Talk:347

From Nomicapolis

Current revision as of 22:14, 15 December 2006

Proposer's summary and declarations

Use your imagination.

Debate for this proposal shall end December 9, 2006 at 00:01 EST Debate shall be extended until December 12, 2006 at 00:01 EST

I declare this proposal failed. --Tucana25 17:14, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Debate

Add comments

I was considering doing something similar to this, but to the extent that players decide which "burb" of Nomicapolis to be a part of. Sort of a Federal system. However I'm not sure how I like the rule as proposed. Good idea, bad on paper. --Dayd 21:09, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Alright, I request some clarification. Let's say there will exist, per this rule, FoolsParadise with AJF as mayor and Simville with myself as mayor. Could there be two rules with the same number but with different prefixes? (Ex. FoolsParidise801 and Simville801) Also, 3.5 states: "When a new rule is proposed..." Shouldn't it be when a new rule is enacted, or am I not understanding correctly? --Simulacrum 01:20, 6 December 2006 (EST)

I don't really like any of part 3 if I'm Mayor I don't want someone telling me how I can "rule" other than what's already established as a rule for everyone. Part 1 should be reworded. I mean I could declare myself Mayor of FoolsParadise and Simville if I wanted to. Also shouldn't the Players have to be members of a particular region to vote in that region? --Dayd 14:13, 6 December 2006 (EST)

I'm not a big fan of how it's worded now.

• 1. I can declare myself mayor of YOUR territory.
• 3. It's not too clear how a rule "applies only to a territory". Do players declare themselves citizens of the territory?
• 3.1. The naming convention isn't clearly given (I don't like merely prepending the territory name with no separation).
• 3.4 allows minority rule. Not too keen on it.
• 3.5 again isn't clear that it's the territory-specific rule that's repealed. And it doesn't make territories very interesting if their "charter" can only have one rule.
• 4. I'd prefer territories had their own page.

--Chuck 17:25, 6 December 2006 (EST)

I follow your points about needing to rephrase part 1. The idea about the rule applying only to FoolsParadise or Simville would be if AJF wants to post on Simville's userpage, Simulacrum would receive 1 point per post. Or AJF could have his rule state that if the New York Mets win the World Series in 2007, AJF shall receive 50 points. If the proposal seems to provide an avenue for abuse, there is the safegaurd that other members can vote it down during its proposal time. I mean to add that a player won't be able to vote on his own proposal. The repeal of a previous rule was intended to occur upon the proposal of a new rule; that way if your new rules fails, you don't still have the old one laying around. The rule would be listed as FoolsParadise 801, 802, 803 and Simville 801, 802, 803 (Etc.) Thank you for the input, keep it up. This proposal took me forever to write because I don't really know how to word it so that it allows for some fun without having a loophole that ends the game. I'm open to any and all suggestions. Assuming I can address the issues raised already, is this something you want to add to the game? --Tucana25 21:44, 6 December 2006 (EST)

I'd endorse it, but you need to rework it into at least a quasi-federal system. Kinda like devolved government in Britain. I'm betting that not many know much about that though. So I'll just say like State government in the US, but that in our case the "federal" government of "nomicapolis" would be able to abolish it if it wanted. Also I only want to see local government affect local issues. Perhaps something like "each Player many declare him/herself a member of a declared terriority under the rule of nomicapolis. At least 2 players must be a member of a declared terriority for it to be recognized by nomicapolis. Rules of a terriority do not effect nomicapolis, and only effect the terriority. Rule of nomicapolis effect the terriority." What I don't want to see is an extra set of rules that everyone has to abide by that someone else gets to claim is his/her's. That and I don't want to see one territory making rules that say if you vote for my proposal you win the game the end it's over hahaha. i.e. abuse. I was thinking about making 3-5 territories and everyone picks one to belong to and then we continue from there. Divide up the population and put it into the "states" maybe even maybe not and then start making state rules. This will also allow for a more creative play to exist in the "states" and at the same time allow for a more structured game at the "national" level. --Dayd 21:04, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Another consideration: I realize we're a ways out from hitting the 800's in our proposals, but assuming this game lasts for years, we'll get there eventually. What happens when we do? We won't have those numbers to delve into. Better if we started off with something like S101 (for State) or some such. Applejuicefool 09:25, 8 December 2006 (EST)

I like the idea of separate polities (a quasi-independent political entity) and using virtual "territory" to realize the polities, but I think this proposal jumps the gun by introducing a lot of mechanisms like singular territory proposals with a minority vote -- not fixed by forbidding the sponsor to vote on it BTW. For a similar idea, see User:Chuck/Cantons Draft. Like the citizens rule, it does nothing except assert that something exists, but creates a backdrop for other rules to hang on.

Vote

Debate has ended. The proposal must now be voted on.

For

Add FOR vote

1. --Tucana25 23:13, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

1. --TomFoolery 09:50, 13 December 2006 (EST)
2. Applejuicefool 10:08, 14 December 2006 (EST); (Sorry, I like Chuck's idea better)

Abstain

Add Abstention

1. chuck 14:42, 12 December 2006 (EST)