Nomicapolis - User contributions [en]

Census

Mike Rosoft — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:43:07 GMT

Mike Rosoft: I don't intend to continue the game

This is a list of players of this nomic game. Add your name easily by just clicking edit and typing <nowiki>~~~</nowiki> on the next available numbered line.

==Players of the game==

# [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]]
# [[User:Sinblox|sinblox]] (Inactive)
# [[User:the_coast_guard|the_coast_guard]] (Inactive)
# [[User:Mari0mega|Mari0mega]] (Inactive)
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]]
# [[User:Pugrins|Pugrins]] (Inactive)
# [[User:Greywhind|Greywhind]] (Inactive)
# [[User:Kidko|Kidko]] (Inactive)
# [[User:Dayd|Dayd]]
# [[User:Anya|Anya]] (Inactive)
# [[User:Shivan|Shivan]]
# [[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]]
# [[User:tucana25|tucana25]]
# [[User:Chuck|Chuck]]
#


==Citizens of Nomicapolis==

::{| align="left" border="1" width="75%"
|+ '''Population of Nomicapolis as of 11:15, 21 December 2006 (EST)'''
! Canton !! Population
|-
| North Canton || 12000
|-
| South Canton || 12000
|-
| East Canton || 12000
|-
| West Canton || 12000
|-
| Center Canton || 4500

|-
! Total Population !! 52500
|}

Talk:356

Mike Rosoft — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:27:28 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Vote: 356

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer's summary] Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 15 December 2006 (EST)This is intended to get rid of all the rules to repeal rules littering the current rule set. Added that this rule isn't self repealable.

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


"This rule cannot be repealed by this rule." ... This comment is about how cool self-reference is :) [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 12:08, 14 December 2006 (EST)



== Vote ==
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:33, 16 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:33, 16 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 18:06, 16 December 2006 (EST)
#

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
#[[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 10:27, 17 December 2006 (EST) (This rule is phrased in a completely wrong way - what about a rule - such as proposal [[344]] - that repeals another rule and has other effect in addition to that? Sorry, I didn't find time to mention this before the proposal was up for voting - I only visit this site once in a while.)
#

 

=== Abstain ===

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=6 Add Abstention]
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:348

Mike Rosoft — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:18:36 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Vote: 348 - against

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer's summary]"Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00pm EST 17 DEC 2006." This is intended to end proposals that amend the same rule at the same time. Looking for information if the wording is good. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:19, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Another intent is so that player A doesn't: amend 400 as such while player B: repeal 400. Well what happens if both pass. What happens if B passes before A?

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


I think it is more interesting when this is encouraged instead of forbidden. More like politics... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:20, 5 December 2006 (EST)

I also added this proposal to the current events on the front page. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:26, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Should the same rule be both amended and repealed, the intended result is that it should remain repealed, either before or after the amendment; in the latter case, the repealing proposal should follow to its new number and not try to abolish a non-existent rule; in the former one, the proposal to amend it becomes moot because a repealed rule cannot be amended. The current rules do not seem to count with this possibility; I have prepared [[User:Mike Rosoft/drafts#Update of references|a draft]] to deal with the situation. - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:11, 14 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 23:55, 15 December 2006 (EST)


 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:17, 12 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 10:31, 15 December 2006 (EST) (The "otherwise references" clause is much too restrictive. Sorry I didn't catch this in debate.)
#[[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 10:18, 17 December 2006 (EST)
# 








__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:351

Mike Rosoft — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:20:59 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Vote: 351 - for

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer: Add your summary here]
Debate for this Proposal shall end 00:00, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Since rules are getting broken into fractions by [[319]], it's probably prudent to keep anyone from treating their votes as fungible.
--[[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 20:45, 6 December 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]




== Vote ==
Debate has closed -- this proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 11:41, 11 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 11:41, 11 December 2006 (EST)
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 13:55, 12 December 2006 (EST)
#[[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 06:20, 14 December 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:09, 11 December 2006 (EST) (I really do think about it before I vote against it)
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:11, 12 December 2006 (EST)
#

=== Abstain ===

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=6 Add Abstention]
#

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:345

Mike Rosoft — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:50:37 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Vote: 345 - for

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
I originally designed this rule to become one of the cornerstones of Nomicapolis; as such, it should not be subject to the whims of future politics. I therefore propose that it be transmuted to "immutable" status.

