Nomicapolis - User contributions [en]

Current ruleset

2009-11-05T04:15:03Z

Wooble: null edit

This is the current ruleset. Any changes to this must be approved as outlined within the ruleset. To propose any change to this ruleset please go to the [[Proposals tutorial]] page and follow the instructions there. If there is any inconsistency between this list and individual rules pages, the individual rules as displayed on their respective pages shall prevail. Please update this page with any recent changes to the rules as outlined on the proposal page. See the category '''[[:Category:Current rule|Current rule]]''' for a up-to-date list of all the current rules.

==Immutable Rules==
===[[102]]===
Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

===[[104]]===
All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

===[[106]]===
All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

===[[107]]===
No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

===[[108]]===
Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

===[[109]]===
Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

===[[110]]===
In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

===[[111]]===
If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

===[[113]]===
A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

===[[114]]===
There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

===[[115]]===
Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule.

===[[116]]===
Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

===[[345]]===

Proposal to transmute by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 16:33, 4 December 2006

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 13:21, 28 November 2006 (EST).

Nomicapolis is hereby defined as an ongoing game divided into rounds of play.

Any use of the word "winner" in the Nomicapolis ruleset should be taken to mean "winner of a round of play."

A "round of play" is defined as a period of Nomicapolis participation ending when a winner is determined.

When a round of play ends, all players' scores are reset to zero.

Following the end of a round of play, a subsequent round of play shall begin.

{{Ruleblurb|391}}

==Mutable Rules==

===[[205]]===
An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

===[[206]]===
When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

===[[207]]===
Each player always has exactly one vote.

===[[208]]===
The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

===[[210]]===
If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

===[[308]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[201]] is amended to read, in entirety, "A player may propose a rule change at any time. Each player begins the game with 0 points."

===[[311]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[203]] is hereby amended to read, in entirety:

"A rule-change is adopted if and only if a simple majority of those voting on the rule change vote 'For' the proposal. This rule defers to rule [[304]]."

===[[317]]===

Proposed by --Dayd 15:54, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[212]] shall be amended to read as follows: If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a rule change cannot be determined with finality, or if by a simple majority not overruled, a rule change appears equally legal and illegal, then the player with the most points is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

===[[322]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:14, 17 November 2006 (EST)

When a rule is passed the player that proposed it shall gain 10 (positive) points.

===[[327]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:39, 24 November 2006 (EST)

A player can choose to abstain on a proposal. To do this the player shall cast his vote on ABSTAIN. Votes cast on abstain count neither for nor against the proposal in question. They do count for the quorum.

===[[330]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:46, 25 November 2006 (EST)

There exists a type of entity called "Citizen of Nomicapolis", a term which may be shortened to "Citizen" without the meaning being altered.

When this rule goes into effect, a number of Citizens is created equal to 5,000 for each active player, and 2,500 for each player whose status is other than "active."

New Citizens are not automatically added by this rule when new players join the game or when players gain "active" status. Citizens are not automatically eliminated by this rule when players leave the game or lose their "active" status. This rule provides for a one-time creation of Citizens, and this rule will not further affect the number of Citizens in the game.

Other rules may be adopted which will affect the number or nature of Citizens in the game.

The number of Citizens in the game is termed the "Population of Nomicapolis" or, simply, "Population." The Population shall be posted on the Nomicapolis main page. If the Population changes for any reason, this posting shall be updated to reflect the correct Population.

The Judge of Nomicapolis shall be responsible for calculating and properly posting the current Population. The preceding sentence of this rule defers to rules which assign this duty to another player.

===[[331]]===

Proposed by --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:51, 25 November 2006 (EST)

#Rule changes that transmute mutable rules into immutable rules may adopted if and only if the vote for the change is unanimous among eligible voters.
#As soon as a mutable rule is transmuted to immutable, it shall be moved to the immutable section of the current ruleset by the player declaring the vote ended.

===[[332]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:39, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Each active player will be allowed to have three (3) proposals active at any time. An active proposal is one that has first been proposed, secondly is in the debate stage or voting stage, and finally has not been passed or rejected.

===[[333]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:34, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[204]] 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.

2.1No 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."

===[[336]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:04, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Rule 310 is ammended to read, in entirety:
"In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute of a greater number of FOR than AGAINST votes. A supermajority shall constitute of least 2 FOR votes to every 1 AGAINST vote. Unaminous consent shall be defined as not having any AGAINST votes. 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 FOR votes will win."

===[[339]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)

A Player may only gain or lose points as the rules then in effect dictate.

===[[342]]===
Proposed by [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] at 02:57, 1 December 2006 (EST).

1. The offical game time will be Eastern Standard Time (EST) as indicated by the server. Any specific times mentioned in proposals or their respective debate/vote pages, must, henceforth, be represented in the offical game time format.

1.1 An example of the official game time format is as follows: 02:57, 1 December 2006 (EST)

2. Any player may make a timestamp edit at the TOP of the debate/vote pages in order to determine if or when a deadline was or will be reached.

2.1 Timestamp edits do not meet the requirements for continuation of debate or vote unless the use of the timestamp is relavent to the debate.

===[[343]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:39, 1 December 2006 (EST).

In the event that there are fewer than three (3) active players in the game, an inactive player may become active by declaring that change in status on the Nomicapolis main page.

This rule takes precedence over other rules in determining how inactive players may become active.

===[[346]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:44, 4 December 2006 (EST).

When a proposed rule-change may be voted on, the player who proposed the rule-change must cast at least one vote (or as great a fraction of one vote as the rules allow) in favor of that rule change.

Should the proposer of a rule change cast a vote (or any fraction thereof) on that proposal other than "FOR", his/her vote will be invalid and will not count toward the outcome of the ballot; in addition, 10 points shall be deducted from that player's score.

Should the proposer of a rule change fail to cast at least one vote (or as great a fraction of one vote as the rules allow) regarding that proposal prior to the end of the voting period, 5 points shall be deducted from that player's score.

===[[351]]===

Proposed by: Chuck 20:25, 6 December 2006 (EST)

1. Wherever the rules refer to a player having some number of votes (such as one), this shall mean that a player is eligible to cast that number of votes per proposal, in accordance with all rules in effect.

2. No player may divide, combine, or otherwise alter the number of votes that he or she is eligible to cast on a particular proposal, unless the rules specifically permit it.

3. Wherever the rules refer to a fractional vote, the vote shall only be considered fractional for the purposes of totaling the number of votes. A player is always eligible to cast a fractional vote as though it were a single vote, e.g. a player does not require two half-votes to be eligible to vote.

4. Neither fractional votes nor multiple votes cast by a single player on a proposal shall have any different affect on quorum than a single vote. For the purposes of determining quorum, any number of votes cast by a player shall be treated as a single whole vote.

===[[355]]===

:= Districting =
Nomicapolis is divided into five cantons. These cantons shall be named as follows:

* North Canton
* South Canton
* East Canton
* West Canton
* Center Canton

Cantons may be referred to by additional or alternate names only as the rules permit.

The North Canton borders the East, West, and Center Cantons.
The South Canton borders the East, West, and Center Cantons.
The East Canton borders the North, South, and Center Cantons.
The West Canton borders the North, South, and Center Cantons.
The Center Canton borders all of the North, South, East, and West Cantons.
:= Population =
Each Citizen of Nomicapolis is considered to be a resident of a single "home" canton.

When new Citizens of Nomicapolis are created, and no rule otherwise specifies their residency, these new citizens shall be distributed amongst all cantons such that each canton receives an equal number of citizens. Any remainder will be assigned to the Center Canton.

When Citizens of Nomicapolis are removed for any reason, and no rule otherwise specifies where this removal took place, each canton shall reduce its citizens such that each canton decreases by an equal amount. Any remainder will come from the Center Canton.

Initially, the North, South, East, and West Cantons shall have 12,000 citizens each. The Center Canton shall have 4,500 citizens. If insufficient citizens exist for these residents to be assigned, sufficient immigrants will be added to reach this population. If the population exceeds 52,500, at the time of initial population, then the remaining citizens shall be assigned as though they were new citizens.

===[[356]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:32, 12 December 2006 (EST)

When a proposal to repeal a rule is passed the repealed rule will be removed from the Current ruleset and the rule that repealed the rule will also then be repealed from the Current ruleset. Any current mutable rule that repealed another rule is hereby repealed. Repealing a rule that repealed a rule does not re-enact the original rule. This rule cannot be repealed by this rule.

===[[358]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 16:09, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Rule [[306]] shall be amended to read, in entirety

1. In order for a proposal to be considered "proposed in the proper way" according to the current ruleset it must contain the following elements:

:a) The correct number; i.e. the next number in the sequence.
:b) Verbiage that creates an actual or potential change to Nomicapolis play.
:c) The user name of the proposer. This should follow the proposal number and precede the text of the proposal in the format used in the proposal of this rule.
:d) Each numbered rule change proposal must have its own Nomicapolis article page and discussion page with the proposal number as the title of the page.

2. If a player believes that a rule was not proposed in the proper way, and/or was proposed in an improper way, he should create a section in the discussion page for that rule headed "Improper Proposal". Following the header, the player should state his reasons why he believes the proposal is not proper. The active judge shall then make a decision on the "Improper Proposal".
:a) A claim of improper proposal must be made before the proposal is declared to have passed or failed.
:b) If a claim of improper proposal passes, then the proposed rule is discarded without completion of a proposal vote. The proposer loses points as if his proposal had been voted down. If the claim fails, the vote on the proposal continues as usual.
:c) When a claim of improper proposal passes or fails, the claimant and voters in the claim action gain or lose half as many points as they would have had the claim been a rule proposal.

===[[360]]===

Proposed by--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:43, 21 December 2006 (EST)

After a vote where the out come is passed or failed (examples may include: rule proposal votes, improper proposal votes) a popularity rating will be assessed toward everyone who voted.
*A vote cast for that is also part of the majority will be worth 15 popularity.
*A vote cast against that is also part of the majority will be worth 10 popularity.
*A vote cast for that is also part of the minority will be worth -5 popularity.
*A vote cast against that is also part of the minority will be worth -10 popularity.

Abstaining, along with any other vote that is neither for nor against, shall be worth 0 popularity.
In the event that there is no clear majority or minority (i.e. for and against recieved the same number of votes) 0 popularity will be assessed.
Popularity will be tracked on the [[Scoreboard]].

===[[362]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:38, 27 December 2006 (EST)

This rule takes precedence over rule [[207]]

Any player who has not voted on a proposal or debated on one within the last 14 days shall be declared 'inactive'. If there have been no proposals to vote on since the player's previous vote, he or she cannot be declared 'inactive'.
A player's status will change from 'inactive' to 'active' after he or she has made one proposal.
Only players deemed to have 'active' status at the beginning of a proposal's voting period may vote for that proposal.
All players that are not deemed to have 'active' status shall not count against the total number of players for purposes of the quorum.
When a player is declared inactive he or she loses 10 points (Gains 10 negative points).
When a player changes to or from 'active' status, the census page shall be edited and refactored to account for the change in status.

===[[366]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:29, 4 January 2007 (EST)

The order and stages of a rule will be as follows.

#Rule Proposed
#Rule Debated
#Rule Voted on
#Rule Passed or Failed
#Points Calculated
#Rule is added to ruleset if passed.

===[[367]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:07, 9 January 2007 (EST)

1. This rule shall take effect at 12:01 am (EST), February 1, 2007.

2. Upon passage of this rule, each Citizen of Nomicapolis shall gain an attribute called "Age." Initially, the existing Citizens of Nomicapolis shall be divided evenly among the seven possible Age values, listed below.

3. The possible values for the Age attribute shall be:
:a. Infant
:b. Young
:c. Young Adult
:d. Adult
:e. Middle-aged
:f. Elderly
:g. Ancient

:These values represent a sequence wherein “Young” follows “Infant”, “Young Adult” follows "Young," etc.

4. On the first day of each month, all citizens who had been designated "Ancient", and half the citizens who had been designated "Elderly", shall die and be removed from the Population. Following this event, each remaining citizen’s Age shall progress to the next value in the sequence.

5. On the first day of the month, following the events in clause #4, one new "Infant" citizen shall be born and added to the population for each citizen designated as "Adult"; in addition, one new "Infant" citizen shall be born and added to the population for every two (2) citizens designated either as "Young Adult" or as "Middle-aged".

6. Population of each age category and changes to these populations shall be applied proportionately to each of the geographic regions of Nomicapolis.

7. The Judge shall no longer have the responsibility of keeping up with the Population. Instead, the Scorekeeper shall maintain the total population of Nomicapolis on the Main Page. The Scorekeeper shall also maintain a separate page entitled [[Population of Nomicapolis]] listing the total population, and demographic details of the population including the number of citizens of each Age and which Canton they inhabit.

===[[369]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:53, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Any player that is not active for a complete round will be removed from the Census at the beginning of the next round.

===[[370]]===

Proposed by --Finisterre 05:26, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Any Player who achieves a negative score of 25 points or below will immediately have their score set to 25 (positive), and gain 100 popularity. A player may only use the effects of this rule once in any given round, even if their score falls below 25 points again.

===[[371]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:47, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Rule [[304]] shall be amended to read:

:Quorum shall be defined as such:

# Quorum is based on active number of players.
# Quorum is half the number of active players. If that number is a fraction, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number (if there are 5 active players, quorom would be 3; 7>4, 9>5, etc).
# Quorom for a vote shall be no fewer than 2 players.

===[[372]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:19, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Rule [[326]] shall be amended to read:

#All debate on a proposal (Stage 2) shall last up to 14 days at the discretion of the person proposing the rule change. Said person is responsible for setting a 'suggested' debate limit at the time of the proposal by including something in the spirit of the statement: 'Debate will end for this proposal at **date and time**' in the "Proposer's summary and declarations" section of the talk page for that proposal.
#Any player may call for a vote (Stage 3) following the end of the 'suggested' debate time limit. The debate period can be cut short by the proposer with the calling for of a vote. Should the proposal not get called to a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed. If a proposal is dismissed in this way, the proposer shall lose 5 (five) points.
#If a vote on a proposal is called for, it should be indicated by adding the following statement: "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on." at the beginning of the "vote" section of the talk page for that proposal. No player may modify the article page of a proposal while a vote is being conducted on that proposal, except to place a protection on the page. If a call is made to vote on a proposal in the proper way (as laid out above), it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted ''or'' after 14 days have elapsed since a vote was called. No player, having once voted for a proposal or election, shall be allowed to change their vote on that proposal or election. Any player who erroneously casts a vote, shall be allowed a total of 30 minutes, from the time that their first erroneous vote was cast, in which to fix the error. After the 30 minute grace period, their vote will stand as cast.
#Voting ''may'' be 'closed' by any player once the following two conditions are met: Quorom has been met and no votes have been cast in the last 48 hours (2 Earth days). If a rule gains the number of "for" votes required to pass or the number of "against" votes required to be defeated, any player may declare an end to voting on the proposal. Voting shall be considered 'closed' when a declaration of Pass/Fail (Stage 4) has been noted above the "Proposer's summary and declarations" section of the talk page(under the Proposed by...).
# If voting ends on a passing proposal, the player who declared the vote ended must immediately make the proposed change to the published ruleset (stage 5). If voting ends on a defeated proposal, no player may add it to the ruleset.

===[[374]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:16, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Players are limited to one Nomicapolis account in play. A new Player may join by registering an account and adding themselves to the [[Census]]. A Player may leave be removing themselves from the [[Census]]. If a Player who has left the game wishes to rejoin, they may do so, but they will start as a brand new Player. All new Players are considered to have active status upon adding their name to the [[Census]]. No Player may add an offensive name to the [[Census]].

===[[375]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:27, 23 January 2007 (EST)

If a proposal fails to recieve the total number of votes required to meet Quorum all Players that voted on that proposal shall gain 20 points.

