Game-direction

From Nomicapolis

(Difference between revisions)
(→The Judge? Who is that)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
Page by [[User:Sinblox|sinblox]]
+
Nomicopolis is off to a pretty good start right now. It'll be a bit bumpy while we get used to the rules and the wiki format. This page is intended to be the "message board" for draft proposals and ideas for proposals. Feel free to add sections and comment on anything.  
-
 
+
-
Nomicopolis is off to a pretty good start right now. It'll be a bit bumpy while we get used to the rules and form a real game but I'm enjoying it already. I created this discussion page so we can discuss the game direction over all. Feel free to add sections and comment on anything.  
+
== Players ==
== Players ==
-
There's three of us active right now and two on the census that haven't posted in at least a few days. I'm going to attempt to contact them. It will give the chance of unanimous consent on [[309]] which requires it. I think we may need to make a proposal that declares players inactive after a certain amount of inactivity.
+
There's two of us active right now and many on the census that haven't posted in a few months.  
If anyone knows of any people who may be interested, this game could easily take on a few more players.
If anyone knows of any people who may be interested, this game could easily take on a few more players.
-
: That's the reason [[301]] was introduced so soon in the game, it defines '''unaminous consent''' as all votes being positive. For example, if there are 100 players and only 2 votes (''quorum achieved per [[304]]'') in favor, while no one votes against then it has unaminous consent. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 15:56, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
+
As per rule [[304]] only two players are needed to do business.
== Governor General? ==
== Governor General? ==
Line 33: Line 31:
:: I agree that the idea of a '''Governer General''' is a good one, I also think that the '''Supreme Grammarian''' would definately be worthwhile. I would prefer that the '''Metanomic General''' be contained into a sub-game with some sort of award for active participation. This is only because I am not good at that sort of thing but I am willing to try it out. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 22:54, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
:: I agree that the idea of a '''Governer General''' is a good one, I also think that the '''Supreme Grammarian''' would definately be worthwhile. I would prefer that the '''Metanomic General''' be contained into a sub-game with some sort of award for active participation. This is only because I am not good at that sort of thing but I am willing to try it out. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 22:54, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
-
 
-
== Rule 301 ==
 
-
 
-
I want to bring to attention a potential flaw in rule 301. Rule 301 states:
 
-
 
-
''In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute a number greater than 50% of total votes. A supermajority shall constitute at least 66% of total votes. Unaminous consent shall constitute all votes being positive.''
 
-
 
-
In reality, a simple majority is whatever recieves the biggest chunk of the vote, whether or not it's 50% or more.
 
-
 
-
Now, at this point it doesn't matter, we only have "for" and "against" things we vote for. Consider, however, if in the future we were electing someone to a title such as the Governor General suggestion I made.
 
-
 
-
Player A recieves 35% of the vote
 
-
Player B recieves 40% of the vote
 
-
Player C recieves 25% of the vote
 
-
 
-
In this case, since our simply majority constitutes 50% of the vote, none of these players are electable. Is it agreed that we need to change the definition of simple majority to just mean the majority of the votes against all else, and create a new definition of "absolute majority" which is 50% or more of the vote?
 
-
 
-
:Actually, in "real life" a simple majority IS 50% or more.  The largest chunk of the votes as in your ABC example is called a ''plurality''.  We may need to amend this rule to include pluralities.  [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 21:47, 15 April 2006 (PDT)
 
-
 
-
:: Ooops. You're right. How does this sound?
 
-
 
-
''In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute a number greater than 50% of total votes. A supermajority shall constitute at least 66% of total votes. Unaminous consent shall constitute all votes being positive. In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of votes will win.'' [[User:Sinblox|sinblox]] 19:18, 16 April 2006 (PDT)
 
-
: I like it. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 21:13, 16 April 2006 (PDT)
 
-
: Sounds good. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 07:33, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
 
-
 
-
==What's a Quorum?==
 
-
 
-
What do ya'll think about this amendment?
 
-
 
-
===310===
 
-
Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 07:22, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
 
-
 
-
Rule 304 is hereby '''amended''' to read, in entirety:
 
-
 
-
1. A ''quorum'' is defined as either 50%, or 2, of the players allowed to vote under the current ruleset, whichever is greater.
 
-
 
-
2. In the case a proposed rule change does not receive a quorum of legal votes (whether ''for'', ''against'', or ''abstention''), it may not be enacted.
 
-
 
-
: I like it, keeps it from having to be constantly updated when we get new players. [[User:Sinblox|sinblox]] 21:59, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
 
-
 
-
: I am wary of setting a high percentage for a quorum. If two more players registers and never edits again, then the game would be locked. Lower the percentage to 33% and I might go for it. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 22:34, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
 
-
 
-
==[[203]]==
 
-
I would like to assume that the second sentence of rule [[203]] is now in effect. Anybody disagree? [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 22:39, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
 
==The Judge? Who is that==
==The Judge? Who is that==
The core rules mentions a judge but I can't find a reference to who he is or how he is elected? Perhaps we need to make a rule for that?
The core rules mentions a judge but I can't find a reference to who he is or how he is elected? Perhaps we need to make a rule for that?
-
The judge was abolished in an earlier amendment.  I assume now that the judge is an additional simple majority vote on an issue.
+
The judge was abolished in an earlier amendment.  I assume now that the judge is an additional simple majority vote on an issue. However that being said I do agree that a judge is needed in the future. 
==Speed up rulemaking==
==Speed up rulemaking==
I feel there is a need to make some rules regarding clarifications of rules. Sometimes a rule may be unclear or contradicting. There should be a possibility of having an ammendment of such a rule passed faster than normal rules.  
I feel there is a need to make some rules regarding clarifications of rules. Sometimes a rule may be unclear or contradicting. There should be a possibility of having an ammendment of such a rule passed faster than normal rules.  
-
== Turns ==
+
I do not think any speed rules need to be introduced.  I think the current system will allow for rules to be added quickly.  Also part of the game is to create a tangled web of rules that do contradict so that you can "win" not that I really want to "win".
-
As I understand it we are trying to depreciate the use of the word '''turn''' in the ruleset. There are 3 other rules that has '''turn''' in the wording. These rules are [[203]], [[211]], and [[212]]. Any suggestions on how to address this? [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 23:17, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
+
 