Debate on this proposal shall end at 9 p.m. (EST), Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:37, 4 December 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:07, 8 December 2006 (EST)
:Note: Debate actually ended about 09:01, shortly ''before'' my vote below. I forgot to add the above timestamp until a few minutes later, but I did post the "Debate is closed..." before I voted. Promise! [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:10, 8 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:01, 8 December 2006 (EST)
#[[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 13:50, 9 December 2006 (EST)
#

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# 








__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:346

Mike Rosoft — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:44:58 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Vote: 346 - against

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
Those who make proposals should be obliged to vote for them. Debate on this proposal will end at 9 p.m. (EST) Dec. 7, 2006. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:45, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Made minor wording changes to replace "proposer of a rule" with "proposer of a rule-change". [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:01, 6 December 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


The wording of the fractional vote (and i understand why) almost suggests that if it is not your proposal, you could cast 1/2 your vote FOR, with 1/2 AGAINST, or 75/25, etc. I could support the proposal's passing, yet still be awarded points for voting against. This is a moot point if it is determined that it cannot be interpreted this way. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 12:09, 6 December 2006 (EST)
:The troubling thing is, I can find nothing in the wording of the rules to prevent this scenario. [[207]] says each player always has exactly one vote; it doesn't say that player can't split his vote or divide it as he wishes. It could be argued, I suppose, that if you're casting votes both for and against a measure, you're actually casting two votes, each of which is some fraction of a vote (Half a vote FOR, Half a vote AGAINST is actually voting twice, or casting two votes, which would be illegal). It's pretty shaky to base a concept on wording that shaky, so perhaps a rule is needed stating that players may not divide individual votes into fractions of votes, unless specifically allowed by the rules. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)
::I think the tacit and shared assumption is that "a vote" and indeed all nouns in the ruleset are indivisible things unless otherwise specified. I can't split my vote any more than I can split myself into half-players or a proposal into half-proposals that somehow distribute the votes. --[[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 17:33, 6 December 2006 (EST)
:::Oh sigh, [[319]] does start regarding votes as fractional. I think it calls for a proposal. --[[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 17:49, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in [[303]] that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)
: Hey Chuck, I took a look at the current ruleset and there are a couple of rules that deals with your concerns. Regard proposal withdrawl rule [[326]] section 2 states: "''Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed.''" Though I'm not the judge, it reads to me that if the proposer does not call an end to debate within the time period the proposal shall be withdrawn, currently with no penalty. And regarding editing the proposal during debate: Per Rule [[111]]: "''The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on...''" allows, for at least the proposer, the right to edit a proposal during debate.--[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 20:18, 6 December 2006 (EST)
: Chuck, if you have some suggestions as to ways to amend this process ([[326]], [[319]]), check out the [[Game-direction]] page. There has begun a discussion about exactly what you were mentioning. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:53, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)

== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:25, 9 December 2006 (EST)
#

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 12:22, 9 December 2006 (EST)
#[[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 13:44, 9 December 2006 (EST) (too limiting)




=== Abstain ===




__NOEDITSECTION__

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:08:48 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Preposition

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
__TOC__
==Core rules and Rules convention==
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#Possibly add: As long as this rule is mutable, the above two clauses only apply to mutable rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
==Update of references==
Proposal to address problem mentioned on [[Game-direction]] (rule referencing an amended or transmuted rule), and also the concern of [[Talk:348]].

If a rule has been amended, transmuted, or re-enacted:
#All references to its old number in the ruleset existing at the time of change shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number. This does not apply to clauses that modify that rule, nor to references to a one-time event involving that rule that has taken place before or at that time.
#Upon passage of any proposal that was up for debate or voting at the time of change, all references to the rule's old number in it shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number. This does not apply to references to a one-time event involving that rule that has taken place before or at the time of passage.

