Vanilla Four Player; First Nomic On Site

1337ness, "If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns"

Unless I missed a round of turns, I believe that that was only one circuit.
As for your proposal, I'd like to draw attention to
"108: Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and re-enacted, it receives the number of the proposal to re-enact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment."

Not only would this rule have to be amended before your new rule could take affect, but I believe your rule could lead to unnecessary clutter.

Furthermore, I find your new rule to be of questionable value. However, I may have missed something, so if you would care to elaborate just why you think we need rule 304, I'd be appreciative.

This rule change would lead to much confusion and argument on which rule should be immutable and which are mutable. Also all rules are mutable if you can find loopholes.

i have to reject this one 1337ness

Oh, I just can't count today.

No, it wouldn't have to be amended

The proposals still retain their usual numbers, it's only when they become accepted as rules that their numbers change. So, no contradiction with the original rule; it implicitly creates a difference between proposal numbers and rule numbers. I can make this difference explicit if you wish.

The idea is twofold. First up, new rules will not have to specify their immutability when transumuted; they'll be in the immutable list. Second up, it will eliminate issues such as the fact that there's a rule 301 and a rule 303 but not a rule 302. It also means there's only two lists -- it in fact reduces clutter; I would've thought this would appeal to the OCD side of you.

Uh, Navarre, have you actually read the ruleset? Rules are CLEARLY marked as mutable and immutable, and will continue to be even more clearly marked after this rule-change is accepted. Also, there are no loopholes in the mutable/immutable status of rules -- immutable rules cannot be changed until transmuted, and mutable rules can be changed until transmuted. Rules are implicitly mutable when passed. Tell me what the loophole is there?

The word 'after' is the keyword in creating the implicit difference.

What i was saying was that how would we decide whether or not a proposed rule is mutable or immutable as proposed rule 304 states that all accepted proposals after this has to be placed in either mutable or immutable.

Navarre, do me repeat myself *sadface*

Rules are implicitly mutable when created

Hurm. I can see this as being valid, thanks for clearing everything up.

I accept the proposal.

I suppose I'm waiting for Beese now.

This rule still baffles me so yeah my die has been cast. Being the prophet i see beese coming in saying "i agree with everything cracked has said and i accept" anyone else thinking that?

Your opposition to the rule baffles me. It's seems to be based on problems that do not exist, due to rules that do not exist based on loopholes that do not exist. This leads me to believe that your logic...

Quote :

Being the prophet i see beese coming in saying "i agree with everything cracked has said and i accept" anyone else thinking that?

Not really, Cracked didn't say much other than request clarification/elaboration, there's nothing for Beese to agree with.

Quote :

Your opposition to the rule baffles me. It's seems to be based on problems that do not exist, due to rules that do not exist based on loopholes that do not exist. This leads me to believe that your logic...

Ooh, a guessing game, I love these. Um, a pineapple?

1337ness_of_teh_n00b wrote:

Ooh, a guessing game, I love these. Um, a pineapple?

Eh, close enough.

1337ness can you prod beese..... this vote is taking longer then it should

I honestly have nothing else to say other than
"Get me out of here, find a replacement ASAP for my spot, I understand on how to play the game but I really can't get into it. I find it extremely boring."

See if AcRv or Orandulum wants to join. I'll Vote... For it? Against it? I don't know I joined this game to see what it's like and I don't like what I see. I'll vote to adopt 304, because it actually makes sense.

Also, Navarre, I have a half a mind to punch you through the inter- no wait, I'll do it tomorrow at school.

Sure, we'll replace you. Uh, I'm invoking rule 116 here and declaring your slot temporarily dead until we replace it, unless anyone has any objections (then we get to deal with rule 211, yay!)

(3/4)*14 -- 10 = 1

Me: 11
Beese: --2
Cracked: 12
Navarre: --7

Uh, I'd like to give Navarre (and I suppose Cracked) a chance to object to the temporal deletion of Beese's slot before Cracked proceeds with his turn.

If you object, then Beese simply forfeits.

Either that or we all wait three weeks until he gets replaced.

I think Orandulum mentioned wanting to play. Shoot him a PM or something.

PM has been shot.

Technically, the name of Beese's slot changes when Orandulum replaces in, so I do believe he goes after Navarre now.

Also, it occurs to me that as Beese has replaced out, his slot no longer has a name, so Cracked Atlas can go now.

Unless anyone objects. 211's an amazing rule like that.

Btw, I'm gonna be resuggesting 304 next turn, when unanimous votes will not be required. Just something to bear in mind.

I think I'll wait until someone else joins before I make my next proposal.

Orandulum has replied that he's in. Actually, he replied that he's cows. But that's my fault.

so I now have voting privileges?

I propose 305: "If a player makes a significant contribution to a proposed rule, and the amended rule is then adopted, then the player who suggested the amendment receives points equal to 50% of the points received by the player who proposed the rule. If a player males a significant etc. To a rule that is rejected they lose 50% etc. Significant contribution it described as anything greater than just rewording/spelling corrections etc."

Note: as this was typed on an iPhone, it should not be considered my exact wording.

Atlas. What would you consider a significant amount of contribution, if the rule was accepted but you tried to reject it would you still gain points?

Semi-agreed with Navarre *le gasp*.

I'll probably end up accepting, but I wanna see a stricter definition of 'significant contribution' before I vote in favour.

And Navarre, if you suggest a change to a rule but still vote against it, then you're doing something very wrong, and under this potential rule, lowering the number of points you can get from it. But yeah, as the wording stands, you'd still get some points.