now tied for first (with RedScholarGypsy), which is completely coincidental. Honest.
OBJECTION!!

I motion that you have no right to change my score on the basis that you are not the scorekeeper.

[PirateMonk]

OBJECTION!!

I motion that you have no right to change my score on the basis that you are not the scorekeeper.

The rules don't say that I can't track scores if there is a Scorekeeper, only that I have to if there isn't.

[Reinholdt]

The rules don't say that I can't track scores if there is a Scorekeeper, only that I have to if there isn't.
The rules also don't say that I can't also keep track of scores. And near as I've been keeping track, I have 65. :smalltongue:

And Murska has 150. :smalleek:

[PirateMonk]

The rules also don't say that I can't also keep track of scores. And near as I've been keeping track, I have 65. :smalltongue:

And Murska has 150. :smalleek:

Entirely true, but if you want to claim victory based on personal score counts, you'd probably have to go through Adjudication.

[Reinholdt]

Oh good. Cause PirateMonk was supposed to win last round according to my spreadsheet.
*crumples and tosses away*

[Haruki-kun]

Proposal 6i: a) For. b) Against. There's just no point to it.

Proposal 6ii For. An abstained vote would count for the "Total Current Players" who voted this round. Therefore, anything requiring, for example, 2/3 of the votes would still count the abstained people as part of the total. It just wouldn't be a vote either way.

Proposal 6iii Against. This rule is pointless.

Proposal 6iv For.

Proposal 6v Against. I feel almost bad, considering the time you must have spent on this, but complicating the game this much is just one step towards unplayability.

Proposal 6vi AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST

Proposal 6vii Against.

Proposal 6viii Against

[Haruki-kun]

STOP! HOLD ON!

Why exactly do I have 25 points? I had 10 at the beginning of round 4, where one of my propositions passed, so 30. I did not propose anything during round 5, so why did I get 5 points removed? Where'd that come from?

[Orzel]

P6i a. AGAINST. b. AGAINST.
P6ii AGAINST.
P6iii AGAINST.
P6iv AGAINST.
P6v For .
P6vi For .
P6vii AGAINST.
P6viii AGAINST.

Come on guys, lets make some interesting rules.

I'm posting my next proposal for next round right here.

Any player who can name a fruit or vegetable that starts with the same letter as their name gets 20 points.

[PirateMonk]

Proposal 6ii For. An abstained vote would count for the "Total Current Players" who voted this round. Therefore, anything requiring, for example, 2/3 of the votes would still count the abstained people as part of the total. It just wouldn't be a vote either way.

If something requires 2/3 of the players to vote For it, then it doesn't matter what people who don't vote for it do. If they don't vote for it, they are effectively voting against it.


STOP! HOLD ON!

Why exactly do I have 25 points? I had 10 at the beginning of round 4, where one of my propositions passed, so 30. I did not propose anything during round 5, so why did I get 5 points removed? Where'd that come from?

You got 10 points for your proposal passing, and 5 for opposing 4iv, which passed.

[Haruki-kun]

You got 10 points for your proposal passing, and 5 for opposing 4iv, which passed.

Aww.... crap. I misread, then. Sorry.

[PirateMonk]

Proposal 6v Against. I feel almost bad, considering the time you must have spent on this, but complicating the game this much is just one step towards unplayability.

It's really not this complicated, at least not yet. It just allows the formation of organizations which win together, and describes how members can be added and removed.

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

P6i a. AGAINST. b. AGAINST.
P6ii AGAINST.
P6iii AGAINST.
P6iv AGAINST.
P6v AGAINST.
P6vi FOR.
P6vii AGAINST.
P6viii AGAINST.

Did everyone seriously forget we don't have a speaker yet?
For RSG and Murska as Speaker.

[Uncle Festy]

Proposal 6i: a - For, b - Against
Proposal 6ii: Against
Proposal 6iii: Against
Proposal 6iv: For
Proposal 6v: For
Proposal 6vi: Against
Proposal 6vii: Against
Proposal 6viii: Against

For Everyone Else as Speaker

[PirateMonk]

Around 27 hours left to vote and submit proposals. Do so quickly if you wish to.

[MOD]

Proposal 6i: a - Against, b - Against
Proposal 6ii: For
Proposal 6iii: Against
Proposal 6iv: For
Proposal 6v: Against
Proposal 6vi: Against
Proposal 6vii: Against
Proposal 6viii: Against

For Murska as Speaker.

[Thelas]

((If this is thre right place to do this...)
/applies

[PirateMonk]

ROUND SIX ENDS.

Proposal 6i has FAILED. Votes For: (a) 3 (b) 0. Votes Against: (a) 5 (b) 8.

Proposal 6ii has FAILED. Votes For: 2. Votes Against: 6.

Proposal 6iii has FAILED. Votes For: 3. Votes Against: 5.

Proposal 6iv has FAILED. Votes For: 4. Votes Against: 4.