Talk:348

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:05:15 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Response regarding proposal 348

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer's summary]"Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00pm EST 17 DEC 2006." This is intended to end proposals that amend the same rule at the same time. Looking for information if the wording is good. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:19, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Another intent is so that player A doesn't: amend 400 as such while player B: repeal 400. Well what happens if both pass. What happens if B passes before A?

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


I think it is more interesting when this is encouraged instead of forbidden. More like politics... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:20, 5 December 2006 (EST)

I also added this proposal to the current events on the front page. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:26, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Should the same rule be both amended and repealed, the intended result is that it should remain repealed, either before or after the amendment; in the latter case, the repealing proposal should follow to its new number and not try to abolish a non-existent rule; in the former one, the proposal to amend it becomes moot because a repealed rule cannot be amended. The current rules do not seem to count with this possibility; I have prepared [[User:Mike Rosoft/drafts#Update of references|a draft]] to deal with the situation. - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# 

 
=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# 








__NOEDITSECTION__

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:03:46 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Rephrasing

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
__TOC__
==Core rules and Rules convention==
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#Possibly add: As long as this rule is mutable, the above two clauses only apply to mutable rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
==Update of references==
Proposal to address problem mentioned on [[Game-direction]] (rule referencing an amended or transmuted rule), and also the concern of [[Talk:348]].

If a rule has been amended, transmuted, or re-enacted:
#All references to its old number in the ruleset existing at the time of change shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number. This does not apply to clauses that modify that rule, nor to references to a one-time event involving that rule that has taken place before or at that time.
#Upon passage of any proposal that was up to debate or voting at the time of change, all references to the rule's old number in it shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number. This does not apply to references to a one-time event involving that rule that has taken place before or at the time of passage.

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:40:59 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Format

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
__TOC__
==Core rules and Rules convention==
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#Possibly add: As long as this rule is mutable, the above two clauses only apply to mutable rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
==Update of references==
Proposal to address problem mentioned on [[Game-direction]] (rule referencing an amended or transmuted rule), and also the concern of [[Talk:348]].

If a rule has been amended, transmuted, or re-enacted:
#All references to its old number in the ruleset existing at the time of change shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number, with the exceptions of clauses that modify that rule, and references to a one-time event that has taken place before or at that time; and
#All references to its old number in the rulechange proposals being up for debate or voting at that time shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number.

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:38:11 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Extra line breaks

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
==Core rules and Rules convention==
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#Possibly add: As long as this rule is mutable, the above two clauses only apply to mutable rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
==Update of references==
Proposal to address problem mentioned on [[Game-direction]] (rule referencing an amended or transmuted rule), and also the concern of [[Talk:348]].

If a rule has been amended, transmuted, or re-enacted after being repealed,
#All references to its old number in the ruleset existing at the time of change shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number, with the exceptions of clauses that modify that rule, and references to a one-time event that has taken place before or at that time; and
#All references to its old number in the rulechange proposals being up for debate or voting at that time shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number.

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:36:34 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Minor rephrasing

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
==Core rules and Rules convention==
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#Possibly add: As long as this rule is mutable, the above two clauses only apply to mutable rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
==Points for votes change==
Proposal to prevent some players from abusing the voting rules to gain points:

Rule [[333]] is amended to read, in entirety:

1. This rule applies only to votes for amendments to the Ruleset. 
1.1. This rule does not apply to any point changes related to Rule 322. 
2. The players who vote against against winning proposals shall receive 5 (positive) points each, as long as at least three players have voted against or abstained on the proposal. 
2.1. No player choosing to 'abstain' from a vote shall be awarded additional points for that vote. 
3. In circumstances when the player who proposed the rule change in question votes against it, they shall receive no additional points.
----
==Update of references==
Proposal to address problem mentioned on [[Game-direction]] (rule referencing an amended or transmuted rule), and also the concern of [[Talk:348]].

