After that one we can consider theme ones. I'm personally thinking to run 1 "plain" and 1 theme nomic at a time. But since its early days I'll go with a normal one now. Any thoughts on this?
I see normal as the option to go with here. While I have never actually seen an alternative rule set, if the players wanted a certain type of game play they could achieve it themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
hmm I'll look for my chance to enter I prefer the idea of a normal one to all us noobs a chance to better understand this game and how it's played, that's why I'm watching the first one.
I'm really looking forward to when the next one starts. This is exactly a game for me. I always change the rules of all games I play anyway =). I even registered an account just for that after a year of lurking in the shadows.
I would suggest an abstain option in the poll. That would allow for some rules that would eliminate players if they did not participate in a set number of polls. We could avoid speculating who is still active and who is not that way and quickly resolve the issue.
I would suggest an abstain option in the poll. That would allow for some rules that would eliminate players if they did not participate in a set number of polls. We could avoid speculating who is still active and who is not that way and quickly resolve the issue.
The base nomic rules never have that as an option. However, that's a perfectly valid proposal, so keep it in mind ;).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
I'm really looking forward to when the next one starts. This is exactly a game for me. I always change the rules of all games I play anyway =). I even registered an account just for that after a year of lurking in the shadows.
I would suggest an abstain option in the poll. That would allow for some rules that would eliminate players if they did not participate in a set number of polls. We could avoid speculating who is still active and who is not that way and quickly resolve the issue.
You can make such rules yourself though, it doesn't need to be in the core set.
One thing I'd like to bring to the moderators' attention:
5) Users may not post in a Nomic thread unless they have been identified as a "player" or "eligible voter" by the rules of that particular game. Note that the method of identifying a "player" or "eligible voter" may change during the course of play, such that users who were previously unable to participate may become able to particpate, and users who were previously participating may become ineligible. Users who post in Nomic threads when ineligible will receive a verbal warning on first offense, then an "official" warning in the forum system. Persisting to post in games you are not eligible for may result in infractions.
----------------
According to rule 5 of the meta rules, the moderators aren't allowed to post in the nomic game forums. This should be changed to allow moderators to post as well. I'd also like to ask the rule be changed to something akin to users not being able to post in the forum unless specified in the rules of that forum. That way, a user doesn't necessarily have to be a player or eligable voter to be allowed to post to the forum, the rules of that game just must specify that they are allowed to.
According to rule 5 of the meta rules, the moderators aren't allowed to post in the nomic game forums. This should be changed to allow moderators to post as well. I'd also like to ask the rule be changed to something akin to users not being able to post in the forum unless specified in the rules of that forum. That way, a user doesn't necessarily have to be a player or eligable voter to be allowed to post to the forum, the rules of that game just must specify that they are allowed to.
Already fixed the part about the moderator not being able to post. As for the second part, I'm not inclined to change that yet, as even if game rules were changed to the contrary, I'd rather not see dozens of people posting on every debate thread that don't actually have votes in the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Posting here, since the Nomic#1 doesn't have its own general thread.
I wonder if a moderator action should be taken in regards to Rule 110. It suffers from the same problem as the original voting rule, in that it requires all voters to give an "aye" vote rather than simply all voters that show up. We've seen how likely that is to happen. And because of that rule, we can't change the rule. It is an entirely self-perpetuating rule.
If we screw up and make the wrong rule immutable, we'll be stuck with it forever.
So is there any way we can get it changed by mod action to mirror rule 304, and actually make that rule function?
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
As long as we have the ability to change the rules regarding who eligible voters are, we can fix that rule.
Unfortunately, we don't technically have that ability; immutable rule 106 says that all players are eligible voters.
Though, there may be other solutions; rule 206 is mutable. We'd need to change it to say that all players initially have one vote and each player who doesn't vote, loses his or her vote for that turn. That should work and might give us an actual shot at changing immutable rules.