===[[379]]===
Proposal submitted by BobTHJ 10:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The Scorekeeper of Nomicapolis will be expected to follow all rules in play and update the Scoreboard in accordance with the rules determining points. The Scorekeeper may resign the position at any time. The Scorekeeper may be expelled with a majority vote. The Scorekeeper may voluntarily transfer the position to another willing Player on their choosing. At any time there is not an active Player as Scorekeeper a special vote for a new Scorekeeper will be immediately conducted. The Scorekeeper shall retain their position until they are expelled, resign, or until the position is transferred to another player.

===[[380]]===
Proposed by [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 22:06, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

There exists a page entitled [[Public Announcements]]. Whenever the rules require or allow a Player to make a Game Announcement, that Player may do so by adding a new section to the top of the Public Announcements page. Each Game Announcement must contain the following information:
* A title
* A body of text
* The name of the Player making the Announcement
* A timestamp in the official game format

===[[381]]===
Proposed by BobTHJ 16:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

At any time, a player may make a "Canton Ranking" Game Annoucement. This annoucement should contain a list of the Cantons in ranked order. Any Canton Ranking Game Annoucement superceeds any previous Canton Ranking Game Annoucement made by the same Player, and shall remain in effect until that Player makes a new Canton Ranking Game Annoucement.

After the first of each month (but before the fifth), the Scorekeeper shall compare all players who have made Canton Ranking Game Annoucements. The most popular Player will recieve their first choice of Canton. The next popular Player will then recieve their choice of Canton from their ranked list. This will continue untill all Cantons have leaders or no Players remain that have ranked lists. In the event that a Canton already has a leader the player with the most popularity will become the leader of the Canton. The next choice in the ranked Canton list will be selected till either the Player becomes leader of a Canton or no Canton's remain on the list. A Player may only be leader of one (1) Canton at a time. Choosing a new Canton will forfeit leadership in previous Cantons. If two players are tied for the same popularity, then the Player listed first on the Census shall have first choice of Canton.

If the Scorekeeper fails to perform their monthly duties under this Rule by the fifth of each month, they shall lose 10 points and shall cease to be Scorekeeper.

===[[382]]===
Proposed by [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 20:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Just after Canton Leaders are determined at the beginning of each month each Player (including Inactive Players) who is not a Canton Leader is assigned to "Reside" in a Canton by the Scorekeeper. Players are assigned to Reside in Cantons as follows:
# If that Player has a current Ranked Canton List, then they are assigned to Reside in the first Canton on that list.
# If a Player Resided in a Canton previously, they continue to Reside in that Canton
# The Player is assigned to Reside in the same Canton as the Scorekeeper.

Canton Leaders automatically Reside in the Canton they lead.

===[[384]]===
Proposed By [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 01:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Whenever a number would be specified in a proposed rule, its proposer may instead specify a string in the following format:

RANDOM:[XXX]

The [XXX] in the above should be substituted with any stock ticker symbol for any publicly traded stock with historical information readily available on leading financial websites. The number in question shall be equal to the hundredths digit (cents, a number from 0-9) of the most recent closing price of the specified stock, and shall vary over time as the stock price changes.

===[[385]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Rule [[321]] shall be amended to read:

The 'Judge of Nomicapolis' shall be voted for on the first of every month. The Judge may resign the position at any time.

Voting procedure shall be as follows...
*The Player that recieves the most votes will become the Judge.
*In the event of a tie between 1 or more Players the Player that recieved the most votes first will become the Judge.
*Should no votes be cast in a monthly election, the previous judge will retain the title.
*If at any time there is not an active Player as Judge a special vote for a new Judge will be immediately conducted
*The Judge may be expelled with a supermajority vote.
*The decision of the Judge can only be overruled by a unanimous vote of all active players (except the player who was Judge at the time of the decision in question, who shall not vote).

Responsibilities shall be as follows...
*The Judge will be responsible for resolving any and all problems with proposals and rules.
*The Judge will be expected to use their best judgement and resolve all problems within 7 days.
*The Judge shall make a judgement whenever called upon to do so by any active player.
*The Judge shall abide by ''stare decisis''.
*A new page entitled "Decisions of the Judge" shall be created to hold such decisions, and shall be maintained by the current Judge.
*Any Player may accuse another Player of a violation of the rules. The Judge will determine if the accused Player is guilty and, if guilty will determine the punishment. A Player found guilty may ask for a decision to be overruled (in cases such as this neither the judge, accusee, and accuser may vote).

===[[386]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Each Canton of Nomicapolis may declare a Dynasty in any Canton they are leader of. This Dynasty shall be named under the Public Announcements page, under the Canton Rankings. A Dynasty name shall last as long as that player is leader of that Canton and cannot be changed unless a claim of improper procedure (offensive name, duplicate name, etc.) is put before the Judge.

Any Dynasty may declare war on another Dynasty so long as they border each other geographically. A declaration of war shall last until withdrawn by the player who declared it, or when either Dynasty ends. If a player withdraws their declaration of war, they must wait until the first day of the next month to make a new declaration of war. No more than 1 (one) declaration of war may be announced at a time by a given player.

{{Ruleblurb|389}}
{{Ruleblurb|390}}
{{Ruleblurb|392}}
{{Ruleblurb|393}}
{{Ruleblurb|395}}

389

2009-11-05T04:11:06Z

Wooble: rvv

{{Current mutable rule}}

Proposed by [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

On the second day of each month, a Dynasty which has declared war on another dynasty shall lose citizens equal to (0.5% * RANDOM: AAPL) * (Young Adult + Adult population), for each Dynasty they have declared war on. 75% of those citizens lost shall be Young Adults and 25% shall be Adults.

In addition, any Dynasty which has had war declared upon it by another Dynasty shall lose (0.5% * RANDOM: MSFT) of its total population, taken evenly from each age group.

390

2009-11-05T04:09:37Z

Wooble: rvv

{{Current mutable rule}}

Proposed by [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 15:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

On the first day of each month, immigrants arrive in a canton of Nomicapolis looking for homes. After the Scorekeeper updates Population totals, the number RANDOM: MCD is determined and the Scorekeeper takes action based on its value:

0-1: The Scorekeeper adds 10 to the population of each age group of the North Canton
2-3: The Scorekeeper adds 10 to the population of each age group of the South Canton
4-5: The Scorekeeper adds 10 to the population of each age group of the East Canton
6-7: The Scorekeeper adds 10 to the population of each age group of the West Canton
8-9: The Scorekeeper adds 10 to the population of each age group of the Central Canton

The Scorekeeper shall keep a record on the Public Announcements page of which Canton received immigrants for each month since this proposal was passed.

User:Simulacrum

2009-11-05T03:49:28Z

Wooble: rv pornspam

{{Current number of points|23}}
I am Simulacrum. I will participate usually from sunday evenings to tuesday evenings.

==My bio==
I am a 28 year old male living in Fort Worth, TX. I have no wife and no children (''that I'm aware of''). I study computer science, political science, sociology, law, philosophy, and mathematics esp. number theory. I am mainly an arm-chair theorist. My [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ political compass] points southwest to the libertarian-left, slightly lower and further right than what Gandhi [http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 was]. I have an addiction to nicotine and World of Warcraft (which is the reason why I am not as active as I should be here). I am currently 2 years into a sabbatical from formal studies, I hope to start back up again next fall. Right now I deliver pizzas.

==Yikes==
I'm gone for a week the whole game is '''different'''! I guess that why I like nomic so much. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 23:33, 27 November 2006 (EST)

==Activity==
;Proposal [[301]] passes.: per rule [[202]]: (301 - 291) * (2 / 2) = +10 points for '''Simulacrum'''
;Proposal [[304]] passes.: per rule [[202]]: (304 - 291) * (4 / 4) = +13 points for '''Simulacrum'''

==Thresholds==
There certain thresholds that must be watched in order for the game to be '''''legal'''''.

Rule [[114]] state that the number of [[:Category:Mutable rule|Mutable Rules]] must be no less than '''1'''.

Rule [[305]] state that if the number of '''Mutable Rules''' is ever '''25''' it shall be automatically repealed.

: Current number of mutable rules is '''24'''

==Workspaces==
* [[User:Simulacrum/Hopes and Dreams|Hopes and Dreams on the Future of this Wiki]]
* [[User:Simulacrum/workspace|workspace]]
* [[User:Simulacrum/All rules|All rules past and present]]
* [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hidepatrolled=1&days=30&limit=500 My Recent Changes Settings]
* [[Nomicapolis:Look and feel]]
* [[All rules & proposals past and present]]
* [[Nomicapolis Newsletter]]
04:03, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Public Announcements

2007-06-01T23:42:25Z

Wooble: /* Wooble's Canton Rankings */ revise

==Chuck's Canton Rankings==
I rank the Cantons as follows:
* East Canton
* Center Canton
* North Canton
* West Canton
* South Canton
[[User:Chuck|chuck]] 12:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

==BobTHJ's Canton Rankings==
My Canton List:
* North Canton
* South Canton
* Central Canton
* East Canton
* West Canton
[[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 20:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I hereby declare the Bobicus Janitorus dynasty in the North Canton [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:00, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Wooble's Canton Rankings==
I rank the Cantons as follows:
* West Canton
* Center Canton
* South Canton
* East Canton
* North Canton
[[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 19:42, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

==Tucana's Canton Rankins==
My rankings for the Cantons of Nomicapolis shall be:
*Center
*East
*North
*West
*South
--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

tucana25 declares the ''''' Seneca''''' Dynasty in the Center Canton. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:47, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Industry Index==
I order that the industry index for the [[West Canton]] be set to 0. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I order that the industry index for the [[Center Canton]] (under Sir tucana25 great leader of the Seneca Dynasty) to be set to 10. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:18, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Center Canton

2007-06-01T15:35:53Z

Wooble: updating infobox per Game Announcement

{{Infobox Canton|name=Center|leader=Tucana25|population=8050|dynasty=Seneca|industryindex=10}}

==Current Residents of the Center Canton==
[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]]

[[Category:Canton]]

User talk:Chuck

2007-06-01T15:34:52Z

Wooble: canton rankings

welcome chuck...good to have you --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:58, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Hey Chuck, thanks for coming over. You're up to your neck in games! Hope you enjoy this one, it's still pretty new. I didn't know that B Nomic started using a Mediawiki engine. It looks like most of the game activity is on the mailing lists. That's understandable since that has been the primary fora for most of the nomic games out there. Anywho, have fun. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 00:50, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Welcome Home. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:59, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== canton rankings ==

Hi. I just wanted to remind you that under [[381]] you can rank the Cantons if you'd like to become a Leader of one of them. I'm delaying closing the vote of [[396]] so the Leaders can be selected under the old rule, giving the 2 active players who haven't made rankings until tomorrow (or whenever someone else closes the voting on [[396]]) to rank Cantons. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:34, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Darus67

2007-06-01T15:34:38Z

Wooble: Canton rankings?

A New Player! Welcome to Nomicapolis! [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 10:55, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks and greetings to all Nomicapolitans. --[[User:Darus67|Darus67]] 10:57, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Canton rankings? ==

Hi. I just wanted to remind you that under [[381]] you can rank the Cantons if you'd like to become a Leader of one of them. I'm delaying closing the vote of [[396]] so the Leaders can be selected under the old rule, giving the 2 active players who haven't made rankings until tomorrow (or whenever someone else closes the voting on [[396]]) to rank Cantons. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:34, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

West Canton

2007-06-01T15:31:41Z

Wooble: rv; 181 requires wait until "after the first"

{{Infobox Canton|name=West|leader=Wooble|population=21425|dynasty=none|industryindex=0}}

==Current residents of the West Canton==
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]]
# [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]]
# [[User:Sinblox|sinblox]]
# [[User:the_coast_guard|the_coast_guard]]
# [[User:Mari0mega|Mari0mega]]
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]]
# [[User:Pugrins|Pugrins]]
# [[User:Greywhind|Greywhind]]
# [[User:Kidko|Kidko]]
# [[User:Dayd|Dayd]]
# [[User:Anya|Anya]]
# [[User:Shivan|Shivan]]
# [[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]]
# [[User:Chuck|Chuck]]
# [[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]]
# [[user:oosizzo|oosizzo]]
# [[User:Samoht|Samoht]]
# [[User:Titans8904|Titans8904]]
# [[User:Endymion|Endymion]]

[[Category:Canton]]

West Canton

2007-06-01T15:30:12Z

Wooble: assigning non-leader players with no rankings to scorekeeper's canton

Talk:Decisions of the Judge

2007-05-31T18:12:24Z

Wooble: question on unanimity

{| border="2" cellpadding="4" style="text-align:left" align="right"
! '''Archived Discussion'''
|-
| [[Talk:Decisions of the Judge/Dec06|Decisions of the Judge/Dec06]]
|
|}

I request a Judgement on whether Proposal 357 should have failed. According to Rule [[326]], section 2, a proposal in those set of circumstances is 'dismissed', and it is not clear whether this is the same as failing for the purposes of scoring. Should [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] have lost 10 points? --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 06:05, 5 January 2007 (EST)

== [[378]] vote ==

I request judgement on whether BobTHJ properly closed the voting of [[378]]. [[109]] states that the vote needed to be "unanimous among the eligible voters". I believe that several voters were Active at the beginning of the voting period who did not vote, so the vote cannot have passed. I'm uncertain, under [[372]], whether the vote should have been held open for 14 days or if it can be closed as failing once Quorum has been met and 48 hours have passed since the last vote, but I don't believe Quorum has been met in any case, and if it has I believe the result should be Failed. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 20:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

-- I overlooked Rule #109 when determining if voting was complete. However, all active voters has voted at the time I closed voting (since I had just made everyone else inactive), so it's a tough call. My apologies for not being more cautious. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 20:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quorum==

Chuck has become active since the recent proposals [[393]], [[394]], [[395]] were opened for voting. While rule [[362]] says he is not an eligible voter, it is ambiguous if Chuck becoming an active player increases quorum from 2 votes to 3 per rule [[371]]. I request judgment on the current value of Quorum.
:I'll try to get to this tomorrow...i just got home and want to spend awhile looking the rules to make sure i properly interpret the situation. Thank you for bringing this to attention. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:02, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I believe this point is moot, as all 3 of those proposals require a unanimous vote among players who were Active when they were brought to vote. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Indeed it is, and I figured it would be, however it would be nice to have a ruling anyway should the situation arise in the future. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 10:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[393]],[[395]]==
Before I score these 2, I'd like clarification on whether Darus67 should have been required to vote For both of these for them to pass. I think the rules make him an active player as of the start of the voting period, but he hasn't had any activity on the wiki since about 2 hours after he joined. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 14:12, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Game-direction

2007-05-31T13:00:10Z

Wooble: /* Spam */ on filters

Nomicapolis 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.