If a rule has been amended, transmuted, or re-enacted after being repealed,
#All references to its old number in the ruleset existing at the time of change shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number, with the exceptions of clauses that modify that rule, and references to a one-time event that has taken place before or at that time; and
#All references to its old number in the rulechange proposals being up for debate or voting at that time shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number.

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:20:41 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Format

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
==Core rules and Rules convention==
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#Possibly add: As long as this rule is mutable, the above two clauses only apply to mutable rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
==Points for votes change==
Proposal to prevent some players from abusing the voting rules to gain points:

Rule [[333]] is amended to read, in entirety:

1. This rule applies only to votes for amendments to the Ruleset. 
1.1. This rule does not apply to any point changes related to Rule 322. 
2. The players who vote against against winning proposals shall receive 5 (positive) points each, as long as at least three players have voted against or abstained on the proposal. 
2.1. No player choosing to 'abstain' from a vote shall be awarded additional points for that vote. 
3. In circumstances when the player who proposed the rule change in question votes against it, they shall receive no additional points.
----
==Update of references==
Proposal to address problem mentioned on [[Game-direction]] (rule referencing an amended or transmuted rule), and also the concern of [[Talk:348]].

If a rule has been amended, transmuted, or repealed and re-enacted,
#All references to its old number in the ruleset existing at the time of change shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number, with the exceptions of clauses that modify that rule, and references to a one-time event that has taken place before or at that time; and
#All references to its old number in the rulechange proposals being up for debate or voting at that time shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number.

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:19:57 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Simplification

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
==Core rules and Rules convention==
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#Possibly add: As long as this rule is mutable, the above two clauses only apply to mutable rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
==Points for votes change==
Proposal to prevent some players from abusing the voting rules to gain points:

Rule [[333]] is amended to read, in entirety:

1. This rule applies only to votes for amendments to the Ruleset. 
1.1. This rule does not apply to any point changes related to Rule 322. 
2. The players who vote against against winning proposals shall receive 5 (positive) points each, as long as at least three players have voted against or abstained on the proposal. 
2.1. No player choosing to 'abstain' from a vote shall be awarded additional points for that vote. 
3. In circumstances when the player who proposed the rule change in question votes against it, they shall receive no additional points.
----
==Update of references==
Proposal to address problem mentioned on [[Game-direction]] (rule referencing an amended or transmuted rule), and also the concern of [[Talk:348]].

If a rule has been amended, transmuted, or repealed and re-enacted,
#All references to its old number in the ruleset existing at the time of change shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number, with the exceptions of clauses that modify that rule, and references to a one-time event that has taken place before or at that time; and
#All references to its old number in the rulechange proposals being up for debate or voting at that time shall be interpreted as if they had referred to its new number.

, then rule A shall be interpreted as if it had referred the new number of rule B.
#As long as the reference is not changed, it shall retain its meaning even after rule A itself is amended or transmuted.
#If rule A refer to a one-time event involving rule B, and the event has taken place before or at the time of amendment or transmutation of rule B, then this rule does not apply with respect to the reference.
-->

Talk:343

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:44:25 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Fixed typo

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
This rule is designed to allow the game to recover more quickly should it go into a state of decline. I do not believe that we should quibble about such things as half-votes and extra limits on proposals if the player count drops much below what it is currently. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:44, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Debate on this proposal will end at 11 p.m. on Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:45, 1 December 2006 (EST)

:Good point, Dayd. I'll fix it now. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 21:34, 1 December 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

Probably should include "precedence over every other rule determining inactivity" --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:10, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Debate is closed. This proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:12, 5 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:12, 5 December 2006 (EST)
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:27, 5 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 14:45, 6 December 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 16:01, 7 December 2006 (EST)
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:350

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:41:47 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Suggestion, question

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
Debate for this Proposal shall end December 9, 2006 at 00:01 EST.