Alternatively, we could make a rule that changes who counts as a player. That would also get around rule 106, though it is a scarier/riskier idea in my opinion.
Posting here, since the Nomic#1 doesn't have its own general thread.
I wonder if a moderator action should be taken in regards to Rule 110. It suffers from the same problem as the original voting rule, in that it requires all voters to give an "aye" vote rather than simply all voters that show up. We've seen how likely that is to happen. And because of that rule, we can't change the rule. It is an entirely self-perpetuating rule.
If we screw up and make the wrong rule immutable, we'll be stuck with it forever.
So is there any way we can get it changed by mod action to mirror rule 304, and actually make that rule function?
I will not be administratively changing that rule.
I don't want to influence the play of the game by suggesting rules changes, so all I will say is that I've already identified mutable rules that can be changed to make sure that transmutation can happen, and that such changes would not contradict immutable rules.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Binary I just had an idea. A lot of the proposals have been changed but were voted on before they were final. Could we do it so a Proposal would look like this
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal 207
Rule XXXXXX
If you can post 10 times in a row on any active Proposal in this game of forum nomic you get 30 points. Only one person can attempt this
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not final, I would like to hear your input for number of post and points if you guys disagree.
So then I can edit it to gaining 5 points or something, and then say it is final and have people vote.
Did I make sense?
Id say what Ripe meant was that the original poster should have the right to start the voting when they think the proposal is final.
However I dont think thats needed. If people vote no right away, they do so because they dont like the idea in general and any minor corrections wont change their opinion.
Most of the people will let you argue your point before they vote, thus letting you propose some more changes.
Binary I just had an idea. A lot of the proposals have been changed but were voted on before they were final. Could we do it so a Proposal would look like this
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal 207
Rule XXXXXX
If you can post 10 times in a row on any active Proposal in this game of forum nomic you get 30 points. Only one person can attempt this
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not final, I would like to hear your input for number of post and points if you guys disagree.
So then I can edit it to gaining 5 points or something, and then say it is final and have people vote.
Did I make sense?
I believe that process was originally considered (There were hints of it in the original rules), but overall, that process takes too much time.
It hasn't happened yet, but if someone votes before an amendment is made, and then wants to switch their vote because of the change, I'm sure the mod would accomodate them if they noted that in the thread.
Guys, I have a point of interest here. The second Nomic game will be starting soon enough, and I think this thread should really be reserved for nomic metagaming and theory, not discussion of a single game and its particular goings on.
Maybe we can get a thread started in each individual game's subforum for chat about particular games and particular rules. and particular rules so that we can use this thread just for game theory and general strategy. It's going to get pretty confusing with multiple games going on.
Guys, I have a point of interest here. The second Nomic game will be starting soon enough, and I think this thread should really be reserved for nomic metagaming and theory, not discussion of a single game and its particular goings on.
Maybe we can get a thread started in each individual game's subforum for chat about particular games and particular rules. and particular rules so that we can use this thread just for game theory and general strategy. It's going to get pretty confusing with multiple games going on.
Absolutley. But until that happens, I have a question for everyone.
110. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.
Does anyone think this rule needs to be transmuted? I like the unanimous requirement of the rule, just not the eligible rule. If everyone that voted voted the same, it should be unanimous. We, in forum nomic #1, have yet to have a vote that every eligible voter has voted. This, while it is disheartening, is the sad reality of the game. I doubt any game as big as ours will ever have a consistent 100% vote every time. It's peoples life, and sometimes you just have better things to do. No big deal. But is there any way to get around it?
Could we make a mutable rule that said something like: All players are eligible if they vote, and are legal voters by the games rules.
Or would it be insantly counteracted by: 106. Every player is an eligible voter.
What if we then transumted the new rule? Or would its rule # be too high?
Assuming we never have 100% participation, is there anyway to transmute an immutable rule? Or will it be impossible by definition?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
Absolutley. But until that happens, I have a question for everyone.
110. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.