-
:I went ahead and made some proposals, just as a starting point. Please allow debate on them before voting. Thank you, [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:58, 18 April 2006 (PDT)
+
== Rules with non-existant references ==
-
::The 'Governor General' idea on the [[Game_direction]] page could be presented in the form of an amendment to [[212]], removing the term "turn".  On another note, I would like to see the winner by "can't play anymore" changed to the first player to point out the problem. Perhaps we could do something like give players an extra 0.1 vote for every time they win the game...just a thought. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:07, 18 April 2006 (PDT)
+
Rule [[212]] still refers to turns and needs to be amended.  Also it refers to a Judge, which stated earlier has been abolished.
 +
 
 +
Rule [[306]] Refers to Rule [[105]] that was transmuted.
 +
 
 +
Rule [[309]] Is the transmuted Rule [[105]] that is the same as rule [[104]] and needs to be repealed.

Revision as of 16:23, 8 November 2006

Nomicopolis is off to a pretty good start right now. It'll be a bit bumpy while we get used to the rules and the wiki format. This page is intended to be the "message board" for draft proposals and ideas for proposals. Feel free to add sections and comment on anything.


Contents

Players

There's two of us active right now and many on the census that haven't posted in a few months.

If anyone knows of any people who may be interested, this game could easily take on a few more players.

As per rule 304 only two players are needed to do business.

Governor General?

I haven't yet proposed this, I'd just like to get some feedback on it.

Governor General:


  1. There shall always be a player designated "Governor General". This player's authority is activated when a player has the won the game or the game is unplayable or when there is unanimous consent for their powers to be activated.
  2. The Governor General is elected by a simple majority. The Governor General may be recalled from their position at any time by a simple majority.
  3. The Governor General may resign at any time without consequence.
  4. When the Governor General's powers are activated their role is to make the game playable again. To do so, they have the authority to repeal rules, amend rules and to reset any attributes such as point counts of all players to an equal amount. The Governor General should make the minimum amount of changes possible to make the game workable again and should make all players equal in status.
  5. Any changes the Governor General makes when their powers are activated is completely up to their discrestion, but may be over ridden by unanimous consent (excluding the Governor General in this vote.)
  6. Once the Governor General's powers have been activated and they have finished making the game playable and equalizing players, they shall no longer be Governor General and a new election for this title shall be called. This does not preclude this player from becoming Governor General again.
In theory I'm in favor of player differentiation such as unique roles for players. I had been toying with the idea of proposing the position of Supreme Grammarian whose job is to summarily correct grammar and spelling errors in the rules. I have an English degree and am certified to teach English (though I'm teaching science - go figure) and minor errors occasionally glare out at me. This game is the ultimate rules-lawyer game and these errors could potentially be abused. Another idea would be the Metanomic General. This position would rotate through the players - once its power is used, the position would automatically rotate to the next player on the census. The power is this: The Metanomic General would devise a meta-rule which provides some stylish limit or outline which rule change proposals must follow in order to be considered proper. A meta-rule would last a month, at which time the next MG would implement his meta-rule. Examples might be: Rule proposals must be in verse; Rule proposals may not use the letter "e"; Rule proposals must consist of a single sentence; etc.
Anyway, the Governer General is a good idea. I think that, if winning simply resets the game, then there should be some in-game benefit for previous game winners - that way there's some built-in incentive to win. Applejuicefool 22:06, 15 April 2006 (PDT)
I like those suggestions, especially the Supreme Grammarian. My nomic experience is pretty limited but I have seen well-meaning rules exploited by very minor loop holes, so someone who can copy edit would be good in keeping our rules tight. sinblox 19:18, 16 April 2006 (PDT)
I agree that the idea of a Governer General is a good one, I also think that the Supreme Grammarian would definately be worthwhile. I would prefer that the Metanomic General be contained into a sub-game with some sort of award for active participation. This is only because I am not good at that sort of thing but I am willing to try it out. Simulacrum 22:54, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

The Judge? Who is that

The core rules mentions a judge but I can't find a reference to who he is or how he is elected? Perhaps we need to make a rule for that?

The judge was abolished in an earlier amendment. I assume now that the judge is an additional simple majority vote on an issue. However that being said I do agree that a judge is needed in the future.

Speed up rulemaking

I feel there is a need to make some rules regarding clarifications of rules. Sometimes a rule may be unclear or contradicting. There should be a possibility of having an ammendment of such a rule passed faster than normal rules.

I do not think any speed rules need to be introduced. I think the current system will allow for rules to be added quickly. Also part of the game is to create a tangled web of rules that do contradict so that you can "win" not that I really want to "win".

Rules with non-existant references

Rule 212 still refers to turns and needs to be amended. Also it refers to a Judge, which stated earlier has been abolished.

Rule 306 Refers to Rule 105 that was transmuted.

Rule 309 Is the transmuted Rule 105 that is the same as rule 104 and needs to be repealed.

Retrieved from "http://72.14.177.54/nomicapolis/Game-direction"
Personal tools