Nomic! GAME ON! (Last Update - Page 10)

[Packbat]

There's a couple typos in the rules - I see a "C%" instead of "C)" in A10 and a "hatever" instead of "Whatever" in A16.

Also, there's no rules for Judges.

[Packbat]

I was a moderator for a Nomic game on LJ that had a ruleset including a Judgment rule, if you'd be interested in adapting it:

Spoiler: Cut for length

If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player alphabetically preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. For purposes of this rule, moves shall include but not be limited to proposing and sponsoring rule-changes, opening session polls and calculating player scores, any game action defined in the rules, and any action defined as a move elsewhere in the rules. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgement.

For purposes of determining the Judge, the player moving shall be the player whose move (or lack thereof) is of disputed legality except where a rule specifies otherwise. In cases of ambiguity, the player moving shall be considered to be the player invoking Judgement.

The Judge's Judgement may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the passage of one interval, except as noted below. If a Judge's Judgement is overruled, then the player alphabetically preceding the Judge becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on.

If the Judge has a conflict of interest – that is to say, is in a position to exploit the powers of Judgement in some way for the personal benefit of the Judge or some affiliated party – then the Judgement may be overruled by a simple majority vote among the other players. (Disagreement among players not the Judge concerning the putative conflict of interest will be judged by the player alphabetically preceding said Judge. Note that this Judge's decision may also be overturned for a conflict of interest.) In addition, Judges who consider themselves to have conflicts of interest may choose to recuse themselves, provided they have not previously recused themselves from the same question. Recusals shall have the same effect as the overruling of their Judgements.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion or noncompletion of the move or application of rule over which Judgement is invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

A Judge may, as desired, suspend play for the duration of Judgement. This suspension of play does not automatically affect the completion of the session poll or delay the effect of any rule thereby enacted. If Judgement is invoked less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the scheduled beginning of the next session, this suspension shall automatically occur. If Judgement is called to examine the presence or absence of a conflict of interest, this suspension shall automatically occur. At any time during a suspension, a player may call for a poll to end the suspension. This poll will run for 36 hours and be subject to the same requirements for success as a standard rule-change. A suspension ended in this manner may not be reinvoked by the same Judge for a minimum of one (1) interval.

"Judgment" and "Judgement" shall be considered synonymous terms; the latter shall be preferred when possible. (Note: this means that "judgement" should be the tag placed on Judgements, rather than "judgment".)

Of course, there is the obvious rule ambiguity of deciding upon a Judge, but that could be patched straightforwardly.

[Packbat]

Oh, another thing: the required-votes criteria are both incomplete and broken - Rule A10) discusses transformation from immutable to mutable only, makes immutability almost worthless for C) rules, and discusses neither enactment nor amendment.

[Packbat]

Let me revise it a bit, then:

Spoiler: Longer Judgment rule

If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player alphabetically preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. For purposes of this rule, moves shall include but not be limited to proposing and sponsoring rule-changes, calculating player scores, any game action defined in the rules, and any action defined as a move elsewhere in the rules. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgement.

For purposes of determining the Judge, the player moving shall be the player whose move (or lack thereof) is of disputed legality except where a rule specifies otherwise. In case of ambiguity or dispute, the Judge shall be chosen randomly using the dice tag.

The Judge's Judgement may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the passage of one week, except as noted below. If a Judge's Judgement is overruled, then the player alphabetically preceding the Judge becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on.

If the Judge has a conflict of interest – that is to say, is in a position to exploit the powers of Judgement in some way for the personal benefit of the Judge or some affiliated party – then the Judgement may be overruled by a simple majority vote among the other players. (Disagreement among players not the Judge concerning the putative conflict of interest will be judged by the player alphabetically preceding said Judge. Note that this Judge's decision may also be overturned for a conflict of interest.) In addition, Judges who consider themselves to have conflicts of interest may choose to recuse themselves, provided they have not previously recused themselves from the same question. Recusals shall have the same effect as the overruling of their Judgements.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion or noncompletion of the move or application of rule over which Judgement is invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

A Judge may, as desired, suspend play for the duration of Judgement. This suspension of play does not automatically affect the completion of any votes or delay the effect of any rule thereby enacted. If Judgement is called to examine the presence or absence of a conflict of interest, this suspension shall automatically occur. At any time during a suspension, a player may call for a poll to end the suspension. This poll will run for 36 hours and be subject to the same requirements for success as a standard rule-change. A suspension ended in this manner may not be reinvoked by the same Judge for a minimum of one (1) week.