==Hosting Options==
I've opened up the discussion at [[Hosting Options]], so comment away! [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 01:56, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==Categorizing Rules==

Does anyone else think it is a pain in the butt to have to read through the entire ruleset to find those few rules that deal with the topic you are researching? I think we should use the Wiki's categorization system to assign keyword categories to rules such as "scoring", "quorum", "population", etc. This way we can easily find the rules that apply to the topic at hand. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 13:04, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

: I usually just pull up the ruleset and do a search in my browser for keywords. Categories really kind of suck for keywords -- too much maintenance. I'm looking at Semantic MediaWiki and similar stuff for "real" metadata, though I don't think it'll help much in that particular case. Narrowing a search to rules only would help, though I suppose rules will need their own namespace in that case (which is itself not a bad idea) [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 14:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==Spam==
I just reverted spam that vandalized an entire rule's text. The anti-spam "feature" was MIA (apparently a spammer can just post less links), and for non-admins, there isn't a rollback interface. I see no reason why anonymous users should be allowed to edit anything here. This really chaps my hide, and really makes me want to move sooner rather than later. I think Tucana25 is the only player we haven't heard from that's been active the last month or so, so I guess we can wait til he gets back to see if the opinion is unanimous. [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 11:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:what is your suggestion? I'm pretty open to whatever the masses want (publically, of course...personally I'm trying to drag the masses into some kind of futuristic neo-dictatorship where I am essentially an untouchable golden god...but i digress...) --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually the anti-spam feature on editthis consists of a set of keywords that aren't allowed in any edits, and the spam in question is an ad for something I've never heard of so it's likely it hadn't been added to the keyword list yet. Still, disallowing anon edits (which, if I'm not mistaken, we can't actually do without a Bureaucrat) is a great idea; there's no reason someone who's not a Player needs to be editing this wiki. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 09:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==SNAP==
I didn't even get to vote on my own proposal...you guys acted quick... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:28, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh...yeah...as per [[346]], i need to lose 5 points for not voting on my own proposal...almost forgot... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:41, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
: I deducted the 5 points from the 10 you got for your proposal passing. I'm thinking of a proposal that would stop a proposer from gaining these points if they don't vote, and at the same time restrict closing of votes on which the proposer didn't have a reasonable time period to vote. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 09:24, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::The simple solution would be to call for a vote yourself when it is time...thus casting a vote...so i'm ok with it now...--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, of course the proposer is allowed to call for a vote at any time while other people need to wait until the proposer's suggested time, so with proper planning anyone should be able to avoid the point deduction. And of course if we had more than 3 active players it would be a lot harder for a proposal to get enough votes to be closed so quickly. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:30, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Random Numbers==

I think Nomicapolis could benefit from having some way to determine random numbers that was verifiable. If we had random numbers we could introduce variance into the population calculations, as well as all kinds of other fun things. I don't think the wiki provides a means to generate random numbers (correct me if I am wrong). Perhaps we could come up with our own formula to generate a pseudo random number based off bits of data that are archived elsewhere on the internet (ie. historical temperatures in a specific city, stock closing prices, etc.). Anyone have any thoughts? [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 18:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

: I thought I'd de-lurk for a moment: I'd just like to reiterate my offer to host Nomicapolis on nomic.info, with a fully up-to-date wiki codebase and whatever else people feel is needed. This would at the very least include things like scripting functions and plugins, for all the RNG goodness you need. This is a VPS system, not shared webhosting (shared only insofar as it's a fixed Xen slice) and it's doing NOTHING else since I mothballed pythonomic. -- Chuck (cja987@gmail.com)

:: I appreciate the offer, and I am all for it (with the consent of the other players) [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 23:25, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Fine with me as well. Apparently my earlier response never got saved here; I'd written something to the effect that not only would a modern version of MediaWiki be extremely welcome (the amount of stuff that you can do on Wikipedia that doesn't work in the version they've got running here is depressing, and the editthis.info people apparently think upgrading to PHP5 is extremely difficult for some reason), but also I think that a wiki where all of the Bureaucrats are no longer involved and there's only 1 admin left (who, thankfully, is a very active participant but you could say the same about the previous admins before they all vanished) is probably doomed in the long run. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Center Canton==
Please check out the suggested guidelines [[Nomicapolis_Cantons_Center|here]]. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Resource Ideas==

Here are some thoughts for some proposal:

At the beginning of each month, each cantor generates a number of resources. The leader of the Cantor can decide which resource is produced. The number of resources produced is based upon the adult population of that Cantor (say middle three age groups), and the leaders popularity. Resources can then be used to build special structures in a cantor that provide various bonuses.

In order to make this work well, I think players should declare an affiliation to a specific Cantor. Also, the position of Cantor leader should be made a longer term position (perhaps giving each Cantor the ability to govern it's own process of leader appointment, assuming we can find some more players).

==Renewing Activity==

I made some advertisements in an effort to draw in more players. Is there any way to contact existing players by e-mail? Perhaps some of the inactives simply got busy with something else and forgot to check back. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I only have the email of one person, who i will attempt to contact. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Links to elections==

Maybe I just didn't see it, but I can't find links to the current elections anywhere. March's elections are on the Proposal Tutorial page, and I was able to find April's by manually typing in the addresses. However, it seems that we should have a page listing all the offices with links to each election for that office. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 00:07, 13 April 2007 (EST)

:The April ones were linked on the Main page while they were active, although this is not required by the rules. You might notice that there was exactly one voter in each election; a rule change to make these things more friendly for a slow-moving game might be welcomed. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 06:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:I submitted a proposal to remove the monthly Scorekeeper voting requirements. As it is not a position with power over the game rules, I don't see a problem with allowing a Scorekeeper to retain office indefinitely. However, the Judge is another matter. I'm all in favor of eliminating monthly voting for a Judge, but there should be some sort of a challenge provision that allows a potential judge to be voted on to replace the current one. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Another problem I notice with the Judge and Scorekeeper elections is that current rules only allow voting to occur for one day (the 1st of the month). It would be nice if the election period were for more than a day. Also, there appears to be no rules governing special elections (such as those required to expel or elect a new Scorekeeper/Judge) [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==What happens if someone wins?==
[[101]] states that when "a game begins", the initial ruleset is in effect; however, rule [[345]] states that "a new round of play" begins if a player wins the current round of play. This means that in the new "round of play", not being a new game, the initial ruleset doesn't go back into effect.

Unfortunately, this means that if someone wins under [[317]], it will remain forever impossible to continue play. I think that [[317]] clearly needs to be amended to provide for this contingency, and it might be good to change [[101]] to establish a more wiki-friendly initial set of rules for future rounds (and possibly include some/all of the added features of the current round). Just an idea; I don't have any specific proposals in mind at the moment. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:It had been discussed somewhere in the past about having some sort of "constitutional congress" to discuss exactly how that wanted to be accomplished...I agree that such a problem should be addressed...although my understanding was that as of right now the current ruleset would remain intact with all scores being reset. All of this could be misrememberization on my part, so please put forth something you feel would fix this problem. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Unnumbered Proposal ==
I threw a few things onto paper (screen?) in my workspace regarding perhaps a starting off point for money, etc. I don't really know if I like it yet myself, but I wanted to see if anyone had any opinions. Also, I want to get rid of/combine the stages of life a citizen can have. I think we can pare it down to 4, maybe 5 stages instead of 7. Get rid of the Young Adult and Middle Aged (leaving infant, youth, adult, elderly, ancient) or something. It just seems like extra work and extra space unless someone has some idea about using them in some clever way. I thought I'd bring that concern up before I actually progress any further on mine as that might change my approach. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:39, 10 February 2007 (EST)

== Quorum ==
There are currently 4 active players and one will becoming inactive in about an hour of this posting if they do not vote or debate.

Quorum has been changed. It is now defined under [[371]]. Summing it up half of the active players at the time a vote is called much vote to make it an offical vote. This number has to be at least two and will be rounded up in the event of a fraction. Also anyone who votes on a proposal that doesn't pass the Quorum will get 20 pts per [[375]]. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:33, 31 January 2007 (EST)

== Nomic Positions ==
=== Minister of Order / Gamemaster (for lack of a better name) ===
Should create a position for what Simulacrum does right now, even though we give it to him? Keeping an eye on thresholds, making sure points are more or less correct and such...

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

''
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.

Governor General is defined in proposal [[341]] --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:49, 29 November 2006 (EST)

:The meta-rules sounds a lot like Fantasy Rules Committee. I think it'd be fine for a "sub game", but I don't think I'd want to see it change everything globally (and poetic verse in nomic has ''so'' been done to death) [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 15:58, 4 January 2007 (EST)

=== Adaption of Judge? ===
It seems like there are a lot of potential positions that could make this game move more efficiantly. We have adopted the Judge and Scorekeeper...shot down Supreme Grammarian and Governor General. Perhaps when we have more players this will become a more practical idea...having several positions. What if for now, we combined all of these ideas we've been having into a SuperJudge or something. I know the first concern I have (and I assume you as well) is corruption. Here is my idea. A SuperJudge (lets call them Supreme Nomicapolis Orator Of Canton's Utopia and Moderator also SuperJudge [SNOOCUMS] for now) would be an elected position voted on as of right now-once per month. SNOOCUMS would be held to the same regulations now in place for the Judge as far as removal or we could adopt something different if desired. SNOOCUMS would remain active for that month, but would not make proposals or vote (i don't know about debate???). SNOOCUMS could be rewarded for their month of work either by an increased point total (equivalent to pass/fail ratio OR match the largest point gain by any player over that month OR something) or perhaps if the popularity proposal goes through there could be a tie-in to that.
:CONS-centralized power(could this also be construed as a pro given your philosophy?), One person has a lot of work (responsability) for a month....
:PROS-Something new and interesting, Greater Motivation to WANT to be the SNOOCUMS (depending on rewards decided upon, etc)....

Please let me know if you hate this or have any suggestions...
P.S. I hope its okay i move this to the top...it seemed easier than going and finding the most recent entry...--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 14:16, 3 January 2007 (EST)

I like the idea of power limitations, stopping them from participating other than being an all-seeing eye and moderator of the game. I'd vote for this. --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 14:40, 3 January 2007 (EST)

I hate it. Since you asked. As of right now I think the game needs a Scorekeeper and Judge. The Judge is an elected position for a person that understands the actually workings of the game, where the Scorekeeper is an elected position that requires constant participation and understanding of the wiki to maintain updates. Now while that might not be the actually jobs of the positions at the minute I think those are the two that are required the most. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:52, 4 January 2007 (EST)
:Thanks for the honesty. My question is whether the Scorekeeper is in fact a NECESSARY position...I may be creating rules that never existed or never passed but i thought everyone had to post their current score on their page. Any concerned citizen can check on their co-citizen and call it into public light if they think something is amiss. And if someone declares themselves the winner, their score would be checked at that point, anyway... The other reason I suggested that SNOOCUMS would have quasi inactive status for the month would be so that they could devote time to upkeep items. If we do get a scoreboard setup, the most work is going to be the first edition(at least in the form i am imagining it). I would really prefer to see a "groundskeeper" responsible for updating the current ruleset, proposals page, double checking the proposals to make sure everything is properly done, etc. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:14, 4 January 2007 (EST)

==Debate Time Ending==
[[360]] and [[361]] are getting toward the end of their gestation period. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 14:22, 3 January 2007 (EST)

==[[356]]==
I have not yet repealed several rules, as i am waiting on [[Talk:Decisions_of_the_Judge|a decision from the Judge]]. These rules have amended (and thus repealed) other rules: [[308]] [[311]] [[317]] [[326]] [[334]] [[336]] [[349]]. Per [[317]], this round of the game may be over. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 14:27, 21 December 2006 (EST)

You know if the Judge does rule that all the amendments are to be repealed as well then [[317]] will cease to exist and then there are no rules guiding what to do in the event that play can't continue. But I did repeal [[349]] since it explictly said it was to repeal [[314]]. I have a feeling AJF will rule that it only affects rules that explictly state they reapeal a rule and not rules that are repealed as a byproduct of amendments. But in the event that he does rule that all the amendments are to be repealed as well it will probably then repeal all the rules but [[308]] allowing rule changes because the immutable rule [[114]] that says you must always be allowed to make rule changes. So the game could techniquely still continue, but we wouldn't have any guidance on how many votes are needed to pass or fail a proposal, which would then be the next Judgement needed. Well that's my opinion on the situation and somehow I think that current Judge will see things in a similar light if not exact. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:19, 21 December 2006 (EST)

==[[314]]==
I believe this rule was placed under 'protection' and has now been repealed. It is currently listed on its page as current but has been removed from the ruleset. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:42, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Unprotected. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:26, 3 January 2007 (EST)

==Busy==
Hey guys...sorry I'm kind of slacking off here lately. As a high school teacher, I'm pretty busy this time of year - it's the end of the Fall semester and we're getting ready for finals and grades and all that jazz. After next week, I should be able to pick up the slack again - school will be out and I'll be able to think about Nomicapolis again! That said, I do get on here at least once a day and look at things. I'll try to keep off the inactive list by voting, and don't hesitate to request a judgment - that's the first page I always look at. I wouldn't want to shirk my duty. Thanks for your understanding, [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:06, 14 December 2006 (EST)

==Citizens' Age==
Please check out and comment on my draft proposal at [[User:Applejuicefool/My proposal workspace]]. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 13:17, 11 December 2006 (EST)

==326==
tucana25 wrote:

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? --Tucana25 13:39, 4 December 2006 (EST)

:I agree, the **date and time** wording on [[326]] is badly worded. The intent is clear, but it still provides wiggle room for word-picky Nomicapolis players. I don't believe it's really expected that we will ever get all registered voters to vote on an issue; that clause exists in the unlikely event that it does happen. As far as the 24-hour thing, I was thinking we might perhaps set a 3-day voting period after the end of the debate, rather than having an undetermined period for voting based on when the last vote was cast. Further comment? [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 15:09, 4 December 2006 (EST)
::Here is what I would like to see in an amendment to [[303]], [[326]] as well as any other rule with similar relation to debate and voting. Debate shall last between at least 3 days. At any time between day 3-7, the proposee can call to end or extend debate. If at 7 days, no extension has been called, the vote shall commence. Voting for a proposal shall last 7 days. If at any time before the 7 days have expired the vote can be called if the needed number of votes to pass/fail the amendment based on the number of active players at the start of the vote (so if there are six active players, if 4 votes for/against are cast the election can be closed). I think something to this effect will give all players enough time to not visit for a few days without totally missing a proposal, yet not have proposal drag out for up to 3 weeks or longer. I am out of time, but I think there were a few other suggestions I had, so I'll try to remember them later. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 15:24, 4 December 2006 (EST)
: I have another concern with 326. Part 2 states partially, "... Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed...." Does that mean that it failed? Could it fail without a vote? Or is it withdrawn? If so, would there be a change in point status for the proposer? --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 20:24, 6 December 2006 (EST)
::I haven't looked back through all proposals but i thought there was one that stipulated a proposal failing in that way would penalize at half the standard amount. I don't know what happened with it:repeal or failure to launch or ... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:16, 6 December 2006 (EST)

== Call for Judgement ==
[[Decisions_of_the_Judge|Decisions of the Judge]] is the new page for Judgements. Question however is where do you want the actual questions to go?

:I generally read just about everything that comes up in Recent Changes (except usually not player pages or stuff like that), so I'll usually find it. It would be ''nice'' if they were all posted to the [[Talk:Decisions_of_the_Judge|discussion page]] of [[Decisions_of_the_Judge|Decisions of the Judge]] [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 19:54, 2 December 2006 (EST)

== [[Nomicapolis:Look and feel]] ==
I created a meta-discussion on how we can make the wiki look better. Suggestions and comments are welcome. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 16:28, 29 November 2006 (EST)

==[[326]]==
Important note: per [[326]] all players proposing a rule change shall set a limit on debate time at the time of proposal. This rule took effect today. I will move this comment to the [[Game-direction|Game Direction]] page soon. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 12:47, 29 November 2006 (EST)

== Citizens ==

As you know, I have a proposal in debate which would create Citizens of Nomicapolis. Some people have had questions about what the purpose of these Citizens is. Here are some of the ideas I had:

We could use them as the basis of a Nomicapolis economy. Citizens could be assigned roles to create materials, process those materials into products, and consume those products. Players could start businesses in which they employ these Citizens, possibly earning Nomicapolis money with which they could purchase points.

We could track players' approval ratings among the citizenry. That way, the citizens themselves might actually "elect" players to certain positions, based on this approval rating. The approval rating might depend on factors such as having one's proposals adopted, score, voting record, etc. We might say the player with the lowest approval rating has some penalty.

Population might increase and decrease through natural cycles and/or through vagaries of the economic system.