This will remove players who seem to have permanently left the game. They will no longer influence actual game-play elements (population, quorum, etc.) --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:15, 5 December 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

As defined by [[330]], the number of players and their active/inactive status only affected the population at the time of the passage of [[330]]. By current rules, the number of active or inactive players no longer affects the population. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:15, 6 December 2006 (EST)
:I had misremembered the contents of [[330]] when proposing this. Since that proposal allows for tweaking of population, does anyone want to see something like that occur? --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 12:13, 6 December 2006 (EST)

I think this rule is too harsh to players who have abandoned the game; what is the point in demanding that the player must register a new account to continue in the game? Why not simply state: "A player who has been inactive for six consecutive months shall be presumed to have left the game (see rule [[302]]) and shall be listed on the census page as "departed". If a departed player wishes to rejoin, they may do so by removing the "departed" status from their username, but they will start as a brand new player. ..." And then the rest of your proposal (probably minus the last sentence) would follow. It might need some more tweaking, but I'll leave it on others to comment. - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 16:24, 7 December 2006 (EST)

The idea is that if you have abandoned the game, you probably aren't coming back. We are already penalizing for "going inactive". The reason I worded the proposal in this way is because we can't actually remove players from the census(for recordkeeping purposes, I don't think we want to). The options (as I see them) for reinstatement could be 1) removal of deceased title; 2) create new user; 3)utilization of same account name with all points and titles, etc removed. Of those three, I don't think #1 punishes the user. #3 would seem legally to be the most complex. The reinstatement part of the equation is not really a huge deal since I think the likelihood of it happening is minimal, so if there is an outpouring of support to change that part, I would be happy to. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 20:35, 7 December 2006 (EST)

How about we call them "moved out of nomicapolis" and they are removed from the census. A player may "move back into nomicapolis" by putting their name back on the census. This lets you keep the same user name. Also resets their points to 0 as a restart. I think this does the same thing. I mean in reality if people don't see you in a city any more it doesn't mean your dead. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:52, 7 December 2006 (EST)

I can change the name from deceased if that is really a big issue. I would like to not introduce legislature that allows for people to be REMOVED from the census. I would rather allow some other status (whether it be deceased, moved away, departed, on the john, BRB, etc.) before removing people from the census, even if their name remains in the system. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:43, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Rule [[302]] already permits users who have voluntarily left the game to rejoin, utilizing the same account but being treated as new players for every purpose. I have quoted it in my proposition. I might add to it: "A departed player shall not be considered in play for any purpose, with the exception of rule [[302]]". (This will prevent a player from registering a new account while leaving the old one on the census page, to avoid confusion.) Is there anything else that might cause a problem? - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 07:41, 8 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# 

 
=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# 








__NOEDITSECTION__

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:54:40 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Some changes

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
==Core rules and Rules convention==
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#Possibly add: As long as this rule is mutable, the above two clauses only apply to mutable rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
==Points for votes change==
Proposal to prevent some players from abusing the voting rules to gain points:

Rule [[333]] is amended to read, in entirety:

1. This rule applies only to votes for amendments to the Ruleset. 
1.1. This rule does not apply to any point changes related to Rule 322. 
2. The players who vote against against winning proposals shall receive 5 (positive) points each, as long as at least three players have voted against or abstained on the proposal. 
2.1. No player choosing to 'abstain' from a vote shall be awarded additional points for that vote. 
3. In circumstances when the player who proposed the rule change in question votes against it, they shall receive no additional points.
----
==Update of references==
Proposal to address problem mentioned on [[Game-direction]] (rule referencing an amended or transmuted rule), and also the concern

#Should a situation occur that rule A refers to rule B by its number, and rule B was amended or transmuted after, but not as a result of passing, the proposal of rule A, then rule A shall be interpreted as if it had referred the new number of rule B.
#As long as the reference is not changed, it shall retain its meaning even after rule A itself is amended or transmuted.
#If rule A refer to a one-time event involving rule B, and the event has taken place before or at the time of amendment or transmutation of rule B, then this rule does not apply with respect to the reference.