"Judgment" and "Judgement" shall be considered synonymous terms.

[Packbat]

I think you should add a rule to B that propositions require a majority to enact except as specified elsewhere, and revise B1) to allude to this rule as well as A10).

[Packbat]

The lack of an enactment criterion was not a loophole, it was a pothole - it rendered it impossible to enact rules.

[Packbat]

Heck, I'll do it.

B6) A rule-change is enacted if a majority of the votes (read: more than 50%) on the rule change are in favor, except where otherwise specified.

(That's another thing, actually: 51% is a supermajority.)

[Packbat]

While I'm at it:

A10) To make immutable rules mutable or mutable rules immutable, a vote must be held. To make an A) rule mutable, over 80% of players must vote in favor; to make a B) rule mutable, 65%; all other rules, 51%. Votes should use the format

Vote to make rule [letter][#] [mutable/immutable]

.

[Packbat]

You have "A10) A10)" in place of "A10)" in the rules.

Also, /in.

[Packbat]

Proposition C1: If at any point the mod has been delinquent for more than 7 days in their duties (including maintaining an up-to-date record of rules), any member of the Mafiascum.net forum may nominate themself as a candidate to take over the position. If 7 days after the first such nomination the mod has not returned, the players shall have 7 days to elect a mod from those candidates who nominated themselves during that 7-day period, including the first. If during this second 7-day period any candidate receives the votes of a majority of the players before the return of the previous mod, this candidate shall become the mod and the previous mod shall be removed from this position.

(Edited slightly ~5:20 EDT.)

[Packbat]

B2) Each player has one vote to every proposal. To do so, post it as

vote [yay/nay] proposition [letter][#]

. However, if you end up not liking your vote, you may unvote in the format

unvote proposition [letter][#]

, and your vote will be canceled.

[Packbat]

Vote yay Proposition C1

Vote yay Proposition C2

[Packbat]

Proposition C3: Each proposition must be accompanied by a countdown timer indicating to within five minutes the available time remaining to vote on that proposition.

Voting deadline: (expired on 2011-11-10 20:07:50)

(p.s. Voting deadline for C1: (expired on 2011-11-10 17:19:00); voting deadline for C2: (expired on 2011-11-10 18:23:00).)

Pre-Edit: JDGA, your votes are ill-formatted.

[Packbat]

Vote yay Proposition C3

[Packbat]

Remember, people, you can vote on your own propositions.

[Packbat]

Vote yay Proposition C4

Edit: (expired on 2011-11-10 20:19:00)

[Packbat]

Proposition C5: When determining the passage or failure of a proposition, only players who joined the game prior to the beginning of voting shall be considered to exist.

(expired on 2011-11-10 20:48:10)

Vote yay Proposition C5

[Packbat]

Unofficial votecount:

• C1: Yay 3 (theamatuer, Packbat, JDGA)/Nay 0
  
• C2: Yay 4 (theamatuer, Packbat, JDGA, Xalxe)/Nay 0
  
• C3: Yay 3 (Xalxe, Packbat, JDGA)/Nay 0
  
• C4: Yay 3 (Xalxe, JDGA, Packbat)/Nay 0
  
• C5: Yay 1 (Packbat)/Nay 2 (Xalxe, JDGA)

[Packbat]

Vote nay Proposition C6

And even if it weren't, I want the point.

[Packbat]

Proposition C8: Whenever a player is allowed to post a proposition, they may post several simultaneously as a package proposition by so indicating in the same post. Any vote or unvote placed on any proposition in the package shall be considered to be an identical vote or unvote on every other proposition in the package, and any vote or unvote placed on the package as a whole shall be considered to be an identical vote or unvote on every proposition in the package.

(expired on 2011-11-10 21:04:10)

Vote nay Proposition C7

Vote yay Proposition C8

[Packbat]

p.s. Deadline on C7: (expired on 2011-11-10 20:57:00)

[Packbat]

Proposition C9: The playerlist of this Nomic shall be restricted to members in good standing of the Mafiascum.net forum.

