Talk:364
From Nomicapolis
| (17 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
<!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.--> | <!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.--> | ||
== Proposer's summary and declarations == | == Proposer's summary and declarations == | ||
| - | [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=1 Proposer's summary] | + | [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=1 Proposer's summary] Debate will end on 12:00, 3 Junuary, 2007. |
| + | This proposal is really intented to limit the amount of work the scorekeeper has to do. After trying to backlog scoring I figure resetting it will be much easier. That and I will be giving up the most considering I have the greatest score to lose. Also this will make rounds more finite instead of lasting indifinitely. I feel that this will allow more player the potential of winning. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:25, 1 January 2007 (EST) <br> | ||
| + | The reason a month was selected was because that is the current length of all position. I figured after a round all the positions should be reselected. I think I like Co-Nomic's idea of the winning, being granted special rights, but at the same time their point scores are handicapped making it unlikely that a person can win two rounds in a row. It is also my opinion that we need to stop with the 0 gain and work on win win situations. This nomic still doesn't really have a point nor a purpose, albeit the generic propose rules, vote, gains points, repeat. So based on my monthly round things in the future will be based on this cycle to include Elections, AJF drafted population table, etc. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:15, 2 January 2007 (EST) <br> | ||
| + | Even though I think the position of Scorekeeper is difficult I do think it is needed. One reason is that the Scorekeeper will be able to track all players scores and make sure that no one is cheating and will determine when someone reaches n points. Also as we add to the Nomic I think the Scorekeeper position will be useful in tracking the rest of the statistics. I don't really have a major problem with being Scorekeeper since I don't think anyone else really wants the position. I also don't have a huge problem with having to go back and figure out when we hit 25 mutable rules and points took effect and then the chronology of when points for contrary votes was halfed. I did think it would just be easier to reset the score. Also this position is kind of intended to fill the "Minister of Order" position from the Game Direction page. <br> | ||
| + | But as for this proposal it is my intent to reset the score and round I suppose. The current round has lasted since April, course the game lagged and was reborn in October. Here recently the game has picked up, minus the holidays and finals for school, but the content and player base has grown. So if one month is deemed to short I will change it to two or three, but I do ask that even if you don't like the 1 month not to vote the proposal down, but to vote for it and then propose an amendment. I think that we should start passing more proposals and then just amend the ones we have. Of course if you don't like the principle of the rule by all means still vote against it. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:02, 2 January 2007 (EST) | ||
== Debate == | == Debate == | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| + | Way too fast IMHO. How about quarterly? [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 00:33, 2 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | I would tend to agree with a longer time frame. I wasn't too keen on the scorekeeper idea already, and with your concerns now raised (dayd), might it not just be more practical to nix the S.K. position? --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:36, 2 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Actually, my only objection is that it makes "wins" a really common thing, it's almost like "everybody wins". However, I do agree that the scorekeeper's job will get progressively harder, since the inevitable mistakes in bookkeeping will become cumulative, so perhaps resetting the score every month isn't so bad. I just think a different term would be better. Something as ho-hum as "round wins", or perhaps something more like an object. Like Gold Stars, (or heck, Gold Pieces) or Experience Points, or something evocative of some kind of game mechanic other than a "monthly win". [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 17:42, 2 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hm, my comments appear here and replies are appearing above them :p I'm for it in general, I just don't care for the "win" term for something so frequent. Maybe we can introduce shiny trophies for "real" wins. [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 12:27, 3 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Monthly wins are too often. I'm with Chuck on the quarterly thing. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 12:58, 3 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | A month does seem short, but I agree with Dayd that it makes a nice timeframe for changing the positions. As long as we keep the timeframe as a multiple of months, it shouldn't pose a problem. As for the cumulative accumulation of errors, couldn't we just make a rule that said "Any mistakes in the scoring greater than a month old are ignored." This would be similar to improper proposals- once a mistake has been incorporated into the rules, or the scores, you can't change it back. As for what happens to the winner, I like the idea of some (for now) worthless power or item, to curb their opportunity for winning the next game simply because they were the winner in the last. If anybody is aware of the card game [http://www.pagat.com/climbing/asshole.html President] we could borrow the round scoring from that, with the winner getting President, the second player getting Vice-President etc etc with the last player getting Peasant, or something similar. --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 14:13, 3 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think we should call the last player Asshole...but I suppose...Here's the thing about awarding a spot for last place-would you penalize or reward for it. In P&A the A. gets the power while he's dealing. Do you propose awarding last place some minor power or is there to be some punishment (the P. from the last round may negate one vote of the A. or something?). Some things that have been incubating regarding this discussion...Now...this is assuming that popularity goes through. I have been lukewarm on the whole popularity thing since it is essentially a variant on points. I know that I was blah on this idea before, but what if we DID reset points at the end of the month. There could be a correlation between points and popularity. Lets say we rank everyone for their points that month and award a percentage gain on their end-of-month-rank. 40%(1st), 30%(2nd), 25, 20...1%(10th)-or whatever we come up with. Okay...i'll go away now. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 14:38, 3 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yeah, minor power for the asshole! I'm working on an idea for negative points which would make it an incentive to get to -30 points, and think the idea of rewarding failure is genius. But then, I am British... --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 14:44, 3 January 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
== Vote == | == Vote == | ||
| + | Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:54, 4 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I declare this proposal failed. --[[User:66.41.83.16|66.41.83.16]] 16:02, 9 January 2007 (EST) | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | ||
| - | # | + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:54, 4 January 2007 (EST) |
| + | # [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 16:02, 4 January 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | ||
| - | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:44, 4 January 2007 (EST) (I don't like the wording...for example i'd like to see score reset on first day of new month, among others) |
| + | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:23, 5 January 2007 (EST); (I prefer an actual game condition to winning instead of a time limit, or if we're doing it for ease of bookkeeping, perhaps a quarterly reset of points with no winner declared - that is, you have 3 months to win regardless). <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Abstain === | === Abstain === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--> | ||
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=6 Add Abstention] | [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=6 Add Abstention] | ||
| + | # --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 05:38, 5 January 2007 (EST) | ||
# <!--# ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--# ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
__NOEDITSECTION__ | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Current revision as of 21:03, 9 January 2007
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary Debate will end on 12:00, 3 Junuary, 2007.
This proposal is really intented to limit the amount of work the scorekeeper has to do. After trying to backlog scoring I figure resetting it will be much easier. That and I will be giving up the most considering I have the greatest score to lose. Also this will make rounds more finite instead of lasting indifinitely. I feel that this will allow more player the potential of winning. --Dayd 01:25, 1 January 2007 (EST)
The reason a month was selected was because that is the current length of all position. I figured after a round all the positions should be reselected. I think I like Co-Nomic's idea of the winning, being granted special rights, but at the same time their point scores are handicapped making it unlikely that a person can win two rounds in a row. It is also my opinion that we need to stop with the 0 gain and work on win win situations. This nomic still doesn't really have a point nor a purpose, albeit the generic propose rules, vote, gains points, repeat. So based on my monthly round things in the future will be based on this cycle to include Elections, AJF drafted population table, etc. --Dayd 11:15, 2 January 2007 (EST)
Even though I think the position of Scorekeeper is difficult I do think it is needed. One reason is that the Scorekeeper will be able to track all players scores and make sure that no one is cheating and will determine when someone reaches n points. Also as we add to the Nomic I think the Scorekeeper position will be useful in tracking the rest of the statistics. I don't really have a major problem with being Scorekeeper since I don't think anyone else really wants the position. I also don't have a huge problem with having to go back and figure out when we hit 25 mutable rules and points took effect and then the chronology of when points for contrary votes was halfed. I did think it would just be easier to reset the score. Also this position is kind of intended to fill the "Minister of Order" position from the Game Direction page.