Simulacrum made the point that this adds a level of complexity to Nomicapolis, and worried about our ability to handle the increasing complexity. Nomic is a game which is all about increasing complexity. By its very nature of changing and generally increasing rules, Nomic is intended to become more complex as it goes.

That said, this rule doesn't dictate that anything needs to be done with the citizens; it simply puts the "raw materials" in place, giving us something to work with should we decide we want to mess with it. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:16, 28 November 2006 (EST)

== Players ==
There are eight active players right now.

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

==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".

:: We could enact a rule where the game would go to "Committee of the Whole" mode, where we could enact ammendments by unaminous consent of players active within the last ''x'' days. This would address grammar issues, dead-references (which has been around since almost the beginning, and backwards implementation of certain rules such as rule [[306]]. While implementing the committee we could just edit the rules in question and not have actually make new rules to replace them. The game could also go into committee as a whole in the extreme circumstance that a paradox is discovered and we wish to not go into the endgame. This idea is potentially dangerous though. Any thoughts?

:::Yes perhabs we could declare a state of "law cleaning". During the next few days laws that corrected minor errors and carified things could be passed very quicky. Or alternatively compose a big list of errorfixes into a "lawpackage" and then vote only once for all the fixes. (Maybe the items in the list would still be individual laws for the sake or order, but passed as one) --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 17:31, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Can't we set up a 'Security Council' of active players, work out a list of grammar fixes everybody is happy with then push it through unanimously? Alternatively, give the Judge powers to fix that sort of thing but retain the ability to revert to a former version if the Judge tries anything cheeky. --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 15:25, 30 December 2006 (EST)

== Rules with non-existant references ==

Rule [[306]] Refers to Rule [[105]] that was transmuted. '''NOT ADDRESSED YET.'''

== Nomic Economy? ==
I thought of starting up a nomic economic system?
I very open to your ideas. The argument against an economic system is that the points already seem to rule the game. But of course we could just make a rule that allows money to be converted to points.
Does anyone have any ideas? What could the money be used for?

In the last game I played, CO-NOMIC (see my User Page for link), the introduction of a currency actually helped kill the game. The trouble is that in a wiki-nomic there is so much to do when marking Proposals enacted or failed (as mentioned in a discussion further up this page) that players lose interest in enacting them, waiting for someone else to do it. I think that before we have an economy we should have dedicated players in semi-permanent positions to carry out menial tasks. Perhaps a 'Noimcapolis Caretaker' who isn't voted into office but rather each active player holds the position for a month, and is responsible for marking the various pages and keeping it up to date (within reason). Also, it helps to have a clear idea of what to use currency for. That was CO-NOMIC's other problem- the money served no purpose. Maybe we should see where the population/popularity ideas go first? --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 15:22, 30 December 2006 (EST)

I think any economic system should involve the population, having the citizens do things in some kind of simple simulation, with us pulling the strings in some manner. The automation really does need code however; even if someone were willing to do it, they wouldn't be willing for long, and the ability would never meet demand. I don't think the wiki would adequately serve the purpose of a highly-automated nomic, so I'm building up Pythonomic to eventually fit the niche .. it's not ready yet, but new players are always welcome to come help steer the direction (plug alert!). Alternately some kind of bot could be used instead, with the wiki being merely serving as human-readable I/O for the bot. Ultimately, a game economy ususally serves no purpose, but the challenge is to make it fun to watch and play with (you can substitute virtually anything for the subject of that first sentence actually). [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 00:24, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Talk:Decisions of the Judge

2007-05-31T12:55:02Z

Wooble: /* Quorum */ moot?

Scoreboard

2007-05-31T12:53:32Z

Wooble: changing Chuck to active

{| align="left" border="1"
! Name !! Score !! Popularity
|-
| Simulacrum (Inactive) || 23 || 0
|-
| sinblox (Inactive) || 23 || 0
|-
| the_coast_guard (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Mari0mega (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Applejuicefool (Inactive) || 30 || 15
|-
| Pugrins (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Greywhind (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Kidko (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Dayd (Inactive) || 125 || 130
|-
| Anya (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Shivan (Inactive) || 10 || 15
|-
| TomFoolery (Inactive) || 25 || 15
|-
| tucana25 || 80 || 345
|-
| Chuck || 0 || 0
|-
| Finisterre (Inactive) || 35 || 30
|-
| oosizzo (Inactive) || -10 || 0
|-
| Wooble || 65 || 215
|-
| Samoht (Inactive)|| -10 || 15
|-
| Titans8904 (Inactive)|| -10 || 0
|-
| Endymion (Inactive)|| -10 || 0
|-
| BobTHJ || 60 || 195
|-
| Darus67 || 0 || 0

Talk:394

2007-05-31T12:52:41Z

Wooble: /* Against */ somehow I got logged out in the 10 seconds since my previous edit?

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}}

This goes along with [[393]], together to allow multiple changes in one proposal. My intention is to modify this to make a provision for multiple rules created by the same proposal. Discussion open until May 25. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 02:19, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}




== Vote ==
Discussion is closed. This proposal must now be voted on [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:52, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

=== For ===
{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}
# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:52, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
# 

 

=== Against ===
{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:52, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
# 

 

=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:393

2007-05-31T12:51:09Z

Wooble: /* For */ voting For

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}}

The first step in a minor redefinition of Proposals. The goal would be to broaden the definition of a proposal to include a one-time Order to be executed upon passage of the proposal. Also, if there is interest, I wouldn't mind broadening the definition of a proposal to allow for multiple rule changes & repeals in the same proposal (this would make it easier to make a large change in one proposal that would effect several rules). It would probably need to be coupled with a revised numbering system. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:33, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}

hear hear...--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 08:17, 23 May 2007 (EDT)



== Vote ==
Discussion is closed. This Proposal must now be voted on [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

=== For ===
{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}
# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:43, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:51, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
# 

 

=== Against ===
{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}
# 

 
=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Template:Announcements

2007-05-31T12:50:28Z

Wooble: /* '''Game News:''' */ move 396 to vote

<div align="center">
<big><big>Announcements</big></big> 

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=watch Watch] - [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=edit Edit]

</div>

==='''Game News:'''===

'''The following proposals are being voted on:'''
* [[393]], to transmute [[103]]
* [[394]], to transmute [[108]]
* [[395]], to transmute [[112]]
* [[396]], revising Canton Leader selection process.
* [[397]], to transmute [[110]]

'''The following proposals are currently up for debate:'''

'''New rules:'''
* [[392]], Canton industry (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop, Wooble +15 pop, tucana25 +15pop)
* [[391]], to transmute [[388]] (Wooble +10pts,+15 pop; Tucana25 +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop)
* [[390]], immigration (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop, Wooble +15pop, tucana25 +15pop)
* [[389]], casualties of war (Wooble +10pts,+15 pop; Tucana25 +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop)
* [[387]], repealed [[328]], [[363]] (Tucana25 +10pts, +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[386]], to allow for Dynasties and War (Tucana25 +5pts; BobTHJ, Wooble +15pop)
* [[385]], to amend Rule [[321]], describing the position of judge (Tucana25 +10pts, +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[384]], to create semi-random numbers (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop; Tucana25 +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[383]], repealed [[377]] (Wooble +10pts,+15 pop; Tucana25 +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop)
* [[382]], to assign Canton Residency to players (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop; Tucana25 +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[381]], to amend rule [[376]] (canton ranking) (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop; Tucana25 +15pop; Wooble +5pts,-10pop)

'''The following proposals failed:'''

'''Scorekeeper'''
* Wooble is now the scorekeeper.

'''May Judge'''
* Tucana25 is now the Judge.

'''May Canton Leaders'''
* North - BobTHJ
* South - ''vacant''
* East - ''vacant''
* West - Wooble
* Center - Tucana25

==='''Meta-News:'''===
Popularity is now in effect following Rule [[360]] going into effect. The first rule this applies to is Rule [[363]]. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 16:30, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Please read "Recent troubles" on my [[User:Applejuicefool|user page]]. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 03:05, 29 December 2006 (EST)

I added the page '''[[Game-direction]]''' to the sidepanel right below the Main Page link as it seems to be our little meeting ground. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 02:46, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I made a logo. It should be appearing in the upper left-hand side right now. If anybody makes a better one, upload it.

Discussion and comments regarding the use of certain [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] are welcome on the [[Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|talk page]]. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:12, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Talk:396

2007-05-31T12:49:56Z

Wooble: opening voting, casting vote

Proposed by: Wooble 13:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)


== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}}
This proposal aims to make the Canton Leader assignment more deterministic and not subject to the timing whims of the Scorekeeper. Under the current rule, a Scorekeeper could prevent another player from taking over Leadership of his/her Canton by refusing to update the Leaders and accepting a point deduction and loss of the Scorekeeper role; the new Scorekeeper elected afterwards has no authority to assign new rankings on the 6th of the month or thereafter.

I've also added bonuses for incumbency and nationalistic support for Dynastic leaders and particularly those who are under attack from external forces.

I suggest that debate run until May 29th at midnight. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:37, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}

NOTE: You have a formatting problem with your numbered list.
I like the bonus popularity for incumbants, but I'm not sure how I feel about bonus popularity for dynasties and war. I think bonus popularity should only be awarded to long-lasting dynasties. Say, you get 10 bonus pop for each full month your dynasty has been in existance (with a suitable cap at say 30 or 50).
Also, war tends to bring out the character of leaders. During war time, leaders tend to become either very popular, or completely unpopular. I would make the war be able to be either a bonus or penalty, such as +10 pop for declaring a war, but -10 pop for each war declared on you, or some such. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 13:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

My only thought offhand is that in the event of equal popularity ties, the incumbant shall retain possesion, not the longest active player. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:08, 31 May 2007 (EDT)


== Vote ==
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on.

=== For ===
{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:49, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
# 

 
=== Against ===
{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}
# 

 
=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:397

2007-05-31T12:48:49Z

Wooble: /* Against */ voting against

Proposed by: [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 11:03, 30 May 2007 (EDT)


== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}}

I don't like the "wholly void" part; I think it should just be a simple rule of precedence in interpretation, letting the rest of the conflicting rule stand. I don't really like immutable rules anyway. And this is mostly to make myself active again per 362.

== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}


Debate closed by [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 11:07, 30 May 2007 (EDT) -- the proposal must now be voted on.



== Vote ==
=== For ===
{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}

# [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 11:07, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 12:54, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
#--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:08, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
 

=== Against ===
{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:48, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
# 

 

=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

All rules

2007-05-30T11:03:54Z

Wooble: add 396 and some not yet existing ones

This page should be used for research of historical rules and proposals it is '''not''' a definative list of current rules, as such no player should rely on this page for an accurate representation of the current ruleset. This page is '''not''' updated regularly.

==All rules==

{{Ruleblurb|101}}
{{Ruleblurb|102}}
{{Ruleblurb|103}}
{{Ruleblurb|104}}
{{Ruleblurb|105}}
{{Ruleblurb|106}}
{{Ruleblurb|107}}
{{Ruleblurb|108}}
{{Ruleblurb|109}}
{{Ruleblurb|110}}
{{Ruleblurb|111}}
{{Ruleblurb|112}}
{{Ruleblurb|113}}
{{Ruleblurb|114}}
{{Ruleblurb|115}}
{{Ruleblurb|116}}

{{Ruleblurb|201}}
{{Ruleblurb|202}}
{{Ruleblurb|203}}
{{Ruleblurb|204}}
{{Ruleblurb|205}}
{{Ruleblurb|206}}
{{Ruleblurb|207}}
{{Ruleblurb|208}}
{{Ruleblurb|209}}
{{Ruleblurb|210}}
{{Ruleblurb|211}}
{{Ruleblurb|212}}

{{Ruleblurb|301}}
{{Ruleblurb|302}}
{{Ruleblurb|303}}
{{Ruleblurb|304}}
{{Ruleblurb|305}}
{{Ruleblurb|306}}
{{Ruleblurb|307}}
{{Ruleblurb|308}}
{{Ruleblurb|309}}
{{Ruleblurb|310}}
{{Ruleblurb|311}}
{{Ruleblurb|312}}
{{Ruleblurb|313}}
{{Ruleblurb|314}}
{{Ruleblurb|315}}
{{Ruleblurb|316}}
{{Ruleblurb|317}}
{{Ruleblurb|318}}
{{Ruleblurb|319}}
{{Ruleblurb|320}}
{{Ruleblurb|321}}
{{Ruleblurb|322}}
{{Ruleblurb|323}}
{{Ruleblurb|324}}
{{Ruleblurb|325}}
{{Ruleblurb|326}}
{{Ruleblurb|327}}
{{Ruleblurb|328}}
{{Ruleblurb|329}}
{{Ruleblurb|330}}
{{Ruleblurb|331}}
{{Ruleblurb|332}}
{{Ruleblurb|333}}
{{Ruleblurb|334}}
{{Ruleblurb|335}}
{{Ruleblurb|336}}
{{Ruleblurb|337}}
{{Ruleblurb|338}}
{{Ruleblurb|339}}
{{Ruleblurb|340}}
{{Ruleblurb|341}}
{{Ruleblurb|342}}
{{Ruleblurb|343}}
{{Ruleblurb|344}}
{{Ruleblurb|345}}
{{Ruleblurb|346}}
{{Ruleblurb|347}}
{{Ruleblurb|348}}
{{Ruleblurb|349}}
{{Ruleblurb|350}}
{{Ruleblurb|351}}
{{Ruleblurb|352}}
{{Ruleblurb|353}}
{{Ruleblurb|354}}
{{Ruleblurb|355}}
{{Ruleblurb|356}}
{{Ruleblurb|357}}
{{Ruleblurb|358}}
{{Ruleblurb|359}}
{{Ruleblurb|360}}
{{Ruleblurb|361}}
{{Ruleblurb|362}}
{{Ruleblurb|363}}
{{Ruleblurb|364}}
{{Ruleblurb|365}}
{{Ruleblurb|366}}
{{Ruleblurb|367}}
{{Ruleblurb|368}}
{{Ruleblurb|369}}
{{Ruleblurb|370}}
{{Ruleblurb|371}}
{{Ruleblurb|372}}
{{Ruleblurb|373}}
{{Ruleblurb|374}}
{{Ruleblurb|375}}
{{Ruleblurb|376}}
{{Ruleblurb|377}}
{{Ruleblurb|378}}
{{Ruleblurb|379}}
{{Ruleblurb|380}}
{{Ruleblurb|381}}
{{Ruleblurb|382}}
{{Ruleblurb|383}}
{{Ruleblurb|384}}
{{Ruleblurb|385}}
{{Ruleblurb|386}}
{{Ruleblurb|387}}
{{Ruleblurb|388}}
{{Ruleblurb|389}}
{{Ruleblurb|390}}
{{Ruleblurb|391}}
{{Ruleblurb|392}}
{{Ruleblurb|393}}
{{Ruleblurb|394}}
{{Ruleblurb|395}}
{{Ruleblurb|396}}
{{Ruleblurb|397}}
{{Ruleblurb|398}}
{{Ruleblurb|399}}
{{Ruleblurb|400}}

Talk:395

2007-05-29T23:31:16Z

Wooble: voting For

Proposed by [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 10:43, 23 May 2007 (EDT)


== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}}

Discussion open until 05/26/07. It is Transmute week at Nomicapolis. I never liked this rule. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 10:43, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}




== Vote ==
Discussion is closed. This proposal must now be voted on [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 13:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

=== For ===
{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}
# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 13:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 19:31, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
# 

 

=== Against ===
{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}
# 

 
=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

396

2007-05-29T23:29:26Z

Wooble: fix formatting of list

{{Proposed amendment|381}}

Proposed by: [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

At any time, a player may make a "Canton Ranking" Game Announcement. This announcement should contain a list of the Cantons in ranked order. Any Canton Ranking Game Announcement supersedes any previous Canton Ranking Game Announcement made by the same Player, and shall remain in effect until that Player makes a new Canton Ranking Game Announcement. Canton Ranking Game Announcements made after 12:01 AM Eastern Time on the first day of a month but before Leader assignments have been made for the month shall go into effect after Leader assignments have been made and before non-Leader Players are assigned Canton residency for the month.