Vote yay Proposition C9

[Packbat]

Vote yay Proposition C10

[Packbat]

Also:

C9: (expired on 2011-11-10 21:16:00)
C10: (expired on 2011-11-10 21:21:00)

Vote to make Rule B4 immutable

[Packbat]

animorpherv1: Xalxe's vote for C1 was ill-formatted - he said "yea", not "yay". It should not count.

[Packbat]

Ooh, good catch, Xalxe! Although:

vote yay proposition C1

Vote yay to proposition C2

I believe his vote on C1 still counts.

[Packbat]

Vote nay Proposition C11

Vote yay Proposition C12

Vote nay Proposition C13

Vote yay Proposition C14

Vote yay Proposition C15

Vote nay Proposition C16

[Packbat]

Also:

C11-C14: (expired on 2011-11-11 00:26:00)

C15: (expired on 2011-11-11 00:30:00)

C16: (expired on 2011-11-11 00:31:00)

[Packbat]

Actually, I just noticed that the "impossible" rule is completely worthless, given that it requires the exact same majority that

passage

requires. Thus:

Unvote to make B4 immutable

Proposition B1: B4 shall be amended to read as follows.

At any time prior to the passage of a proposition, if the enactment proposition makes play either difficult or impossible, any player may post:

Vote proposition [letter][#] as impossible.

If two or more players so vote, the proposal shall not be enacted unless a Judgment carried out as described in this post rules that the proposition would not make play either difficult or impossible.

Countdown: (expired on 2011-11-11 14:38:00)

PreEdit:

Vote yay on Proposition C17

Vote yay on kdowns becoming a player

[Packbat]

Proposition C18: Each day at 1200 UTC, if there are fewer than the maximum permissible number of items for sale in the Shop, one Jubilee will be put up for sale for 5 Coins. Whenever a Jubilee is purchased from the shop, every player receives one (1) Coin, including the purchaser.

(expired on 2011-11-11 14:54:00)

[Packbat]

In the US Eastern Time Zone? Yes.

[Packbat]

Vote nay Proposition C21

(fractional coins boo!)

Vote nay Package 1

(lists six items for sale, max limit is five)

Vote yay Proposition C28

Vote nay Proposition C29

Vote nay Proposition C31

Vote nay Proposition C30

Vote nay Proposition C32

(no time zone specified, also boo vote shenanigans)

[Packbat]

JDGA, it's a separate proposal. Drench, remember to vote nay on the earlier one.

Vote yay Proposition C33

[Packbat]

Vote yay Proposition C34

[Packbat]

Vote yay Proposition C35

Vote nay Proposition B2

Vote yay Proposition B3

(remove all redundancy!)

Vote yay Proposition B4

Problem: how do you vote

against

a mutability proposal?

[Packbat]

Yay to Nobody Special becoming a player

[Packbat]

Problem: how do you vote

against

a mutability proposal?

Same way as you'd vote against a rule.

There's no establishment to do so in the rules that I can find. I'll just wait for the abstention rule to pass and abstain.

[Packbat]

Curse you, consecutive game nights, for interfering with my mish mash!

(Wait, no, actually. Those were fun game nights. Our DM thought we would all be killed!)

Vote yay Proposition C19

Vote yay Proposition C20

Vote nay Proposition C22

(proposition is without meaning or merit - it is already a fact that the contents of the store can be changed via Proposition.)

Unvote Proposition C31

Vote yay Proposition C31

Vote nay Proposition B1

Vote nay Proposition A1

Vote nay Package 3

(B7 is an illegal rule.)

Vote nay Proposition C35

Vote nay Proposition C36

Vote nay Proposition C37

Vote nay Proposition C38

Vote nay Proposition C39

("one-time ability" is ambiguous.)

Vote nay Proposition C40

("recommended"? I do not like this meaningless language.)

Vote yay Package 4

Vote yay Proposition C50

Vote nay Proposition C51

(The problem is not that it's a crap victory condition, but that it defines Victory Points.)

---

Proposition C52 (The Cryonics Act):

Any player may enter stasis by posting to the game thread "

player name

is entering Stasis.

" While this player is in stasis, any hearts lost are instantly regained and any hearts gained are instantly lost. The player will leave stasis as soon as they next post in the game thread; after leaving stasis, they immediately lose one heart. While a player is in stasis, they will not be considered a player with respect to any vote for which they have not already submitted a vote.