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:29:39 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Another proposal

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
Proposal to prevent some players from abusing the voting rules to gain points:

Rule [[333]] is amended to read, in entirety:

1. This rule applies only to votes for amendments to the Ruleset. 
1.1. This rule does not apply to any point changes related to Rule 322. 
2. The players who vote against against winning proposals shall receive 5 (positive) points each, as long as at least two players voted against the proposal. 
2.1. No player choosing to 'abstain' from a vote shall be awarded additional points for that vote. 
3. In circumstances when the player who proposed the rule change in question votes against it, they shall receive no additional points.
----
Proposal to address problem mentioned on [[Game-direction]] (rule referencing an amended or transmuted rule)

#Should a situation occur that rule A refers to rule B by its number, and rule B was amended or transmuted after the proposal of rule A, then rule A shall be interpreted as if it had referred to its new number.
#As long as the reference is not changed, it shall retain its meaning even after rule A itself is amended or transmuted.

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:49:04 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Removed fragment

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
Proposal to prevent some players from abusing the voting rules to gain points:

Rule [[333]] is amended to read, in entirety:

1. This rule applies only to votes for amendments to the Ruleset.
1.1. This rule does not apply to any point changes related to Rule 322.
2. The players who vote against against winning proposals shall receive 5 (positive) points each, as long as at least two players voted against the proposal.
2.1. No player choosing to 'abstain' from a vote shall be awarded additional points for that vote.
3. In circumstances when the player who proposed the rule change in question votes against it, they shall receive no additional points.
----

User:Mike Rosoft/drafts

Mike Rosoft — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:48:35 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Some ideas, will continue later

Please comment on these drafts on the [[User talk:Mike Rosoft/drafts|talk page]].
----
This is a draft of a rule intended to address the same problem as the failed proposal [[341]].

Rule 1:

#Some rules may be designated core rules.
#When this rule is passed, all immutable rules and this rule become core rules.
#Proposals to change the set of core rules may be passed as follows:
##Whenever a rule becomes an immutable rule, it becomes a core rule immediately. It retains that status, even if it is transmuted to become mutable again.
##A proposal may be made to remove an immutable rule from the set of core rules. This requires an unanimous vote.
##A proposal may be made to add any number of mutable and/or immutable rules to the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority.
##A proposal may be made to remove any number of mutable rules from the set of core rules. This requires a supermajority. (Or a simple majority?) 
#If Rule 2 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

Rule 2:

#When this rule is passed, it becomes a core rule.
#If a round of play is terminated due to application of the rule [[317]], a Rules Convention will start immediately.
#If a round of play is terminated for any other reason, a Rules Convention may be started on a proposal made within 24 hours from its conclusion. This requires a supermajority vote. (Remove?)
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, all non-core rules are suspended. This takes precedence over any non-core rules.
#As long as a Rules Convention is in progress, rules may be added or removed from Core rules as provided by Rule 1. This takes precedence over any rules.
#A proposal to end the Rules Convention may be passed on a simple majority vote. A Rules Convention will end if no changes have been made to the set of core rules and no rule has been passed, amended, repealed, or transmuted for a week.
#If Rule 1 fails to pass, this rule is repealed.

I intend to transmute rule 2 to an immutable rule, in order to resolve a situation when further play becomes impossible because of an immutable rule.

Of course, the wording needs to be refined, the proper procedures described, etc.
----
Proposal to prevent some players from abusing the voting rules to gain points:

Rule [[333]] is amended to read, in entirety:

1. This rule applies only to votes for amendments to the Ruleset.
1.1. This rule does not apply to any point changes related to Rule 322.
2. The players who vote against against winning proposals shall receive 5 (positive) points each, as long as at least two players voted against the proposal.
2.1. No player choosing to 'abstain' from a vote shall be awarded additional points for that vote.
3. In circumstances when the player who proposed the rule change in question votes against it, they shall receive no additional points.
----

Should a rule refer by number to another rule that has been amended or transmuted after the referring rule was proposed, it shall be interpreted the same as if it had referred to

Proposals

Mike Rosoft — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:27:11 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Fixed links