At the beginning of each month, the Scorekeeper shall assign Leaders to Cantons as follows:

1. Any Active Player who is the only Player to rank a Canton first in his or her rankings shall be that Canton's leader.

2. If two or more players rank a given Canton first in their rankings, the players' Popularity shall be compared. For the purposes of this comparison, the incumbent Leader of the Canton shall receive a bonus of 10 popularity, plus an additional bonus of 20 popularity if the Canton is in a Dynasty and another bonus of 20 popularity for each other Dynasty that has declared war on the Canton. The Player with the highest popularity who has ranked the Canton first shall become Leader. If two or more players are tied for the same popularity, then the Player who has been continuously Active for the longest period of time shall become the Leader.

3. The rankings of Players, if any, who are still not Canton Leaders shall be compared according to the above 2 procedures after removing previously assigned Cantons from their rankings. This continues until each Canton has a Leader or until every Player leads a Canton.

A Player may only be leader of one (1) Canton at a time. Choosing a new Canton will forfeit leadership in previous Cantons. If two players are tied for the same popularity, then the Player listed first on the Census shall have first choice of Canton.

Leadership of Cantons shall be retroactive to 12:01 AM on the first day of each month regardless of when the Scorekeeper announces the rankings.

Game-direction

2007-05-29T12:59:23Z

Wooble: /* Random Numbers */ agree

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.

==SNAP===
I didn't even get to vote on my own proposal...you guys acted quick... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:28, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh...yeah...as per [[346]], i need to lose 5 points for not voting on my own proposal...almost forgot... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:41, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
: I deducted the 5 points from the 10 you got for your proposal passing. I'm thinking of a proposal that would stop a proposer from gaining these points if they don't vote, and at the same time restrict closing of votes on which the proposer didn't have a reasonable time period to vote. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 09:24, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::The simple solution would be to call for a vote yourself when it is time...thus casting a vote...so i'm ok with it now...--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, of course the proposer is allowed to call for a vote at any time while other people need to wait until the proposer's suggested time, so with proper planning anyone should be able to avoid the point deduction. And of course if we had more than 3 active players it would be a lot harder for a proposal to get enough votes to be closed so quickly. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:30, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Random Numbers==

I think Nomicapolis could benefit from having some way to determine random numbers that was verifiable. If we had random numbers we could introduce variance into the population calculations, as well as all kinds of other fun things. I don't think the wiki provides a means to generate random numbers (correct me if I am wrong). Perhaps we could come up with our own formula to generate a pseudo random number based off bits of data that are archived elsewhere on the internet (ie. historical temperatures in a specific city, stock closing prices, etc.). Anyone have any thoughts? [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 18:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

: I thought I'd de-lurk for a moment: I'd just like to reiterate my offer to host Nomicapolis on nomic.info, with a fully up-to-date wiki codebase and whatever else people feel is needed. This would at the very least include things like scripting functions and plugins, for all the RNG goodness you need. This is a VPS system, not shared webhosting (shared only insofar as it's a fixed Xen slice) and it's doing NOTHING else since I mothballed pythonomic. -- Chuck (cja987@gmail.com)

:: I appreciate the offer, and I am all for it (with the consent of the other players) [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 23:25, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Fine with me as well. Apparently my earlier response never got saved here; I'd written something to the effect that not only would a modern version of MediaWiki be extremely welcome (the amount of stuff that you can do on Wikipedia that doesn't work in the version they've got running here is depressing, and the editthis.info people apparently think upgrading to PHP5 is extremely difficult for some reason), but also I think that a wiki where all of the Bureaucrats are no longer involved and there's only 1 admin left (who, thankfully, is a very active participant but you could say the same about the previous admins before they all vanished) is probably doomed in the long run. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Center Canton==
Please check out the suggested guidelines [[Nomicapolis_Cantons_Center|here]]. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Resource Ideas==

Here are some thoughts for some proposal:

At the beginning of each month, each cantor generates a number of resources. The leader of the Cantor can decide which resource is produced. The number of resources produced is based upon the adult population of that Cantor (say middle three age groups), and the leaders popularity. Resources can then be used to build special structures in a cantor that provide various bonuses.

In order to make this work well, I think players should declare an affiliation to a specific Cantor. Also, the position of Cantor leader should be made a longer term position (perhaps giving each Cantor the ability to govern it's own process of leader appointment, assuming we can find some more players).

==Renewing Activity==

I made some advertisements in an effort to draw in more players. Is there any way to contact existing players by e-mail? Perhaps some of the inactives simply got busy with something else and forgot to check back. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I only have the email of one person, who i will attempt to contact. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Links to elections==

Maybe I just didn't see it, but I can't find links to the current elections anywhere. March's elections are on the Proposal Tutorial page, and I was able to find April's by manually typing in the addresses. However, it seems that we should have a page listing all the offices with links to each election for that office. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 00:07, 13 April 2007 (EST)

:The April ones were linked on the Main page while they were active, although this is not required by the rules. You might notice that there was exactly one voter in each election; a rule change to make these things more friendly for a slow-moving game might be welcomed. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 06:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:I submitted a proposal to remove the monthly Scorekeeper voting requirements. As it is not a position with power over the game rules, I don't see a problem with allowing a Scorekeeper to retain office indefinitely. However, the Judge is another matter. I'm all in favor of eliminating monthly voting for a Judge, but there should be some sort of a challenge provision that allows a potential judge to be voted on to replace the current one. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Another problem I notice with the Judge and Scorekeeper elections is that current rules only allow voting to occur for one day (the 1st of the month). It would be nice if the election period were for more than a day. Also, there appears to be no rules governing special elections (such as those required to expel or elect a new Scorekeeper/Judge) [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==What happens if someone wins?==
[[101]] states that when "a game begins", the initial ruleset is in effect; however, rule [[345]] states that "a new round of play" begins if a player wins the current round of play. This means that in the new "round of play", not being a new game, the initial ruleset doesn't go back into effect.

Unfortunately, this means that if someone wins under [[317]], it will remain forever impossible to continue play. I think that [[317]] clearly needs to be amended to provide for this contingency, and it might be good to change [[101]] to establish a more wiki-friendly initial set of rules for future rounds (and possibly include some/all of the added features of the current round). Just an idea; I don't have any specific proposals in mind at the moment. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:It had been discussed somewhere in the past about having some sort of "constitutional congress" to discuss exactly how that wanted to be accomplished...I agree that such a problem should be addressed...although my understanding was that as of right now the current ruleset would remain intact with all scores being reset. All of this could be misrememberization on my part, so please put forth something you feel would fix this problem. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Unnumbered Proposal ==
I threw a few things onto paper (screen?) in my workspace regarding perhaps a starting off point for money, etc. I don't really know if I like it yet myself, but I wanted to see if anyone had any opinions. Also, I want to get rid of/combine the stages of life a citizen can have. I think we can pare it down to 4, maybe 5 stages instead of 7. Get rid of the Young Adult and Middle Aged (leaving infant, youth, adult, elderly, ancient) or something. It just seems like extra work and extra space unless someone has some idea about using them in some clever way. I thought I'd bring that concern up before I actually progress any further on mine as that might change my approach. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:39, 10 February 2007 (EST)

== Quorum ==
There are currently 4 active players and one will becoming inactive in about an hour of this posting if they do not vote or debate.

Quorum has been changed. It is now defined under [[371]]. Summing it up half of the active players at the time a vote is called much vote to make it an offical vote. This number has to be at least two and will be rounded up in the event of a fraction. Also anyone who votes on a proposal that doesn't pass the Quorum will get 20 pts per [[375]]. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:33, 31 January 2007 (EST)

== Nomic Positions ==
=== Minister of Order / Gamemaster (for lack of a better name) ===
Should create a position for what Simulacrum does right now, even though we give it to him? Keeping an eye on thresholds, making sure points are more or less correct and such...

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

''
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.

Governor General is defined in proposal [[341]] --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:49, 29 November 2006 (EST)

:The meta-rules sounds a lot like Fantasy Rules Committee. I think it'd be fine for a "sub game", but I don't think I'd want to see it change everything globally (and poetic verse in nomic has ''so'' been done to death) [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 15:58, 4 January 2007 (EST)

=== Adaption of Judge? ===
It seems like there are a lot of potential positions that could make this game move more efficiantly. We have adopted the Judge and Scorekeeper...shot down Supreme Grammarian and Governor General. Perhaps when we have more players this will become a more practical idea...having several positions. What if for now, we combined all of these ideas we've been having into a SuperJudge or something. I know the first concern I have (and I assume you as well) is corruption. Here is my idea. A SuperJudge (lets call them Supreme Nomicapolis Orator Of Canton's Utopia and Moderator also SuperJudge [SNOOCUMS] for now) would be an elected position voted on as of right now-once per month. SNOOCUMS would be held to the same regulations now in place for the Judge as far as removal or we could adopt something different if desired. SNOOCUMS would remain active for that month, but would not make proposals or vote (i don't know about debate???). SNOOCUMS could be rewarded for their month of work either by an increased point total (equivalent to pass/fail ratio OR match the largest point gain by any player over that month OR something) or perhaps if the popularity proposal goes through there could be a tie-in to that.
:CONS-centralized power(could this also be construed as a pro given your philosophy?), One person has a lot of work (responsability) for a month....
:PROS-Something new and interesting, Greater Motivation to WANT to be the SNOOCUMS (depending on rewards decided upon, etc)....

Please let me know if you hate this or have any suggestions...
P.S. I hope its okay i move this to the top...it seemed easier than going and finding the most recent entry...--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 14:16, 3 January 2007 (EST)

I like the idea of power limitations, stopping them from participating other than being an all-seeing eye and moderator of the game. I'd vote for this. --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 14:40, 3 January 2007 (EST)

I hate it. Since you asked. As of right now I think the game needs a Scorekeeper and Judge. The Judge is an elected position for a person that understands the actually workings of the game, where the Scorekeeper is an elected position that requires constant participation and understanding of the wiki to maintain updates. Now while that might not be the actually jobs of the positions at the minute I think those are the two that are required the most. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:52, 4 January 2007 (EST)
:Thanks for the honesty. My question is whether the Scorekeeper is in fact a NECESSARY position...I may be creating rules that never existed or never passed but i thought everyone had to post their current score on their page. Any concerned citizen can check on their co-citizen and call it into public light if they think something is amiss. And if someone declares themselves the winner, their score would be checked at that point, anyway... The other reason I suggested that SNOOCUMS would have quasi inactive status for the month would be so that they could devote time to upkeep items. If we do get a scoreboard setup, the most work is going to be the first edition(at least in the form i am imagining it). I would really prefer to see a "groundskeeper" responsible for updating the current ruleset, proposals page, double checking the proposals to make sure everything is properly done, etc. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:14, 4 January 2007 (EST)

==Debate Time Ending==
[[360]] and [[361]] are getting toward the end of their gestation period. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 14:22, 3 January 2007 (EST)

==[[356]]==
I have not yet repealed several rules, as i am waiting on [[Talk:Decisions_of_the_Judge|a decision from the Judge]]. These rules have amended (and thus repealed) other rules: [[308]] [[311]] [[317]] [[326]] [[334]] [[336]] [[349]]. Per [[317]], this round of the game may be over. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 14:27, 21 December 2006 (EST)

You know if the Judge does rule that all the amendments are to be repealed as well then [[317]] will cease to exist and then there are no rules guiding what to do in the event that play can't continue. But I did repeal [[349]] since it explictly said it was to repeal [[314]]. I have a feeling AJF will rule that it only affects rules that explictly state they reapeal a rule and not rules that are repealed as a byproduct of amendments. But in the event that he does rule that all the amendments are to be repealed as well it will probably then repeal all the rules but [[308]] allowing rule changes because the immutable rule [[114]] that says you must always be allowed to make rule changes. So the game could techniquely still continue, but we wouldn't have any guidance on how many votes are needed to pass or fail a proposal, which would then be the next Judgement needed. Well that's my opinion on the situation and somehow I think that current Judge will see things in a similar light if not exact. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:19, 21 December 2006 (EST)

==[[314]]==
I believe this rule was placed under 'protection' and has now been repealed. It is currently listed on its page as current but has been removed from the ruleset. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:42, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Unprotected. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:26, 3 January 2007 (EST)

==Busy==
Hey guys...sorry I'm kind of slacking off here lately. As a high school teacher, I'm pretty busy this time of year - it's the end of the Fall semester and we're getting ready for finals and grades and all that jazz. After next week, I should be able to pick up the slack again - school will be out and I'll be able to think about Nomicapolis again! That said, I do get on here at least once a day and look at things. I'll try to keep off the inactive list by voting, and don't hesitate to request a judgment - that's the first page I always look at. I wouldn't want to shirk my duty. Thanks for your understanding, [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:06, 14 December 2006 (EST)

==Citizens' Age==
Please check out and comment on my draft proposal at [[User:Applejuicefool/My proposal workspace]]. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 13:17, 11 December 2006 (EST)

==326==
tucana25 wrote:

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? --Tucana25 13:39, 4 December 2006 (EST)

:I agree, the **date and time** wording on [[326]] is badly worded. The intent is clear, but it still provides wiggle room for word-picky Nomicapolis players. I don't believe it's really expected that we will ever get all registered voters to vote on an issue; that clause exists in the unlikely event that it does happen. As far as the 24-hour thing, I was thinking we might perhaps set a 3-day voting period after the end of the debate, rather than having an undetermined period for voting based on when the last vote was cast. Further comment? [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 15:09, 4 December 2006 (EST)
::Here is what I would like to see in an amendment to [[303]], [[326]] as well as any other rule with similar relation to debate and voting. Debate shall last between at least 3 days. At any time between day 3-7, the proposee can call to end or extend debate. If at 7 days, no extension has been called, the vote shall commence. Voting for a proposal shall last 7 days. If at any time before the 7 days have expired the vote can be called if the needed number of votes to pass/fail the amendment based on the number of active players at the start of the vote (so if there are six active players, if 4 votes for/against are cast the election can be closed). I think something to this effect will give all players enough time to not visit for a few days without totally missing a proposal, yet not have proposal drag out for up to 3 weeks or longer. I am out of time, but I think there were a few other suggestions I had, so I'll try to remember them later. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 15:24, 4 December 2006 (EST)
: I have another concern with 326. Part 2 states partially, "... Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed...." Does that mean that it failed? Could it fail without a vote? Or is it withdrawn? If so, would there be a change in point status for the proposer? --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 20:24, 6 December 2006 (EST)
::I haven't looked back through all proposals but i thought there was one that stipulated a proposal failing in that way would penalize at half the standard amount. I don't know what happened with it:repeal or failure to launch or ... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:16, 6 December 2006 (EST)

== Call for Judgement ==
[[Decisions_of_the_Judge|Decisions of the Judge]] is the new page for Judgements. Question however is where do you want the actual questions to go?

:I generally read just about everything that comes up in Recent Changes (except usually not player pages or stuff like that), so I'll usually find it. It would be ''nice'' if they were all posted to the [[Talk:Decisions_of_the_Judge|discussion page]] of [[Decisions_of_the_Judge|Decisions of the Judge]] [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 19:54, 2 December 2006 (EST)

== [[Nomicapolis:Look and feel]] ==
I created a meta-discussion on how we can make the wiki look better. Suggestions and comments are welcome. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 16:28, 29 November 2006 (EST)

==[[326]]==
Important note: per [[326]] all players proposing a rule change shall set a limit on debate time at the time of proposal. This rule took effect today. I will move this comment to the [[Game-direction|Game Direction]] page soon. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 12:47, 29 November 2006 (EST)

== Citizens ==

As you know, I have a proposal in debate which would create Citizens of Nomicapolis. Some people have had questions about what the purpose of these Citizens is. Here are some of the ideas I had:

We could use them as the basis of a Nomicapolis economy. Citizens could be assigned roles to create materials, process those materials into products, and consume those products. Players could start businesses in which they employ these Citizens, possibly earning Nomicapolis money with which they could purchase points.