Proposal 6v has FAILED. Votes For: 4. Votes Against: 4.

Proposal 6vi has FAILED. Votes For: 2. Votes Against: 6.

Proposal 6vii has FAILED. Votes For: 1. Votes Against: 7.

Proposal 6viii has FAILED. Votes For: 1. Votes Against: 7.

All players have received enough votes to become Speaker, but this violates the sentence in Rule 16 preventing multiple people from being Speaker. Would anyone except Murska mind if I declared Murska the Speaker, since he got the most votes?

Please remember to review the new ruleset.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

ROUND SEVEN BEGINS. Remember to vote and send in any proposals you wish to have voted on in the Round Eight.

Proposal 7i Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 24 to add the following:
Any player who can name a fruit or vegetable that starts with the same letter as their name gets 20 points.

Proposal 7ii Type: Repeal
Rule 24 shall be repealed.

Proposal 7iii Type: Amendment
Amend Rule 13 to the following:
Game Master is a role.
The Game Master is charged with receiving and announcing proposals, counting votes, maintaining the rules and posting threads.
The Game Master may be removed by a 2/3s vote of the current total players.
The Game Master may resign his role at any point.
If no person has the role of Game Master a new Game Master is appointed with a majority vote of the total current players.
Current Game Master: Piratemonk

Proposal 7iv Type: Enactment; Author: Uncle Festy
Disciple of Proposition
This rule introduces the role, "Disciple of Proposition". A player may declare themselves a Disciple of Proposition once per game, which comes into effect at the end of the round in which they declared it. In addition, any Disciple of Proposition may divest themselves of this role at any time (which also comes into effect at the end of that round), but cannot reclaim the role.
A Disciple of Proposition wins the game if they pass 10 proposals while in possession of the role. This counts as a Win Condition. However, all of that player's proposals must forgo anonymity (as per rule 14). Furthermore, all of that players' proposals start with three votes against.

VOTE ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THELAS INTO THE GAME.

Officers
Scorekeeper: Evnafets

SCORE: evnafets's problem

[PirateMonk]

P7i AGAINST.
P7ii FOR. Maybe that wasn't such a good idea... AGAINST for points.
P7iii I won't vote on this, but I will point out that, as currently phrased, it will require starting a new thread or shifting the rules to a new post whenever the Game Master changes.
P7iv FOR. I'm willing to give it a try. AGAINST for points.
FOR Thelas

[Haruki-kun]

Proposal 6i Against. Are you kidding me?

Proposal 7ii For I can't believe this even passed in the first place.

Proposal 7iii Not voting here.

Proposal 7iv FOR

HEADS UP, PEOPLE! SOMEONE IS ABOUT TO WIN THE GAME THANKS TO THAT RULE ABOUT FRUITS AND VEGETABLES! THE NEW PROPOSAL STARTED WITH 4 VOTES! WE NEED TO VOTE AGAINST IT NOW!

[Reinholdt]

P7i AGAINST
P7ii FOR
P7iii AGAINST
P7iv AGAINST

FOR Thelas

[Vwulf DeMarcus]

P7i AGAINST
P7ii FOR
P7iii Not voting here.
P7iv FOR

FOR Thelas

[PirateMonk]

HEADS UP, PEOPLE! SOMEONE IS ABOUT TO WIN THE GAME THANKS TO THAT RULE ABOUT FRUITS AND VEGETABLES! THE NEW PROPOSAL STARTED WITH 4 VOTES! WE NEED TO VOTE AGAINST IT NOW!

Not really much of an issue. Since the proposal didn't specify which type of proposal it was, and didn't give a title, I decided that it was an amendment to Rule 24, meaning that it has no effect no matter what if 7ii passes. Furthermore, there's an argument to be made that the 7i only allows you to get 20 points once, and no one even has 100 points.

[Haruki-kun]

Not really much of an issue. Since the proposal didn't specify which type of proposal it was, and didn't give a title, I decided that it was an amendment to Rule 24, meaning that it has no effect no matter what if 7ii passes. Furthermore, there's an argument to be made that the 7i only allows you to get 20 points once, and no one even has 100 points.

MY POINT STANDS

[evnafets]

Updated scores:

{table=head]Name|score
drakeblood4|15
Enrgetic Penguin|30
evnafets|30
Fin|15
Haruki-kun|20
MOD|30
Mordokai|30
Murska|45
Orzel|30
PirateMonk|50
RedScholarGypsy|55
Reinholdt|40
Shadowhisper|15
TehSheen|20
The Bookworm|35
Uncle Festy|30
[/table]

[MOD]

P7i AGAINST
P7ii FOR
P7iii FOR
P7iv FOR

I'm fine with Murska as speaker...

FOR allowing the applicant player into the game.

[PirateMonk]

I found a loophole in the Arbitration process. After toying with the idea of trying to exploit it, I decided that I didn't want the game to end.