(expired on 2011-11-14 12:06:55)

[Packbat]

Edited in an obvious rules-patch to Cryonics Act - see, this is why editing should be allowed within reason!

Proposition C53:

Whenever a post containing a proposition is edited such that a "Last edited by" notice is added to the post, that proposition shall be considered to have been posted by the player who performed the edit at the time of the edit for all purposes save proposition letter and number. All votes placed on this proposition at or before the time of the edit are ignored for purposes of determining the passage or failure of the proposition.

(expired on 2011-11-14 12:22:05)

Pre-Edit: Flakers will run out of hit points - they lose a heart with every stasis.

[Packbat]

C53 - Nay (I'm fine with the idea, but an edit to an existing post is easy to make without anyone noticing.)

Noticing immediately, perhaps - but that's why votes prior to the edit don't count and why the deadline is recalculated.

[Packbat]

Vote nay Proposition C54

Is too many coins.

[Packbat]

At the risk of being That Guy:

Proposition C56:

Any proposition may be accompanied by prerequisite conditions. These prerequisite conditions are limited to publicly visible features of the gamestate, such as the passage or non-passage of other propositions. If said conditions are not met at the time the proposition would otherwise be enacted, the proposition fails instead.

(expired on 2011-11-15 15:04:50)

[Packbat]

*headdesk*

Forgot to vote. Let's try that again.

Vote nay to Proposition C55

Proposition C56:

Any proposition may be accompanied by prerequisite conditions. These prerequisite conditions are limited to publicly visible features of the gamestate, such as the passage or non-passage of other propositions. If said conditions are not met at the time the proposition would otherwise be enacted, the proposition fails instead.

(expired on 2011-11-15 14:38:50)

[Packbat]

Vote nay Proposition C57

Vote nay Proposition C58

Vote nay Proposition C59

I would recommend that the moderators include the countdown timers (and links to the proposal posts, for that matter), but I wouldn't want to regulate it.

Proposition B8:

Amend B1 to read:

To propose a rule, a player must post the rule in the following format:

Proposition [letter][#]

: Rule

Where [letter] is the letter it will go under, and # is the number of propositions that have been made by that number. The first A proposition is A1, the second, A2, etc. If the required % of votes (see A10 and B6) agree with the proposition, then it immediately becomes a new rule under the letter proposed, and under the first available integer number unless specified otherwise.

A player may propose any number of rules or rule-changes in a single post whenever they wish, provided that they do not have some other proposition currently being voted on.

Players are allowed to withdraw propositions at any time. Any withdrawn proposition automatically fails.

(expired on 2011-11-15 21:29:20)

I figure that this will slow the flow of rule-changes a little bit - reduce moderator burden.

[Packbat]

As the original proposer of C3:

Vote yay Proposition C60

.

[Packbat]

Vote nay Proposition C61

[Packbat]

Proposition C62:

The game will have an official wiki page on the Mafiascum.net wiki. All players are encouraged but not required to keep the page up-to-date with regards to public features of the gamestate, such as the present ruleset and the list of propositions presently being voted upon.

(expired on 2011-11-18 15:18:00)

[Packbat]

Vote yay Proposition C63

What I find most interesting about it is that it seems to leave open the option of re-/in-ing.

[Packbat]

Currently the rules give no way for a player to remove himself from the player list [...]

Technically, this isn't true:

A13) A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

[Packbat]

Vote nay to Proposition C64

Arab what?

[Packbat]

Vote nay Proposition C65

It's not a good precedent.

Proposition C66:

Any proposition designed to target a single player will not pass if it does not receive at least a 2/3rds supermajority. Disputes about whether a proposition was designed to target a single player shall be resolved by Judgment.

(expired on 2011-11-15 02:27:25)

[Packbat]

Vote for rule A9 becoming mutable

[Packbat]

If elected, I promise to serve no more than two consecutive terms.

[Packbat]

Vote yay Proposition C68

I will remove my vote if the moderators update the game status.

[Packbat]

5 hours, 1 minute.

Suggestion: how about next game we take turns making rule proposals?

[Packbat]

Don't be so negative, CSL. You could still lose: just rejoin as a player and immediately forfeit!