We could track players' approval ratings among the citizenry. That way, the citizens themselves might actually "elect" players to certain positions, based on this approval rating. The approval rating might depend on factors such as having one's proposals adopted, score, voting record, etc. We might say the player with the lowest approval rating has some penalty.

Population might increase and decrease through natural cycles and/or through vagaries of the economic system.

Simulacrum made the point that this adds a level of complexity to Nomicapolis, and worried about our ability to handle the increasing complexity. Nomic is a game which is all about increasing complexity. By its very nature of changing and generally increasing rules, Nomic is intended to become more complex as it goes.

That said, this rule doesn't dictate that anything needs to be done with the citizens; it simply puts the "raw materials" in place, giving us something to work with should we decide we want to mess with it. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:16, 28 November 2006 (EST)

== Players ==
There are eight active players right now.

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

==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".

:: We could enact a rule where the game would go to "Committee of the Whole" mode, where we could enact ammendments by unaminous consent of players active within the last ''x'' days. This would address grammar issues, dead-references (which has been around since almost the beginning, and backwards implementation of certain rules such as rule [[306]]. While implementing the committee we could just edit the rules in question and not have actually make new rules to replace them. The game could also go into committee as a whole in the extreme circumstance that a paradox is discovered and we wish to not go into the endgame. This idea is potentially dangerous though. Any thoughts?

:::Yes perhabs we could declare a state of "law cleaning". During the next few days laws that corrected minor errors and carified things could be passed very quicky. Or alternatively compose a big list of errorfixes into a "lawpackage" and then vote only once for all the fixes. (Maybe the items in the list would still be individual laws for the sake or order, but passed as one) --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 17:31, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Can't we set up a 'Security Council' of active players, work out a list of grammar fixes everybody is happy with then push it through unanimously? Alternatively, give the Judge powers to fix that sort of thing but retain the ability to revert to a former version if the Judge tries anything cheeky. --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 15:25, 30 December 2006 (EST)

== Rules with non-existant references ==

Rule [[306]] Refers to Rule [[105]] that was transmuted. '''NOT ADDRESSED YET.'''

== Nomic Economy? ==
I thought of starting up a nomic economic system?
I very open to your ideas. The argument against an economic system is that the points already seem to rule the game. But of course we could just make a rule that allows money to be converted to points.
Does anyone have any ideas? What could the money be used for?

In the last game I played, CO-NOMIC (see my User Page for link), the introduction of a currency actually helped kill the game. The trouble is that in a wiki-nomic there is so much to do when marking Proposals enacted or failed (as mentioned in a discussion further up this page) that players lose interest in enacting them, waiting for someone else to do it. I think that before we have an economy we should have dedicated players in semi-permanent positions to carry out menial tasks. Perhaps a 'Noimcapolis Caretaker' who isn't voted into office but rather each active player holds the position for a month, and is responsible for marking the various pages and keeping it up to date (within reason). Also, it helps to have a clear idea of what to use currency for. That was CO-NOMIC's other problem- the money served no purpose. Maybe we should see where the population/popularity ideas go first? --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 15:22, 30 December 2006 (EST)

I think any economic system should involve the population, having the citizens do things in some kind of simple simulation, with us pulling the strings in some manner. The automation really does need code however; even if someone were willing to do it, they wouldn't be willing for long, and the ability would never meet demand. I don't think the wiki would adequately serve the purpose of a highly-automated nomic, so I'm building up Pythonomic to eventually fit the niche .. it's not ready yet, but new players are always welcome to come help steer the direction (plug alert!). Alternately some kind of bot could be used instead, with the wiki being merely serving as human-readable I/O for the bot. Ultimately, a game economy ususally serves no purpose, but the challenge is to make it fun to watch and play with (you can substitute virtually anything for the subject of that first sentence actually). [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 00:24, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Template:Announcements

2007-05-24T17:38:59Z

Wooble: /* '''Game News:''' */ add 396, reorder under debate proposals

<div align="center">
<big><big>Announcements</big></big> 

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=watch Watch] - [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=edit Edit]

</div>

==='''Game News:'''===

'''The following proposals are being voted on:'''

'''The following proposals are currently up for debate:'''

* [[396]], revising Canton Leader selection process.
* [[395]], to transmute [[112]]
* [[393]], to transmute [[103]]
* [[394]], to transmute [[108]]

'''New rules:'''
* [[392]], Canton industry (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop, Wooble +15 pop, tucana25 +15pop)
* [[391]], to transmute [[388]] (Wooble +10pts,+15 pop; Tucana25 +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop)
* [[390]], immigration (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop, Wooble +15pop, tucana25 +15pop)
* [[389]], casualties of war (Wooble +10pts,+15 pop; Tucana25 +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop)
* [[387]], repealed [[328]], [[363]] (Tucana25 +10pts, +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[386]], to allow for Dynasties and War (Tucana25 +5pts; BobTHJ, Wooble +15pop)
* [[385]], to amend Rule [[321]], describing the position of judge (Tucana25 +10pts, +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[384]], to create semi-random numbers (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop; Tucana25 +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[383]], repealed [[377]] (Wooble +10pts,+15 pop; Tucana25 +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop)
* [[382]], to assign Canton Residency to players (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop; Tucana25 +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[381]], to amend rule [[376]] (canton ranking) (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop; Tucana25 +15pop; Wooble +5pts,-10pop)

'''The following proposals failed:'''

'''Scorekeeper'''
* Wooble is now the scorekeeper.

'''May Judge'''
* Tucana25 is now the Judge.

'''May Canton Leaders'''
* North - BobTHJ
* South - ''vacant''
* East - ''vacant''
* West - Wooble
* Center - Tucana25

==='''Meta-News:'''===
Popularity is now in effect following Rule [[360]] going into effect. The first rule this applies to is Rule [[363]]. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 16:30, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Please read "Recent troubles" on my [[User:Applejuicefool|user page]]. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 03:05, 29 December 2006 (EST)

I added the page '''[[Game-direction]]''' to the sidepanel right below the Main Page link as it seems to be our little meeting ground. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 02:46, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I made a logo. It should be appearing in the upper left-hand side right now. If anybody makes a better one, upload it.

Discussion and comments regarding the use of certain [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] are welcome on the [[Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|talk page]]. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:12, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Talk:396

2007-05-24T17:37:44Z

Wooble: proposer's summary

396

2007-05-24T17:33:06Z

Wooble: add retroactivity

{{Proposed amendment|381}}

Proposed by: [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

At any time, a player may make a "Canton Ranking" Game Announcement. This announcement should contain a list of the Cantons in ranked order. Any Canton Ranking Game Announcement supersedes any previous Canton Ranking Game Announcement made by the same Player, and shall remain in effect until that Player makes a new Canton Ranking Game Announcement. Canton Ranking Game Announcements made after 12:01 AM Eastern Time on the first day of a month but before Leader assignments have been made for the month shall go into effect after Leader assignments have been made and before non-Leader Players are assigned Canton residency for the month.

At the beginning of each month, the Scorekeeper shall assign Leaders to Cantons as follows:

1. Any Active Player who is the only Player to rank a Canton first in his or her rankings shall be that Canton's leader.
2. If two or more players rank a given Canton first in their rankings, the players' Popularity shall be compared. For the purposes of this comparison, the incumbent Leader of the Canton shall receive a bonus of 10 popularity, plus an additional bonus of 20 popularity if the Canton is in a Dynasty and another bonus of 20 popularity for each other Dynasty that has declared war on the Canton. The Player with the highest popularity who has ranked the Canton first shall become Leader. If two or more players are tied for the same popularity, then the Player who has been continuously Active for the longest period of time shall become the Leader.
3. The rankings of Players, if any, who are still not Canton Leaders shall be compared according to the above 2 procedures after removing previously assigned Cantons from their rankings. This continues until each Canton has a Leader or until every Player leads a Canton.

A Player may only be leader of one (1) Canton at a time. Choosing a new Canton will forfeit leadership in previous Cantons. If two players are tied for the same popularity, then the Player listed first on the Census shall have first choice of Canton.

Leadership of Cantons shall be retroactive to 12:01 AM on the first day of each month regardless of when the Scorekeeper announces the rankings.

Talk:396

2007-05-24T17:29:24Z

Wooble: vote template

{| width="80%" align="center" cellpadding="10" style="border: 5px solid red"
|-
| <big>'''Instructions:'''</big>

This template is intended to be substituted with <tt>'''{{subst:<nowiki>vote}}</nowiki>'''</tt> and '''NOT''' just <tt>'''{{<nowiki>vote}}</nowiki>'''</tt>.

Please edit this page and replace everything between <tt><nowiki></nowiki></tt> and <tt><nowiki></nowiki></tt> with the following line

Proposed by: <nowiki>[[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:29, 24 May 2007 (EDT)</nowiki>

Also, be sure to place this same line at the beginning of the actual proposal text (this is the discussion page)


(Due to limitations of the MediaWiki software, this substition cannot be performed automatically)
|}



== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}}

== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}




== Vote ==
=== For ===
{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}
# 

 
=== Against ===
{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}
# 

 
=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

396

2007-05-24T17:28:58Z

Wooble: amendment proposal

{{Proposed amendment|381}}

Proposed by: [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

At any time, a player may make a "Canton Ranking" Game Announcement. This announcement should contain a list of the Cantons in ranked order. Any Canton Ranking Game Announcement supersedes any previous Canton Ranking Game Announcement made by the same Player, and shall remain in effect until that Player makes a new Canton Ranking Game Announcement. Canton Ranking Game Announcements made after 12:01 AM Eastern Time on the first day of a month but before Leader assignments have been made for the month shall go into effect after Leader assignments have been made and before non-Leader Players are assigned Canton residency for the month.

At the beginning of each month, the Scorekeeper shall assign Leaders to Cantons as follows:

1. Any Active Player who is the only Player to rank a Canton first in his or her rankings shall be that Canton's leader.
2. If two or more players rank a given Canton first in their rankings, the players' Popularity shall be compared. For the purposes of this comparison, the incumbent Leader of the Canton shall receive a bonus of 10 popularity, plus an additional bonus of 20 popularity if the Canton is in a Dynasty and another bonus of 20 popularity for each other Dynasty that has declared war on the Canton. The Player with the highest popularity who has ranked the Canton first shall become Leader. If two or more players are tied for the same popularity, then the Player who has been continuously Active for the longest period of time shall become the Leader.
3. The rankings of Players, if any, who are still not Canton Leaders shall be compared according to the above 2 procedures after removing previously assigned Cantons from their rankings. This continues until each Canton has a Leader or until every Player leads a Canton.

A Player may only be leader of one (1) Canton at a time. Choosing a new Canton will forfeit leadership in previous Cantons. If two players are tied for the same popularity, then the Player listed first on the Census shall have first choice of Canton.

Nomicapolis:Community Portal

2007-05-23T18:06:06Z

Wooble: request to not add scoring information to New Rules

General discussions about this wiki should be placed here.

==Initial ruleset discussion==
Discussion moved [[Nomicapolis:Initial ruleset|here]].

==Logo Contest==
We need a logo, if you would like to sumbit one for consideration please upload it and place it on the [[Nomicapolis:Logo contest|Logo contest]] page.

==Suggestions on the uses of namespaces==
This wiki comes with several default namespaces such as Main, Talk, User, Nomicapolis (Project), Image, as well as others. I would like to suggest the following customs for using each namespace.
* Main- This namespace would be used for official game actions and objects, such as rules, proposals and judgments.
* Main talk- This namespace would serve as the place for debate as well as voting for each proposal. It would also include antedotes and links to other pages of similar nature.
* Nomicapolis (Project)- This namespace would be for topics ranged outside of the game itself, but still related to the wiki.
* User- This namespace would be a metaphor for private property. Users (''i.e. players'') should not edit other user's pages, unless invited to do so. This is their home.
* User talk- This would be the primary means of communicating between users.

==Rules and proposal header boxes==
I have created a set of header boxes for rules and proposals. They can be viewed on [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|this page]].

==Transclusion in current ruleset?==
I'm wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to use transclusion on the [[Current ruleset]] page rather than copying and pasting each new rule there; I noticed at least one case where the text on the [[Current ruleset]] page didn't match the text on the actual rule (which happened only after I proposed an amendment to make the rule actually make sense, and later realized that the official form of the rule did make sense but the version in the listing of rules was garbled), and in any case it would be easier. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:As an example of how this would work, I redid the horribly out of date [[All rules]] page using this technique. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 14:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I think the [[All rules]] page looks great, and I'm all for the use of Transclusion on the [[Current ruleset]] as well. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 17:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Passed proposals added to Announcements template==
Hey guys, I'd like to request that when passed proposals are moved to the New Rules section on the Announcements template that they not have the scores added to them, as it makes it harder to catch which ones I still need to add the points for; if they've got no scoring information after them they're immediately obvious that they need to be done. Thanks! [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 14:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Scoreboard

2007-05-23T18:02:37Z

Wooble: scoring 392

{| align="left" border="1"
! Name !! Score !! Popularity
|-
| Simulacrum (Inactive) || 23 || 0
|-
| sinblox (Inactive) || 23 || 0
|-
| the_coast_guard (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Mari0mega (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Applejuicefool (Inactive) || 30 || 15
|-
| Pugrins (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Greywhind (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Kidko (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Dayd (Inactive) || 125 || 130
|-
| Anya (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Shivan (Inactive) || 10 || 15
|-
| TomFoolery (Inactive) || 25 || 15
|-
| tucana25 || 80 || 345
|-
| Chuck (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Finisterre (Inactive) || 35 || 30
|-
| oosizzo (Inactive) || -10 || 0
|-
| Wooble || 65 || 215
|-
| Samoht (Inactive)|| -10 || 15
|-
| Titans8904 (Inactive)|| -10 || 0
|-
| Endymion (Inactive)|| -10 || 0
|-
| BobTHJ || 60 || 195
|-
| Darus67 || 0 || 0

User:Wooble/Scorekeeper Cheatsheet

2007-05-23T17:41:39Z

Wooble: /* Rules that affect the population */ add rules

==Places to update population figures (monthly)==
* [[Population of Nomicapolis]]
* [[Main Page]]
* [[North Canton]]
* [[South Canton]]
* [[East Canton]]
* [[West Canton]]
* [[Center Canton]]

==Rules that affect the population==
{{Ruleblurb|330}}
{{Ruleblurb|367}}
{{Ruleblurb|389}}
{{Ruleblurb|390}}

==Rules that directly effect the score==
{{Ruleblurb|345}}

{{Ruleblurb|206}}

{{Ruleblurb|308}}

{{Ruleblurb|322}}

{{Ruleblurb|346}}

{{Ruleblurb|360}}

{{Ruleblurb|362}}

{{Ruleblurb|370}}

{{Ruleblurb|375}}

{{Ruleblurb|381}}

== Industry ==
{{Ruleblurb|392}}

User:Wooble/Scorekeeper Cheatsheet

2007-05-23T17:37:04Z

Wooble:

==Places to update population figures (monthly)==
* [[Population of Nomicapolis]]
* [[Main Page]]
* [[North Canton]]
* [[South Canton]]
* [[East Canton]]
* [[West Canton]]
* [[Center Canton]]