But as for this proposal it is my intent to reset the score and round I suppose. The current round has lasted since April, course the game lagged and was reborn in October. Here recently the game has picked up, minus the holidays and finals for school, but the content and player base has grown. So if one month is deemed to short I will change it to two or three, but I do ask that even if you don't like the 1 month not to vote the proposal down, but to vote for it and then propose an amendment. I think that we should start passing more proposals and then just amend the ones we have. Of course if you don't like the principle of the rule by all means still vote against it. --Dayd 22:02, 2 January 2007 (EST)
Debate
Add comments Way too fast IMHO. How about quarterly? chuck 00:33, 2 January 2007 (EST)
I would tend to agree with a longer time frame. I wasn't too keen on the scorekeeper idea already, and with your concerns now raised (dayd), might it not just be more practical to nix the S.K. position? --Tucana25 13:36, 2 January 2007 (EST)
Actually, my only objection is that it makes "wins" a really common thing, it's almost like "everybody wins". However, I do agree that the scorekeeper's job will get progressively harder, since the inevitable mistakes in bookkeeping will become cumulative, so perhaps resetting the score every month isn't so bad. I just think a different term would be better. Something as ho-hum as "round wins", or perhaps something more like an object. Like Gold Stars, (or heck, Gold Pieces) or Experience Points, or something evocative of some kind of game mechanic other than a "monthly win". chuck 17:42, 2 January 2007 (EST)
Hm, my comments appear here and replies are appearing above them :p I'm for it in general, I just don't care for the "win" term for something so frequent. Maybe we can introduce shiny trophies for "real" wins. chuck 12:27, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Monthly wins are too often. I'm with Chuck on the quarterly thing. --TomFoolery 12:58, 3 January 2007 (EST)
A month does seem short, but I agree with Dayd that it makes a nice timeframe for changing the positions. As long as we keep the timeframe as a multiple of months, it shouldn't pose a problem. As for the cumulative accumulation of errors, couldn't we just make a rule that said "Any mistakes in the scoring greater than a month old are ignored." This would be similar to improper proposals- once a mistake has been incorporated into the rules, or the scores, you can't change it back. As for what happens to the winner, I like the idea of some (for now) worthless power or item, to curb their opportunity for winning the next game simply because they were the winner in the last. If anybody is aware of the card game President we could borrow the round scoring from that, with the winner getting President, the second player getting Vice-President etc etc with the last player getting Peasant, or something similar. --Finisterre 14:13, 3 January 2007 (EST)
I think we should call the last player Asshole...but I suppose...Here's the thing about awarding a spot for last place-would you penalize or reward for it. In P&A the A. gets the power while he's dealing. Do you propose awarding last place some minor power or is there to be some punishment (the P. from the last round may negate one vote of the A. or something?). Some things that have been incubating regarding this discussion...Now...this is assuming that popularity goes through. I have been lukewarm on the whole popularity thing since it is essentially a variant on points. I know that I was blah on this idea before, but what if we DID reset points at the end of the month. There could be a correlation between points and popularity. Lets say we rank everyone for their points that month and award a percentage gain on their end-of-month-rank. 40%(1st), 30%(2nd), 25, 20...1%(10th)-or whatever we come up with. Okay...i'll go away now. --Tucana25 14:38, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Yeah, minor power for the asshole! I'm working on an idea for negative points which would make it an incentive to get to -30 points, and think the idea of rewarding failure is genius. But then, I am British... --Finisterre 14:44, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Dayd 09:54, 4 January 2007 (EST)
I declare this proposal failed. --66.41.83.16 16:02, 9 January 2007 (EST)
For
Against
- --Tucana25 23:44, 4 January 2007 (EST) (I don't like the wording...for example i'd like to see score reset on first day of new month, among others)
- Applejuicefool 12:23, 5 January 2007 (EST); (I prefer an actual game condition to winning instead of a time limit, or if we're doing it for ease of bookkeeping, perhaps a quarterly reset of points with no winner declared - that is, you have 3 months to win regardless).
Abstain
- --Finisterre 05:38, 5 January 2007 (EST)