{| align="center"
|-
| align="center"|<big><big>This is the '''Proposals''' page.</big></big>
|-
| align="center"|<big>For information on how to write a proposal the right way read the [[Proposals tutorial]].</big>
|}

== Current Proposals ==
'''Please don't vote until debate has closed.''' ''Debate may however be closed before time indicated.''
{| align="left" border="1"
! Proposal number !! Short description !! Proposed by !! Debate end !! Vote link
|-
| [[327]] || Allows for abstention || [[User:Shivan|Shivan]] || '''Debate has ended.''' || [[Talk:327#For|For]] [[Talk:327#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[334]] || Amendment to [[303]] || [[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] || '''Debate has ended.''' || [[Talk:331#For|For]] [[Talk:334#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[337]] || Amendment to [[319]] || [[User:Dayd|Dayd]] || '''Debate has ended.''' || [[Talk:337#For|For]] [[Talk:337#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[341]] || Regulation of end-game circumstances || [[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] || '''Debate has ended.''' || [[Talk:341#For|For]] [[Talk:341#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[342]] || Regulation of Offical game time || [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] || '''Debate has ended.''' || [[Talk:342#For|For]] [[Talk:342#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[343]] || Gives certain allowances to inactive players should game become underpopulated || [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] || '''Debate has ended.''' || [[Talk:343#For|For]] [[Talk:343#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[345]] || Transmute [[338]] to immutable || [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] || 21:00, 07 December 2006 (EST) || [[Talk:345#For|For]] [[Talk:345#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[346]] || Proposers must vote for their proposals || [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] || 21:00, 07 December, 2006 (EST) || [[Talk:346#For|For]] [[Talk:346#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[347]] || Introduce "Named Territories" || [[User:tucana25|tucana25]] || 00:01, 09 December, 2006 (EST) || [[Talk:347#For|For]] [[Talk:347#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[348]] || 1 active proposal per current rule|| [[User:Dayd|Dayd]] || 12:00, 17 December 2006 (EST) || [[Talk:348#For|For]] [[Talk:348#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[349]] || Only active voters may vote|| [[User:tucana25|tucana25]] || 00:01, 09 December, 2006 (EST) || [[Talk:349#For|For]] [[Talk:349#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[350]] || Introduce "deceased" status|| [[User:tucana25|tucana25]] || 00:01, 09 December, 2006 (EST) || [[Talk:350#For|For]] [[Talk:350#Against|Against]]
|-
| [[351]] || Make votes indivisible|| [[User:Chuck|chuck]] || 00:00, 10 December, 2006 (EST) || [[Talk:351#For|For]] [[Talk:351#Against|Against]]

|}

Talk:350

Mike Rosoft — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:24:23 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Too harsh punishment

Talk:341

Mike Rosoft — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:04:19 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Vote: 341 - against

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 04 December 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


Hey, Tom! As requested, I'm commenting on your Governor General draft. [[317]] already determines who the winner will be in such a case as mentioned in your draft - So the GG's duty there would just be to "declare" that person the winner. The GG would not decide the winner. In fact, you might want to make this proposal an amendment to [[317]]. If it is your intention that the GG would determine the winner, then you could write that in, or if it is your intention that the GG would simply announce the winner, then you could import some of the verbiage from [[317]]. Personally, I think the "most points" winner is the way to go there.

As far as the 2-vote reward thing for the winner, that's a little complicated. I think we're going to need to introduce some kind of legislation defining Nomicapolis as an ongoing game divided into rounds before we do that. That way, we can say "The winner of the round receives two votes on all matters in the subsequent round of play," or something. In fact, I've got an idea for that now. I'll introduce it, and you'll see what I mean [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Just thought of another snag. Look at [[104]] and [[107]]. Rule changes must be voted on. Since these are immutable, they would automatically take precedence over this rule. The GG wouldn't be able to simply enact rule changes without having them voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 23:17, 29 November 2006 (EST)

I have addressed the issue. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:15, 30 November 2006 (EST)

After this rule passes I will propose transmutation. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)