==Rules that affect the population==

==Rules that directly effect the score==
{{Ruleblurb|345}}

{{Ruleblurb|206}}

{{Ruleblurb|308}}

{{Ruleblurb|322}}

{{Ruleblurb|346}}

{{Ruleblurb|360}}

{{Ruleblurb|362}}

{{Ruleblurb|370}}

{{Ruleblurb|375}}

{{Ruleblurb|381}}

== Industry ==
{{Ruleblurb|392}}

User:Wooble/Scorekeeper Cheatsheet

2007-05-23T17:36:27Z

Wooble: /* Rules that directly effect the score */ template

==Places to update population figures (monthly)==
* [[Population of Nomicapolis]]
* [[Main Page]]
* [[North Canton]]
* [[South Canton]]
* [[East Canton]]
* [[West Canton]]
* [[Center Canton]]

==Rules that affect the population==

==Rules that directly effect the score==
{{Ruleblurb|345}}

{{Ruleblurb|206}}

{{Ruleblurb|308}}

{{Ruleblurb|322}}

{{Ruleblurb|346}}

{{Ruleblurb|360}}

{{Ruleblurb|362}}

{{Ruleblurb|370}}

{{Ruleblurb|375}}

{{Ruleblurb|381}}

== Industry ==
{{:392}}

User:Wooble/Scorekeeper Cheatsheet

2007-05-23T17:33:49Z

Wooble: more info

==Places to update population figures (monthly)==
* [[Population of Nomicapolis]]
* [[Main Page]]
* [[North Canton]]
* [[South Canton]]
* [[East Canton]]
* [[West Canton]]
* [[Center Canton]]

==Rules that affect the population==

==Rules that directly effect the score==
{{:345}}

{{:206}}

{{:308}}

{{:322}}

{{:346}}

{{:360}}

{{:362}}

{{:370}}

{{:375}}

{{:381}}

== Industry ==
{{:392}}

South Canton

2007-05-23T17:26:28Z

Wooble: indind

{{Infobox Canton|name=South|leader=''vacant''|population=21425|dynasty=''none''|industryindex=3}}

[[Category:Canton]]

North Canton

2007-05-23T17:26:19Z

Wooble: indind

{{Infobox Canton|name=North|leader=BobTHJ|population=21425|dynasty=''none''|industryindex=3}}

==Current Residents of the North Canton==
# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]]

[[Category:Canton]]

East Canton

2007-05-23T17:26:07Z

Wooble: indind

{{Infobox Canton|name=East|leader=''vacant''|population=21425|dynasty=''none''|industryindex=3}}

[[Category:Canton]]

Center Canton

2007-05-23T17:25:59Z

Wooble: indind

{{Infobox Canton|name=Center|leader=Tucana25|population=8050|dynasty=Seneca|industryindex=3}}

==Current Residents of the Center Canton==
[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]]

[[Category:Canton]]

West Canton

2007-05-23T17:25:47Z

Wooble: indind

Template:Infobox Canton

2007-05-23T17:24:14Z

Wooble: add industry index to infobox

{| align="right" style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: #f9f9f9;color: black; width: 25em; text-align: left; font-size: 90%;"
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center; font-size: large;" | '''{{{name}}} Canton'''
|-
! Leader:||{{{leader}}}
|-
| Population: || {{{population}}}
|-
| Dynasty: || {{{dynasty}}}
|-
| Industry Index: || {{{industryindex}}}
|}

Public Announcements

2007-05-23T17:23:27Z

Wooble: industry index.

==BobTHJ's Canton Rankings==
My Canton List:
* North Canton
* South Canton
* Central Canton
* East Canton
* West Canton
[[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 20:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Wooble's Canton Rankings==
I rank the Cantons as follows:
* Center Canton
* West Canton
* South Canton
* East Canton
* North Canton
[[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 12:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Tucana's Canton Rankins==
My rankings for the Cantons of Nomicapolis shall be:
*Center
*East
*North
*West
*South
--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

tucana25 declares the ''''' Seneca''''' Dynasty in the Center Canton. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:47, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Industry Index==
I order that the industry index for the [[West Canton]] be set to 0. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 13:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:392

2007-05-23T11:08:47Z

Wooble: /* For */ vote

Proposed By [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:21, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}}

A first attempt at setting up industry. This allows Canton Leaders to regulate the industry level of their canton. Set it too low, and you have little to no production. Set it too high and you will become unpopular (and as a result may lose your leadership position). May 25 is the closing of debate. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 11:21, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}

Do you intend popularity to increase if the Industry Index is set very low?
That will happen with the formula as written.
I see nothing inherently wrong with that.
--[[User:Darus67|Darus67]] 12:18, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes, that was my intention. If you don't require hardly any labor from your citizens, then they will like you even better. I figured the equation should be more biased to losing popularity than gaining it, however, as popularity is already fairly easy to gain from Proposals. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 12:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't necessarily see any objections, but i'm also not the scorekeeper...that would seem to be the largest hastle. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 15:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
: As long as the rule that allows me to resign as Scorekeeper at any time isn't repealed, I'm happy to at least try out all sorts of complexity. Although I may be forced to write software to track all of this stuff before long :) [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 20:01, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Not that I'm gunning for the job, but if you ever decide you don't want to be Scorekeeper, I would be happy to assume the responsibilities. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 22:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)


== Vote ==
Discussion is closed. This proposal must now be voted on [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 02:07, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

=== For ===
{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}
# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 02:07, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 07:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
# 

 

=== Against ===
{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}
# 

 
=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Scoreboard

2007-05-23T02:03:45Z

Wooble: scoring 391

{| align="left" border="1"
! Name !! Score !! Popularity
|-
| Simulacrum (Inactive) || 23 || 0
|-
| sinblox (Inactive) || 23 || 0
|-
| the_coast_guard (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Mari0mega (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Applejuicefool (Inactive) || 30 || 15
|-
| Pugrins (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Greywhind (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Kidko (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Dayd (Inactive) || 125 || 130
|-
| Anya (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Shivan (Inactive) || 10 || 15
|-
| TomFoolery (Inactive) || 25 || 15
|-
| tucana25 || 80 || 330
|-
| Chuck (Inactive) || 0 || 0
|-
| Finisterre (Inactive) || 35 || 30
|-
| oosizzo (Inactive) || -10 || 0
|-
| Wooble || 65 || 200
|-
| Samoht (Inactive)|| -10 || 15
|-
| Titans8904 (Inactive)|| -10 || 0
|-
| Endymion (Inactive)|| -10 || 0
|-
| BobTHJ || 50 || 180
|-
| Darus67 || 0 || 0

305

2007-05-23T02:01:05Z

Wooble: fix formatting

{{Repealed rule}}

1. No player may gain or lose points. This rule takes precedence over all other mutable rules.

2. If there exist at any time 25 mutable rules, this rule is automatically repealed.

Template:Ruleblurb

2007-05-23T01:59:38Z

Wooble: tweak formatting

=== [[{{{1}}}]] ===
{{:{{{1}}}}}

Current ruleset

2007-05-23T01:58:24Z

Wooble: +391, -388

This is the current ruleset. Any changes to this must be approved as outlined within the ruleset. To propose any change to this ruleset please go to the [[Proposals tutorial]] page and follow the instructions there. If there is any inconsistency between this list and individual rules pages, the individual rules as displayed on their respective pages shall prevail. Please update this page with any recent changes to the rules as outlined on the proposal page. See the category '''[[:Category:Current rule|Current rule]]''' for a up-to-date list of all the current rules.

==Immutable Rules==
===[[102]]===
Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

===[[103]]===
A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)

===[[104]]===
All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

===[[106]]===
All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

===[[107]]===
No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

===[[108]]===
Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

===[[109]]===
Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

===[[110]]===
In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

===[[111]]===
If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

===[[112]]===
The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

===[[113]]===
A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

===[[114]]===
There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

===[[115]]===
Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule.

===[[116]]===
Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

===[[345]]===

Proposal to transmute by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 16:33, 4 December 2006

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 13:21, 28 November 2006 (EST).

Nomicapolis is hereby defined as an ongoing game divided into rounds of play.

Any use of the word "winner" in the Nomicapolis ruleset should be taken to mean "winner of a round of play."

A "round of play" is defined as a period of Nomicapolis participation ending when a winner is determined.

When a round of play ends, all players' scores are reset to zero.

Following the end of a round of play, a subsequent round of play shall begin.

{{Ruleblurb|391}}

==Mutable Rules==

===[[205]]===
An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

===[[206]]===
When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

===[[207]]===
Each player always has exactly one vote.

===[[208]]===
The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

===[[210]]===
If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

===[[308]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[201]] is amended to read, in entirety, "A player may propose a rule change at any time. Each player begins the game with 0 points."

===[[311]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[203]] is hereby amended to read, in entirety:

"A rule-change is adopted if and only if a simple majority of those voting on the rule change vote 'For' the proposal. This rule defers to rule [[304]]."

===[[317]]===

Proposed by --Dayd 15:54, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[212]] shall be amended to read as follows: If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a rule change cannot be determined with finality, or if by a simple majority not overruled, a rule change appears equally legal and illegal, then the player with the most points is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

===[[322]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:14, 17 November 2006 (EST)

When a rule is passed the player that proposed it shall gain 10 (positive) points.

===[[327]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:39, 24 November 2006 (EST)

A player can choose to abstain on a proposal. To do this the player shall cast his vote on ABSTAIN. Votes cast on abstain count neither for nor against the proposal in question. They do count for the quorum.

===[[330]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:46, 25 November 2006 (EST)

There exists a type of entity called "Citizen of Nomicapolis", a term which may be shortened to "Citizen" without the meaning being altered.

When this rule goes into effect, a number of Citizens is created equal to 5,000 for each active player, and 2,500 for each player whose status is other than "active."

New Citizens are not automatically added by this rule when new players join the game or when players gain "active" status. Citizens are not automatically eliminated by this rule when players leave the game or lose their "active" status. This rule provides for a one-time creation of Citizens, and this rule will not further affect the number of Citizens in the game.

Other rules may be adopted which will affect the number or nature of Citizens in the game.

The number of Citizens in the game is termed the "Population of Nomicapolis" or, simply, "Population." The Population shall be posted on the Nomicapolis main page. If the Population changes for any reason, this posting shall be updated to reflect the correct Population.

The Judge of Nomicapolis shall be responsible for calculating and properly posting the current Population. The preceding sentence of this rule defers to rules which assign this duty to another player.

===[[331]]===

Proposed by --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:51, 25 November 2006 (EST)

#Rule changes that transmute mutable rules into immutable rules may adopted if and only if the vote for the change is unanimous among eligible voters.
#As soon as a mutable rule is transmuted to immutable, it shall be moved to the immutable section of the current ruleset by the player declaring the vote ended.

===[[332]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:39, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Each active player will be allowed to have three (3) proposals active at any time. An active proposal is one that has first been proposed, secondly is in the debate stage or voting stage, and finally has not been passed or rejected.

===[[333]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:34, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[204]] 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.

2.1No 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."

===[[336]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:04, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Rule 310 is ammended to read, in entirety:
"In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute of a greater number of FOR than AGAINST votes. A supermajority shall constitute of least 2 FOR votes to every 1 AGAINST vote. Unaminous consent shall be defined as not having any AGAINST votes. 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 FOR votes will win."

===[[339]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)

A Player may only gain or lose points as the rules then in effect dictate.

===[[342]]===
Proposed by [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] at 02:57, 1 December 2006 (EST).

1. The offical game time will be Eastern Standard Time (EST) as indicated by the server. Any specific times mentioned in proposals or their respective debate/vote pages, must, henceforth, be represented in the offical game time format.

1.1 An example of the official game time format is as follows: 02:57, 1 December 2006 (EST)

2. Any player may make a timestamp edit at the TOP of the debate/vote pages in order to determine if or when a deadline was or will be reached.

2.1 Timestamp edits do not meet the requirements for continuation of debate or vote unless the use of the timestamp is relavent to the debate.

===[[343]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:39, 1 December 2006 (EST).

In the event that there are fewer than three (3) active players in the game, an inactive player may become active by declaring that change in status on the Nomicapolis main page.

This rule takes precedence over other rules in determining how inactive players may become active.

===[[346]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:44, 4 December 2006 (EST).

When a proposed rule-change may be voted on, the player who proposed the rule-change must cast at least one vote (or as great a fraction of one vote as the rules allow) in favor of that rule change.

Should the proposer of a rule change cast a vote (or any fraction thereof) on that proposal other than "FOR", his/her vote will be invalid and will not count toward the outcome of the ballot; in addition, 10 points shall be deducted from that player's score.

Should the proposer of a rule change fail to cast at least one vote (or as great a fraction of one vote as the rules allow) regarding that proposal prior to the end of the voting period, 5 points shall be deducted from that player's score.

===[[351]]===

Proposed by: Chuck 20:25, 6 December 2006 (EST)

1. Wherever the rules refer to a player having some number of votes (such as one), this shall mean that a player is eligible to cast that number of votes per proposal, in accordance with all rules in effect.

2. No player may divide, combine, or otherwise alter the number of votes that he or she is eligible to cast on a particular proposal, unless the rules specifically permit it.

3. Wherever the rules refer to a fractional vote, the vote shall only be considered fractional for the purposes of totaling the number of votes. A player is always eligible to cast a fractional vote as though it were a single vote, e.g. a player does not require two half-votes to be eligible to vote.

4. Neither fractional votes nor multiple votes cast by a single player on a proposal shall have any different affect on quorum than a single vote. For the purposes of determining quorum, any number of votes cast by a player shall be treated as a single whole vote.

===[[355]]===

:= Districting =
Nomicapolis is divided into five cantons. These cantons shall be named as follows:

* North Canton
* South Canton
* East Canton
* West Canton
* Center Canton

Cantons may be referred to by additional or alternate names only as the rules permit.

The North Canton borders the East, West, and Center Cantons.
The South Canton borders the East, West, and Center Cantons.
The East Canton borders the North, South, and Center Cantons.
The West Canton borders the North, South, and Center Cantons.
The Center Canton borders all of the North, South, East, and West Cantons.
:= Population =
Each Citizen of Nomicapolis is considered to be a resident of a single "home" canton.

When new Citizens of Nomicapolis are created, and no rule otherwise specifies their residency, these new citizens shall be distributed amongst all cantons such that each canton receives an equal number of citizens. Any remainder will be assigned to the Center Canton.

When Citizens of Nomicapolis are removed for any reason, and no rule otherwise specifies where this removal took place, each canton shall reduce its citizens such that each canton decreases by an equal amount. Any remainder will come from the Center Canton.

Initially, the North, South, East, and West Cantons shall have 12,000 citizens each. The Center Canton shall have 4,500 citizens. If insufficient citizens exist for these residents to be assigned, sufficient immigrants will be added to reach this population. If the population exceeds 52,500, at the time of initial population, then the remaining citizens shall be assigned as though they were new citizens.

===[[356]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:32, 12 December 2006 (EST)

When a proposal to repeal a rule is passed the repealed rule will be removed from the Current ruleset and the rule that repealed the rule will also then be repealed from the Current ruleset. Any current mutable rule that repealed another rule is hereby repealed. Repealing a rule that repealed a rule does not re-enact the original rule. This rule cannot be repealed by this rule.

===[[358]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 16:09, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Rule [[306]] shall be amended to read, in entirety

1. In order for a proposal to be considered "proposed in the proper way" according to the current ruleset it must contain the following elements:

:a) The correct number; i.e. the next number in the sequence.
:b) Verbiage that creates an actual or potential change to Nomicapolis play.
:c) The user name of the proposer. This should follow the proposal number and precede the text of the proposal in the format used in the proposal of this rule.
:d) Each numbered rule change proposal must have its own Nomicapolis article page and discussion page with the proposal number as the title of the page.