Does anyone think this rule needs to be transmuted? I like the unanimous requirement of the rule, just not the eligible rule. If everyone that voted voted the same, it should be unanimous. We, in forum nomic #1, have yet to have a vote that every eligible voter has voted. This, while it is disheartening, is the sad reality of the game. I doubt any game as big as ours will ever have a consistent 100% vote every time. It's peoples life, and sometimes you just have better things to do. No big deal. But is there any way to get around it?
Could we make a mutable rule that said something like: All players are eligible if they vote, and are legal voters by the games rules.
Or would it be insantly counteracted by: 106. Every player is an eligible voter.
What if we then transumted the new rule? Or would its rule # be too high?
Assuming we never have 100% participation, is there anyway to transmute an immutable rule? Or will it be impossible by definition?
Just a suggestion as an outsider. Have a transmutation of a rule from immutable to mutalbe require a large percentage of the whole group, just not all, like a majority of everyone, not just those that vote, or a supermajority, like 2/3rds. That way it's still not easy, but it doesn't fail to pass justbecause a few people don't vote.
Just a suggestion as an outsider. Have a transmutation of a rule from immutable to mutalbe require a large percentage of the whole group, just not all, like a majority of everyone, not just those that vote, or a supermajority, like 2/3rds. That way it's still not easy, but it doesn't fail to pass justbecause a few people don't vote.
We can't change the rule that would allow this to happen. It's immutable and can't be changed until it becomes transmuted. Thats the conundrum here. To change it we NEED a 100% vote, that also has to be unanimous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
We can't change the rule that would allow this to happen. It's immutable and can't be changed until it becomes transmuted. Thats the conundrum here. To change it we NEED a 100% vote, that also has to be unanimous.
It's too late for Nomic #1 (so much for my "When two rules conflict, the rule with the fewest words wins" proposal), but I think this should be a 2/3 majority for immutable-to-mutable transmutation going forward in all future games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If your signature takes up more lines than your actual post does, you should fix one or both of them.
That sounds like a good plan; a theme Nomic seems interesting.
I see normal as the option to go with here. While I have never actually seen an alternative rule set, if the players wanted a certain type of game play they could achieve it themselves.
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
W
U
B
R
G
I would suggest an abstain option in the poll. That would allow for some rules that would eliminate players if they did not participate in a set number of polls. We could avoid speculating who is still active and who is not that way and quickly resolve the issue.
The base nomic rules never have that as an option. However, that's a perfectly valid proposal, so keep it in mind ;).
You can make such rules yourself though, it doesn't need to be in the core set.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Hah! Bested by 1 minute!
Anyway, I can share the sentiment that I'm eagerly awaiting the second one to start sign-ups.
5) Users may not post in a Nomic thread unless they have been identified as a "player" or "eligible voter" by the rules of that particular game. Note that the method of identifying a "player" or "eligible voter" may change during the course of play, such that users who were previously unable to participate may become able to particpate, and users who were previously participating may become ineligible. Users who post in Nomic threads when ineligible will receive a verbal warning on first offense, then an "official" warning in the forum system. Persisting to post in games you are not eligible for may result in infractions.
----------------
According to rule 5 of the meta rules, the moderators aren't allowed to post in the nomic game forums. This should be changed to allow moderators to post as well. I'd also like to ask the rule be changed to something akin to users not being able to post in the forum unless specified in the rules of that forum. That way, a user doesn't necessarily have to be a player or eligable voter to be allowed to post to the forum, the rules of that game just must specify that they are allowed to.
I can not guarantee internet access on Thursday though Sunday this week.
Already fixed the part about the moderator not being able to post. As for the second part, I'm not inclined to change that yet, as even if game rules were changed to the contrary, I'd rather not see dozens of people posting on every debate thread that don't actually have votes in the game.
I wonder if a moderator action should be taken in regards to Rule 110. It suffers from the same problem as the original voting rule, in that it requires all voters to give an "aye" vote rather than simply all voters that show up. We've seen how likely that is to happen. And because of that rule, we can't change the rule. It is an entirely self-perpetuating rule.
