I disagree. A majority of players voting vote yes means a majority of players who voted vote yes. I dont see where a problem would be with this and since the phrasing isnt teh same (I believe) as in Nomic 1, I would say that it was changed to address that exact issue.
Personally, I would just make a rule that says that every player doesnt vote in two consecutive votes is eliminated from the game (loses the player/eligible voter status).
True and I agree with you on all your points, I am merely saying that nothing can be done in Nomic #2. We can, of course, devise a starting rule set for future nomics and offer them to whoever will be moderating it, but that's it.
Ok, we get it. You don't like how many rules we started with, but there is nothing we can do about it now. Just deal with it. When the time comes, you can start eliminating the unnecessary ones.
I don't get why people mind the -10 points rule. No one is ever going to win based on how many points they have. As of now, the points have no realistic function as it is way too easy to change the number required to win. And even if you make that rule immutable and change the other rule to +2 for passed and -2 for defeated proposal, it's still easy to just shoot down all the proposals of anyone who is getting close to winning.
...
Letting everyone know, I'm really looking for a proposal that will speed up the game. We can easily accomplish voting on two or more proposals at a time.
Same here. Anything that will allow more turns running simultaneously can expect my vote.
I don't think that changing anything related to points is worthwhile? Does anyone really think that the winner will be decided with points? All it will take is amending that rule to say 150 instead of 100 and voila, no winner for another few rounds. Rinse and repeat.
I'm leaning strongly against, if only to prevent a wave of point-system modifying proposals.
EDIT:
One point related proposal that I would vote for, would be one that sets the goal to win the game at something like 10000 points to ensure it is never achieved and thus people will start focusing on creating another win condition.
Oww... 26th or so.. I hope someone will propose a rule to speed up the game a bit soon.
Btw. isn't it past 11 AM GMT already? It should be since I its almost 3 PM here in GMT+1 zone =)
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.
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.
Response from the mod would be nice though.
I don't get why people mind the -10 points rule. No one is ever going to win based on how many points they have. As of now, the points have no realistic function as it is way too easy to change the number required to win. And even if you make that rule immutable and change the other rule to +2 for passed and -2 for defeated proposal, it's still easy to just shoot down all the proposals of anyone who is getting close to winning.
Same here. Anything that will allow more turns running simultaneously can expect my vote.
I'm leaning strongly against, if only to prevent a wave of point-system modifying proposals.
EDIT:
One point related proposal that I would vote for, would be one that sets the goal to win the game at something like 10000 points to ensure it is never achieved and thus people will start focusing on creating another win condition.
Btw. isn't it past 11 AM GMT already? It should be since I its almost 3 PM here in GMT+1 zone =)
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 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.