Under my interpretation of the rules for Adjudication, which no one has yet contested, Adjudication can be used to reach any conclusion, no matter how ridiculous. Thus, six players could conspire, with three getting into an "argument" over whether all six of them win immediately, with no time for anyone else to move for Adjudication to say that they can't actually do that, and then appointing the other three as their arbiters. The arbiters would then quickly reach consensus, and, with six people voting against the veto, there would not currently be enough people to stop it.

Can anyone find a better way to fix this than removing Arbitration altogether?

[evnafets]

Sorry Haruki, I'm not following.
Which of the proposals involves a fruit or vegetable, and thus starts with 4 votes already?

[Haruki-kun]

6i, Evnafets.


Can anyone find a better way to fix this than removing Arbitration altogether?

We could simply consider rule Number 1 to overrule Arbitration, I guess.

[RedScholarGypsy]

I was planning on exploiting that PirateMonk. Good catch:smallbiggrin:.

I have no idea how to fix it, save adding the phrase "Arbitration may only allow reasonable interpretations of the law" Since we are using common sense, or "Arbitration can not be used to win the game."

I'll vote tomorrow. It's been a busy week.

[Heroic]

OK I would like to join and according to the rules, I need the approval of the majority of the players.

So.. what say you?

[evnafets]

Can anyone find a better way to fix this than removing Arbitration altogether?

A rule pertaining to conflicts of interest maybe? If you are affected by the interpretation of the rule you can't be an arbiter?
The thing is nominating one arbiter for each interested party means plus the speaker ends up involving most of the current player base anyway...

[Murska]

P7i AGAINST
P7ii FOR
P7iii AGAINST
P7iv AGAINST

Just to be different, AGAINST all new players. :smallbiggrin:

[Orzel]

61 is a proposal for an enactment and not an amendment.
Therefore it stats with 4 vote for.

P7i FOR
P7ii AGAINST
P7iii AGAINST
P7iv AGAINST

[Haruki-kun]

I knew it....

[Orzel]

If you guys made some fun, non-silly rules.

[PirateMonk]

61 is a proposal for an enactment and not an amendment.
Therefore it stats with 4 vote for.

If you wanted it to be an enactment, you should have said so in the proposal, or at least given a title for it. In fact, the rules say:


Rules are identified by their title, which is included in the Initial Ruleset or specified by the proposal enacting them

This could be interpreted to mean that anything which does not specify a title is an amendment. Furthermore, under most circumstances, being an amendment is more advantageous than being an enactment, because it grants precedence by default over some other rules.

[PirateMonk]

I was planning on exploiting that PirateMonk. Good catch:smallbiggrin:.

I have no idea how to fix it, save adding the phrase "Arbitration may only allow reasonable interpretations of the law" Since we are using common sense, or "Arbitration can not be used to win the game."

I'll vote tomorrow. It's been a busy week.

The first phrase would allow adjudication, including arbitration, to determine what was reasonable. The second would allow you to declare that you could do anything short of winning the game, including allowing yourself to change the rules as you see fit.

Also, roughly 24 hours left to get in votes and proposals. Right now, I have one, though I'll probably get around to writing one sooner or later.

[evnafets]

P7i AGAINST
P7ii AGAINST
P7iii FOR
P7iv FOR
FOR Thelas

[The Bookworm]

P7i: AGAINST
P7ii: FOR
P7iii: AGAINST
P7iv: FOR
AGAINST all new players, we have enough right now.

[PirateMonk]

The update will be very soon. Get in the last votes and proposals.

[PirateMonk]

ROUND SEVEN ENDS.

Proposal 7i has FAILED. Votes For: 5. Votes Against: 8.

Proposal 7ii has PASSED. Rule 24 will be removed from the ruleset. Votes For: 6. Votes Against: 3.

Proposal 7iii has FAILED. Votes For: 2. Votes Against: 4.

Proposal 7iv has PASSED. It will be added to the ruleset as Rule 28. Votes For: 5. Votes Against: 4.

Thelas has received more votes for his admission than against. Under Rule 27, he is now a player.

Please remember to review the new ruleset.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

ROUND EIGHT BEGINS. Remember to vote and send in any proposals you wish to have voted on in the Round Nine.

Proposal 8i Type: Enactment
Negative One
Any player with a score divisible by 3 at the end of a round has their score divided by -1. Negative scores are allowed it formed this way.

Proposal 8ii Type: Repeal
Repeal Rule 12

Proposal 8iii Type: Amendment
Rule 11 shall be amended so as to no longer describe Arbiter Adjudication.

VOTE ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF HEROIC INTO THE GAME.

Officers
Scorekeeper: Evnafets

[Orzel]

Hmm... I gotta think about this one.

I miss Rule 24. How could you vote for it then repeal it a rround later?

[Haruki-kun]

Proposal 8i Against

Proposal 8ii Against As the rules currently stand, this means that people would need to win by points only. While I'm not against people winning by points, I like the challenge of trying to make this game unplayable in order to win.

Proposal 8iii For