Nomic - Proposal 310

Tanksandguns · **Posted:** January 2nd, 2010, 4:55 am

We could always repeal it later in the game.

Tweedy · **Posted:** January 2nd, 2010, 9:28 am

If we're already discussing repealing it, why enact it in the first place?

Paidea · **Posted:** January 2nd, 2010, 5:04 pm

There should be a penalty for skipping anyway... I mean the point of the game is to make rules. Skipping your turn at the cost of 5 points would be reasonable IMO, but that's just an idea and I probably wouldn't propose it (I would vote yes to something like it though).

~Paidea

Saten Ruiko · **Posted:** January 2nd, 2010, 8:21 pm

Applequest wrote:

Im also a bit apprehensive about this rule. Not only for what Tweedy said, but also because if people get close to winning, they will likely intentionally pass their turn, because they know people will vote no to keep them from winning. By then, we will likely have other ways to earn points, and they could coast to victory without us stopping them. It just seems like there are a lot of little ways this rule could hurt, and it just doesnt offer any real benefits. It really isnt that hard to come up with stuff. And even when it is, that challenge is part of the fun of the game.

Personally,
1) At this rate I find it hard to believe we'd ever pass a rule that gave points.

2) Then we could enact a rule to stop them from coasting by? I don't mean repealing this one later, I mean making something different, at which point we'd need a 4/7 majority or something to stop a single person.

Tanksandguns · **Posted:** January 3rd, 2010, 2:28 pm

Tweedy wrote:

If we're already discussing repealing it, why enact it in the first place?

Because right now, I don't see any harm in it. If we find it's hurting more than helping, it could easily be taken care of.

Applequest · **Posted:** January 4th, 2010, 7:47 am

Results:

Yes: Jaron, Tanks, Topsummoner
No: Monk, Tweedy, Apple

Steely is on leave, but Paidea is not, so he will earn a strike.

Jaron will receive -1 points for this round (308-291=17*(3/6)=8.5->9-10=-1).

Sighence · **Posted:** January 4th, 2010, 12:15 pm

Proposal 306

Deletion of Rule 209: At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

SPAM JARON'S INBOX GOGOGO

Paidea · **Posted:** January 4th, 2010, 12:33 pm

Dammit, I didn't even think about pming someone my abstention... :facepalm:

~Paidea

Saten Ruiko · **Posted:** January 4th, 2010, 2:31 pm

NOTICE: This is Proposal 309, not 306. Ignore the topic title that no one updates.

Steely Mallon · **Posted:** January 4th, 2010, 11:59 pm

I should be back enough to vote and such. Probably gonna vote yes because I want someone besides Paidea to have points.

Tweedy · **Posted:** January 5th, 2010, 2:29 am

Not sure it's necessary yet, but I don't have any objections to it.

Tanksandguns · **Posted:** January 5th, 2010, 3:04 am

Same here, I voted yes.

Saten Ruiko · **Posted:** January 5th, 2010, 2:52 pm

Tweedy wrote:

Not sure it's necessary yet, but I don't have any objections to it.

Tanksandguns wrote:

Same here, I voted yes.

"!echo Tanksandguns" I suppose.

Saten Ruiko · **Posted:** January 6th, 2010, 12:15 pm

Results: All 8 players votes Yes, on time. Rule 209 is no longer in effect. Monk Basher will receive 18 points for this round. (309-291 = 18*(8/8) = 18)

It is Paidea's turn to write Proposal 310. (I've updated the topic's title to signify this but haven't touched a thing otherwise.)

Tweedy · **Posted:** January 6th, 2010, 1:35 pm

Congrats Monk. If bluecoat doesn't wish to update the topic anymore (not that I blame him as it is understandable since he is no longer playing) then perhaps we should delegate somebody to clean up/maintain the first post/topic title?

Paidea · **Posted:** January 6th, 2010, 4:47 pm

Via the following rule:

Quote:

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Changing your score at will is not prohibited nor regulated by any rule. So, I hereby change my score to 200. According to this rule,

Quote:

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

I win?

~Paidea

Sighence · **Posted:** January 6th, 2010, 7:10 pm

Paidea wrote:

Via the following rule:

Quote:

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Changing your score at will is not prohibited nor regulated by any rule. So, I hereby change my score to 200. According to this rule,

Quote:

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points.

In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

I win?

~Paidea

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate.

Looks like your win is up for debate.

I vote no.

Paidea · **Posted:** January 6th, 2010, 7:14 pm

I'm not proposing a rule-change. By the way, how can you argue that winning is destructive of play anyway?

~Paidea

Applequest · **Posted:** January 6th, 2010, 8:08 pm

Winning causes the end of play, thus destroying it.

Paidea · **Posted:** January 6th, 2010, 8:42 pm

Technically, nothing in the rules states that someone winning causes play to cease. :?:

Irrelevant, though, because I'm not proposing anything.

~Paidea

Nomic - Proposal 310

Who is online