:Okay, but you realize that as long as this is a mutable rule (until it is transmuted), the statement that it takes precedence is ineffective against immutable rules, right? Also, take another look at clause 4...something wrong with it grammatically. Might be as simple as changing the first comma to a semicolon. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 07:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)

:: Clause 4 was the combination of two independent clauses, so a semicolon was the right choice, I was just in too much of a hurry the first time around to worry about it. As far as the immutable thing, this will just have to be an ineffective rule until it is transmuted. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:38, 30 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
Debate is closed this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:32, 4 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:30, 4 December 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:16, 4 December 2006 (EST); (I have the feeling that this position, as stated, is rife with possibility for abuse - nothing here saying he must name the person who actually won by the rules).
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:55, 4 December 2006 (EST) (I am against the 2-vote thing).
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 14:54, 4 December 2006 (EST)
#--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:58, 5 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 14:44, 6 December 2006 (EST)
#[[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 14:04, 7 December 2006 (EST) (Gives too much power to a single player. I'll try working on an alternate proposal.)


__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:334

Mike Rosoft — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:29:25 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Voting for proposal 334

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
Since section 1 of [[303]] has been modified by [[313]] and by [[326]] if it passes, only sections 2 and 3 of [[303]] will be valid. Since it is not possible to combine two nearly identical rules into one, per [[111]], this is the only alternative. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 12:30, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 04 December 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


The problem I see with this proposal: Who's to say what is the number of votes required to pass or fail? We currently have 15 players in this game. Of those, 6 have full votes the next time they vote; 9 have half-votes. So to guarantee a rule passes, it must have 5 1/2 votes. BUT...new players could join the game! So there's really no way to determine the number of votes required to pass or fail without setting a time deadline for the vote. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:13, 28 November 2006 (EST)

[[326]] sets a time deadline for voting, so [[334]] doesn't need to, it also indicates who is eligible to vote on a proposal.
:"2. The person proposing the rule change shall call a vote at the end of the debate. The debate period can be cut short by the proposer with the calling for of a vote. Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed. If a vote is called, it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted or when it has been 24 hours since the last vote has been cast on the given proposal." --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:01, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Okay, maybe I'm dense, but I just don't quite see the point of this proposal (at least, of the section we're discussing). If the time period defined in [[334]] ends, then it's over - anybody can already declare an end to voting and enact the rule by [[116]]....Heck, we've been doing it! [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:01, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Straying perhaps into the ridiculous, I see a weird loophole with clause #3: If a player really wanted to be a butt and screw things up, they could delay the game indefinitely by voting "erroneously", then waiting 29 minutes and voting "erroneously" again, and so forth ''ad infinitum.'' [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:07, 28 November 2006 (EST)

I believe that I have fixed the loophole, as far as the need for this proposal, it is intended to fix the inconsistency between [[303]] and [[326]], by removing the first part of [[303]]. Sections 1 and 2 of this proposal are the same as sections 2 and 3 of [[303]].

: Okay, I get it now. Thanks for the explanation. And yes, I believe that fixes the loophole. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 13:54, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Before I vote, I was wondering if anyone could give me some feedback on rule [[326]]. As of right now the statement declaring that a vote shall end at **date and time** is meaningless. Also, calling an election based on all registered voters includes inactive voters so I don't foresee any time in the near future when we will get 1/2 of all registered voters being involved. I would also like to see the '24 hour' rule on closing a vote be extended to 48 hours. Assuming this amendment is approved, is there any opinion on amending [[326]] in the future? --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:39, 4 December 2006 (EST)

:Let's move this discussion to [[Game-direction]]. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 15:03, 4 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
Debate is closed this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:32, 4 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:29, 4 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:54, 4 December 2006 (EST)
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 01:46, 5 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 14:42, 6 December 2006 (EST)
#[[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 12:29, 7 December 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:04, 6 December 2006 (EST) (my name looks good alone)


__NOEDITSECTION__

Census

Mike Rosoft — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:17:30 GMT

Mike Rosoft: Signed myself up