If we screw up and make the wrong rule immutable, we'll be stuck with it forever.
So is there any way we can get it changed by mod action to mirror rule 304, and actually make that rule function?
It is a good thing to be aware of, though.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Unfortunately, we don't technically have that ability; immutable rule 106 says that all players are eligible voters.
Though, there may be other solutions; rule 206 is mutable. We'd need to change it to say that all players initially have one vote and each player who doesn't vote, loses his or her vote for that turn. That should work and might give us an actual shot at changing immutable rules.
Alternatively, we could make a rule that changes who counts as a player. That would also get around rule 106, though it is a scarier/riskier idea in my opinion.
I will not be administratively changing that rule.
I don't want to influence the play of the game by suggesting rules changes, so all I will say is that I've already identified mutable rules that can be changed to make sure that transmutation can happen, and that such changes would not contradict immutable rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal 207
Rule XXXXXX
If you can post 10 times in a row on any active Proposal in this game of forum nomic you get 30 points. Only one person can attempt this
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not final, I would like to hear your input for number of post and points if you guys disagree.
So then I can edit it to gaining 5 points or something, and then say it is final and have people vote.
Did I make sense?
Le Gambit @ Aether did this banner
[NYC Dark Knights]
join today
But I could be wrong.
However I dont think thats needed. If people vote no right away, they do so because they dont like the idea in general and any minor corrections wont change their opinion.
Most of the people will let you argue your point before they vote, thus letting you propose some more changes.
I believe that process was originally considered (There were hints of it in the original rules), but overall, that process takes too much time.
It hasn't happened yet, but if someone votes before an amendment is made, and then wants to switch their vote because of the change, I'm sure the mod would accomodate them if they noted that in the thread.
Maybe we can get a thread started in each individual game's subforum for chat about particular games and particular rules. and particular rules so that we can use this thread just for game theory and general strategy. It's going to get pretty confusing with multiple games going on.
Absolutley. But until that happens, I have a question for everyone.
110. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.
Does anyone think this rule needs to be transmuted? I like the unanimous requirement of the rule, just not the eligible rule. If everyone that voted voted the same, it should be unanimous. We, in forum nomic #1, have yet to have a vote that every eligible voter has voted. This, while it is disheartening, is the sad reality of the game. I doubt any game as big as ours will ever have a consistent 100% vote every time. It's peoples life, and sometimes you just have better things to do. No big deal. But is there any way to get around it?
Could we make a mutable rule that said something like: All players are eligible if they vote, and are legal voters by the games rules.
Or would it be insantly counteracted by:
106. Every player is an eligible voter.
What if we then transumted the new rule? Or would its rule # be too high?
Assuming we never have 100% participation, is there anyway to transmute an immutable rule? Or will it be impossible by definition?
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
Just a suggestion as an outsider. Have a transmutation of a rule from immutable to mutalbe require a large percentage of the whole group, just not all, like a majority of everyone, not just those that vote, or a supermajority, like 2/3rds. That way it's still not easy, but it doesn't fail to pass justbecause a few people don't vote.
We can't change the rule that would allow this to happen. It's immutable and can't be changed until it becomes transmuted. Thats the conundrum here. To change it we NEED a 100% vote, that also has to be unanimous.
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
It's too late for Nomic #1 (so much for my "When two rules conflict, the rule with the fewest words wins" proposal), but I think this should be a 2/3 majority for immutable-to-mutable transmutation going forward in all future games.
There are at least 2 solutions, as I said earlier.
1) Change rule 208 to say that all players initially have one vote, but lose their vote for the turn if they don't use it.
2) Make a rule that says anyone who doesn't vote isn't a player that turn. Rule 108 would stop making them eligible voters.
Personally, I prefer choice one, as revoking player status, even temporarily, seems risky.
There may be other options as well, but these are two simple solutions I see.