2. If a player believes that a rule was not proposed in the proper way, and/or was proposed in an improper way, he should create a section in the discussion page for that rule headed "Improper Proposal". Following the header, the player should state his reasons why he believes the proposal is not proper. The active judge shall then make a decision on the "Improper Proposal".
:a) A claim of improper proposal must be made before the proposal is declared to have passed or failed.
:b) If a claim of improper proposal passes, then the proposed rule is discarded without completion of a proposal vote. The proposer loses points as if his proposal had been voted down. If the claim fails, the vote on the proposal continues as usual.
:c) When a claim of improper proposal passes or fails, the claimant and voters in the claim action gain or lose half as many points as they would have had the claim been a rule proposal.

===[[360]]===

Proposed by--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:43, 21 December 2006 (EST)

After a vote where the out come is passed or failed (examples may include: rule proposal votes, improper proposal votes) a popularity rating will be assessed toward everyone who voted.
*A vote cast for that is also part of the majority will be worth +15 popularity.
*A vote cast against that is also part of the majority will be worth +10 popularity.
*A vote cast for that is also part of the minority will be worth -5 popularity.
*A vote cast against that is also part of the minority will be worth -10 popularity.

Abstaining, along with any other vote that is neither for nor against, shall be worth 0 popularity.
In the event that there is no clear majority or minority (i.e. for and against recieved the same number of votes) 0 popularity will be assessed.
Popularity will be tracked on the [[Scoreboard]].

===[[362]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:38, 27 December 2006 (EST)

This rule takes precedence over rule [[207]]

Any player who has not voted on a proposal or debated on one within the last 14 days shall be declared 'inactive'. If there have been no proposals to vote on since the player's previous vote, he or she cannot be declared 'inactive'.
A player's status will change from 'inactive' to 'active' after he or she has made one proposal.
Only players deemed to have 'active' status at the beginning of a proposal's voting period may vote for that proposal.
All players that are not deemed to have 'active' status shall not count against the total number of players for purposes of the quorum.
When a player is declared inactive he or she loses 10 points (Gains 10 negative points).
When a player changes to or from 'active' status, the census page shall be edited and refactored to account for the change in status.

===[[366]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:29, 4 January 2007 (EST)

The order and stages of a rule will be as follows.

#Rule Proposed
#Rule Debated
#Rule Voted on
#Rule Passed or Failed
#Points Calculated
#Rule is added to ruleset if passed.

===[[367]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:07, 9 January 2007 (EST)

1. This rule shall take effect at 12:01 am (EST), February 1, 2007.

2. Upon passage of this rule, each Citizen of Nomicapolis shall gain an attribute called "Age." Initially, the existing Citizens of Nomicapolis shall be divided evenly among the seven possible Age values, listed below.

3. The possible values for the Age attribute shall be:
:a. Infant
:b. Young
:c. Young Adult
:d. Adult
:e. Middle-aged
:f. Elderly
:g. Ancient

:These values represent a sequence wherein “Young” follows “Infant”, “Young Adult” follows "Young," etc.

4. On the first day of each month, all citizens who had been designated "Ancient", and half the citizens who had been designated "Elderly", shall die and be removed from the Population. Following this event, each remaining citizen’s Age shall progress to the next value in the sequence.

5. On the first day of the month, following the events in clause #4, one new "Infant" citizen shall be born and added to the population for each citizen designated as "Adult"; in addition, one new "Infant" citizen shall be born and added to the population for every two (2) citizens designated either as "Young Adult" or as "Middle-aged".

6. Population of each age category and changes to these populations shall be applied proportionately to each of the geographic regions of Nomicapolis.

7. The Judge shall no longer have the responsibility of keeping up with the Population. Instead, the Scorekeeper shall maintain the total population of Nomicapolis on the Main Page. The Scorekeeper shall also maintain a separate page entitled [[Population of Nomicapolis]] listing the total population, and demographic details of the population including the number of citizens of each Age and which Canton they inhabit.

===[[369]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:53, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Any player that is not active for a complete round will be removed from the Census at the beginning of the next round.

===[[370]]===

Proposed by --Finisterre 05:26, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Any Player who achieves a negative score of 25 points or below will immediately have their score set to 25 (positive), and gain 100 popularity. A player may only use the effects of this rule once in any given round, even if their score falls below 25 points again.

===[[371]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:47, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Rule [[304]] shall be amended to read:

:Quorum shall be defined as such:

# Quorum is based on active number of players.
# Quorum is half the number of active players. If that number is a fraction, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number (if there are 5 active players, quorom would be 3; 7>4, 9>5, etc).
# Quorom for a vote shall be no fewer than 2 players.

===[[372]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:19, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Rule [[326]] shall be amended to read:

#All debate on a proposal (Stage 2) shall last up to 14 days at the discretion of the person proposing the rule change. Said person is responsible for setting a 'suggested' debate limit at the time of the proposal by including something in the spirit of the statement: 'Debate will end for this proposal at **date and time**' in the "Proposer's summary and declarations" section of the talk page for that proposal.
#Any player may call for a vote (Stage 3) following the end of the 'suggested' debate time limit. The debate period can be cut short by the proposer with the calling for of a vote. Should the proposal not get called to a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed. If a proposal is dismissed in this way, the proposer shall lose 5 (five) points.
#If a vote on a proposal is called for, it should be indicated by adding the following statement: "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on." at the beginning of the "vote" section of the talk page for that proposal. No player may modify the article page of a proposal while a vote is being conducted on that proposal, except to place a protection on the page. If a call is made to vote on a proposal in the proper way (as laid out above), it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted ''or'' after 14 days have elapsed since a vote was called. No player, having once voted for a proposal or election, shall be allowed to change their vote on that proposal or election. Any player who erroneously casts a vote, shall be allowed a total of 30 minutes, from the time that their first erroneous vote was cast, in which to fix the error. After the 30 minute grace period, their vote will stand as cast.
#Voting ''may'' be 'closed' by any player once the following two conditions are met: Quorom has been met and no votes have been cast in the last 48 hours (2 Earth days). If a rule gains the number of "for" votes required to pass or the number of "against" votes required to be defeated, any player may declare an end to voting on the proposal. Voting shall be considered 'closed' when a declaration of Pass/Fail (Stage 4) has been noted above the "Proposer's summary and declarations" section of the talk page(under the Proposed by...).
# If voting ends on a passing proposal, the player who declared the vote ended must immediately make the proposed change to the published ruleset (stage 5). If voting ends on a defeated proposal, no player may add it to the ruleset.

===[[374]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:16, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Players are limited to one Nomicapolis account in play. A new Player may join by registering an account and adding themselves to the [[Census]]. A Player may leave be removing themselves from the [[Census]]. If a Player who has left the game wishes to rejoin, they may do so, but they will start as a brand new Player. All new Players are considered to have active status upon adding their name to the [[Census]]. No Player may add an offensive name to the [[Census]].

===[[375]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:27, 23 January 2007 (EST)

If a proposal fails to recieve the total number of votes required to meet Quorum all Players that voted on that proposal shall gain 20 points.

===[[379]]===
Proposal submitted by BobTHJ 10:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The Scorekeeper of Nomicapolis will be expected to follow all rules in play and update the Scoreboard in accordance with the rules determining points. The Scorekeeper may resign the position at any time. The Scorekeeper may be expelled with a majority vote. The Scorekeeper may voluntarily transfer the position to another willing Player on their choosing. At any time there is not an active Player as Scorekeeper a special vote for a new Scorekeeper will be immediately conducted. The Scorekeeper shall retain their position until they are expelled, resign, or until the position is transferred to another player.

===[[380]]===
Proposed by [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 22:06, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

There exists a page entitled [[Public Announcements]]. Whenever the rules require or allow a Player to make a Game Announcement, that Player may do so by adding a new section to the top of the Public Announcements page. Each Game Announcement must contain the following information:
* A title
* A body of text
* The name of the Player making the Announcement
* A timestamp in the official game format

===[[381]]===
Proposed by BobTHJ 16:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

At any time, a player may make a "Canton Ranking" Game Annoucement. This annoucement should contain a list of the Cantons in ranked order. Any Canton Ranking Game Annoucement superceeds any previous Canton Ranking Game Annoucement made by the same Player, and shall remain in effect until that Player makes a new Canton Ranking Game Annoucement.

After the first of each month (but before the fifth), the Scorekeeper shall compare all players who have made Canton Ranking Game Annoucements. The most popular Player will recieve their first choice of Canton. The next popular Player will then recieve their choice of Canton from their ranked list. This will continue untill all Cantons have leaders or no Players remain that have ranked lists. In the event that a Canton already has a leader the player with the most popularity will become the leader of the Canton. The next choice in the ranked Canton list will be selected till either the Player becomes leader of a Canton or no Canton's remain on the list. A Player may only be leader of one (1) Canton at a time. Choosing a new Canton will forfeit leadership in previous Cantons. If two players are tied for the same popularity, then the Player listed first on the Census shall have first choice of Canton.

If the Scorekeeper fails to perform their monthly duties under this Rule by the fifth of each month, they shall lose 10 points and shall cease to be Scorekeeper.

===[[382]]===
Proposed by [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 20:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Just after Canton Leaders are determined at the beginning of each month each Player (including Inactive Players) who is not a Canton Leader is assigned to "Reside" in a Canton by the Scorekeeper. Players are assigned to Reside in Cantons as follows:
# If that Player has a current Ranked Canton List, then they are assigned to Reside in the first Canton on that list.
# If a Player Resided in a Canton previously, they continue to Reside in that Canton
# The Player is assigned to Reside in the same Canton as the Scorekeeper.

Canton Leaders automatically Reside in the Canton they lead.

===[[384]]===
Proposed By [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 01:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Whenever a number would be specified in a proposed rule, its proposer may instead specify a string in the following format:

RANDOM:[XXX]

The [XXX] in the above should be substituted with any stock ticker symbol for any publicly traded stock with historical information readily available on leading financial websites. The number in question shall be equal to the hundredths digit (cents, a number from 0-9) of the most recent closing price of the specified stock, and shall vary over time as the stock price changes.

===[[385]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Rule [[321]] shall be amended to read:

The 'Judge of Nomicapolis' shall be voted for on the first of every month. The Judge may resign the position at any time.

Voting procedure shall be as follows...
*The Player that recieves the most votes will become the Judge.
*In the event of a tie between 1 or more Players the Player that recieved the most votes first will become the Judge.
*Should no votes be cast in a monthly election, the previous judge will retain the title.
*If at any time there is not an active Player as Judge a special vote for a new Judge will be immediately conducted
*The Judge may be expelled with a supermajority vote.
*The decision of the Judge can only be overruled by a unanimous vote of all active players (except the player who was Judge at the time of the decision in question, who shall not vote).

Responsibilities shall be as follows...
*The Judge will be responsible for resolving any and all problems with proposals and rules.
*The Judge will be expected to use their best judgement and resolve all problems within 7 days.
*The Judge shall make a judgement whenever called upon to do so by any active player.
*The Judge shall abide by ''stare decisis''.
*A new page entitled "Decisions of the Judge" shall be created to hold such decisions, and shall be maintained by the current Judge.
*Any Player may accuse another Player of a violation of the rules. The Judge will determine if the accused Player is guilty and, if guilty will determine the punishment. A Player found guilty may ask for a decision to be overruled (in cases such as this neither the judge, accusee, and accuser may vote).

===[[386]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Each Canton of Nomicapolis may declare a Dynasty in any Canton they are leader of. This Dynasty shall be named under the Public Announcements page, under the Canton Rankings. A Dynasty name shall last as long as that player is leader of that Canton and cannot be changed unless a claim of improper procedure (offensive name, duplicate name, etc.) is put before the Judge.

Any Dynasty may declare war on another Dynasty so long as they border each other geographically. A declaration of war shall last until withdrawn by the player who declared it, or when either Dynasty ends. If a player withdraws their declaration of war, they must wait until the first day of the next month to make a new declaration of war. No more than 1 (one) declaration of war may be announced at a time by a given player.

{{Ruleblurb|389}}
{{Ruleblurb|390}}

Template:Announcements

2007-05-23T01:57:23Z

Wooble: /* '''Game News:''' */ move 391 to new, remove 388 which is no longer active

<div align="center">
<big><big>Announcements</big></big> 

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=watch Watch] - [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=edit Edit]

</div>

==='''Game News:'''===

'''The following proposals are being voted on:'''

'''The following proposals are currently up for debate:'''
* [[392]], Canton industry
* [[393]], to transmute [[103]]

'''New rules:'''
* [[391]], to transmute [[388]] (Wooble +10pts,+15 pop; Tucana25 +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop)
* [[390]], immigration (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop, Wooble +15pop, tucana25 +15pop)
* [[389]], casualties of war (Wooble +10pts,+15 pop; Tucana25 +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop)
* [[387]], repealed [[328]], [[363]] (Tucana25 +10pts, +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[386]], to allow for Dynasties and War (Tucana25 +5pts; BobTHJ, Wooble +15pop)
* [[385]], to amend Rule [[321]], describing the position of judge (Tucana25 +10pts, +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[384]], to create semi-random numbers (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop; Tucana25 +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[383]], repealed [[377]] (Wooble +10pts,+15 pop; Tucana25 +15pop; BobTHJ +15pop)
* [[382]], to assign Canton Residency to players (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop; Tucana25 +15pop; Wooble +15pop)
* [[381]], to amend rule [[376]] (canton ranking) (BobTHJ +10pts, +15pop; Tucana25 +15pop; Wooble +5pts,-10pop)

'''The following proposals failed:'''

'''Scorekeeper'''
* Wooble is now the scorekeeper.

'''May Judge'''
* Tucana25 is now the Judge.

'''May Canton Leaders'''
* North - BobTHJ
* South - ''vacant''
* East - ''vacant''
* West - Wooble
* Center - Tucana25

==='''Meta-News:'''===
Popularity is now in effect following Rule [[360]] going into effect. The first rule this applies to is Rule [[363]]. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 16:30, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Please read "Recent troubles" on my [[User:Applejuicefool|user page]]. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 03:05, 29 December 2006 (EST)

I added the page '''[[Game-direction]]''' to the sidepanel right below the Main Page link as it seems to be our little meeting ground. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 02:46, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I made a logo. It should be appearing in the upper left-hand side right now. If anybody makes a better one, upload it.

Discussion and comments regarding the use of certain [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] are welcome on the [[Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|talk page]]. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:12, 15 November 2006 (EST)

391

2007-05-23T01:55:53Z

Wooble: change to immutable

{{Current immutable rule}}
Proposed by: [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 23:20, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. This rule takes precedence over all other rules.

388

2007-05-23T01:55:12Z

Wooble: change to repealed

{{Repealed rule}}

Proposed by [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Rule [[378]] is amended to read, in full:

All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. This rule takes precedence over all other rules.

Talk:388

2007-05-23T01:54:56Z

Wooble: transmuted

This rule was transmuted by [[391]].

This proposal has passed. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 23:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Proposed by [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}}
I'm dropping the language about the initial set as it's irrelevant. I still think we need to define what happens if the game becomes unplayable and it's impossible to start a new "round of play" with the existing ruleset, but first we need to restore the core of this rule as an immutable rule that governs all other rules. It's probably dangerous to have a mutable rule that states that players need to obey the rules; I'll propose transmuting this back as soon as it passes (if someone else doesn't do so before I get to it)

I suggest that debate should end at 1PM today. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}




== Vote ==
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on.

=== For ===
{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 15:30, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 18:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
# 

 

=== Against ===
{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}
# 

 
=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:391

2007-05-23T01:54:23Z

Wooble: passed

This proposal has passed.

Proposed by: Wooble 23:20, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}}
To restore the rule that we must obey all rules back to being the overriding rule behind the game.

I suggest debate run until noon tomorrow. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 23:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}




== Vote ==
Discussion is closed. This proposal must now be voted on [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

=== For ===
{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}
# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 19:49, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:04, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
# 

 

=== Against ===
{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}
# 

 
=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__