Game-direction
From Nomicapolis
Nomicopolis is off to a pretty good start right now. It'll be a bit bumpy while we get used to the rules and the wiki format. This page is intended to be the "message board" for draft proposals and ideas for proposals. Feel free to add sections and comment on anything.
Contents |
Players
There's four of us active right now and many on the census that haven't posted in a few months.
If anyone knows of any people who may be interested, this game could easily take on a few more players.
As per rule 304 only two players are needed to do business
Nomic Positions
The following are Player Positions that might be achieved. The current outline is elected. I think another possibility is to make it rotating based on the Census starting with #1 on the Census the first month.
Mayor of Nomicapolis
The Mayor of Nomicapolis will be voted for on the first of every month. The Player that recieves the most votes will become the Mayor. In the event of a tie between 1 or more Players the Player that recieved the most votes first will become the Mayor. The Mayor will be responsible for introducing all proposals and declaring the resolution of all proposals after debate and voting has been concluded. The Mayor will be expected to always have at least 1 proposal active, either open or debate or open for voting. The Mayor may resign the position at any time. The Mayor may be expelled with a 2/3 majority vote. At any time there is not an active Player as Mayor a special vote for a new Mayor will be immediately conducted.
Judge of Nomicapolis
The Judge of Nomicapolis will be voted for on the first of every month. 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. 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 may resign the position at any time. The Judge may be expelled with a 2/3 majority vote. At any time there is not an active Player as Judge a special vote for a new Judge will be immediately conducted.
Governor General?
I haven't yet proposed this, I'd just like to get some feedback on it.
Governor General:
- There shall always be a player designated "Governor General". This player's authority is activated when a player has the won the game or the game is unplayable or when there is unanimous consent for their powers to be activated.
- The Governor General is elected by a simple majority. The Governor General may be recalled from their position at any time by a simple majority.
- The Governor General may resign at any time without consequence.
- When the Governor General's powers are activated their role is to make the game playable again. To do so, they have the authority to repeal rules, amend rules and to reset any attributes such as point counts of all players to an equal amount. The Governor General should make the minimum amount of changes possible to make the game workable again and should make all players equal in status.
- Any changes the Governor General makes when their powers are activated is completely up to their discrestion, but may be over ridden by unanimous consent (excluding the Governor General in this vote.)
- Once the Governor General's powers have been activated and they have finished making the game playable and equalizing players, they shall no longer be Governor General and a new election for this title shall be called. This does not preclude this player from becoming Governor General again.
- In theory I'm in favor of player differentiation such as unique roles for players. I had been toying with the idea of proposing the position of Supreme Grammarian whose job is to summarily correct grammar and spelling errors in the rules. I have an English degree and am certified to teach English (though I'm teaching science - go figure) and minor errors occasionally glare out at me. This game is the ultimate rules-lawyer game and these errors could potentially be abused. Another idea would be the Metanomic General. This position would rotate through the players - once its power is used, the position would automatically rotate to the next player on the census. The power is this: The Metanomic General would devise a meta-rule which provides some stylish limit or outline which rule change proposals must follow in order to be considered proper. A meta-rule would last a month, at which time the next MG would implement his meta-rule. Examples might be: Rule proposals must be in verse; Rule proposals may not use the letter "e"; Rule proposals must consist of a single sentence; etc.
- Anyway, the Governer General is a good idea. I think that, if winning simply resets the game, then there should be some in-game benefit for previous game winners - that way there's some built-in incentive to win. Applejuicefool 22:06, 15 April 2006 (PDT)
- I like those suggestions, especially the Supreme Grammarian. My nomic experience is pretty limited but I have seen well-meaning rules exploited by very minor loop holes, so someone who can copy edit would be good in keeping our rules tight. sinblox 19:18, 16 April 2006 (PDT)
- I agree that the idea of a Governer General is a good one, I also think that the Supreme Grammarian would definately be worthwhile. I would prefer that the Metanomic General be contained into a sub-game with some sort of award for active participation. This is only because I am not good at that sort of thing but I am willing to try it out. Simulacrum 22:54, 17 April 2006 (PDT)
The Judge? Who is that
The core rules mentions a judge but I can't find a reference to who he is or how he is elected? Perhaps we need to make a rule for that?
The judge was abolished in an earlier amendment. I assume now that the judge is an additional simple majority vote on an issue. However that being said I do agree that a judge is needed in the future.
Speed up rulemaking
I feel there is a need to make some rules regarding clarifications of rules. Sometimes a rule may be unclear or contradicting. There should be a possibility of having an ammendment of such a rule passed faster than normal rules.
- I do not think any speed rules need to be introduced. I think the current system will allow for rules to be added quickly. Also part of the game is to create a tangled web of rules that do contradict so that you can "win" not that I really want to "win".
- 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?
Rules with non-existant references
Rule 111, an immutable rule, refers to a Judge. NOT ADDRESSED YET.
Rule 212 still refers to turns and needs to be amended. Also it refers to a Judge, which stated earlier has been abolished. In progress: depending on the outcome of 317.
Rule 306 Refers to Rule 105 that was transmuted. NOT ADDRESSED YET.
Rule 309 Is the transmuted Rule 105 that is the same as rule 104 and needs to be repealed. Addressed by 316.
Updated by Simulacrum 03:44, 15 November 2006 (EST)
Comment on 313
Please read and discuss my comment on rule 313 at its talk page. Thank you. Applejuicefool 17:22, 14 November 2006 (EST)
Game Direction
How about some discussion on what we would like to see happen with this game. I know I've been gone awhile...it seemed like the whole game just kind of ground to a halt for a while. When I noticed activity, I poked my nose back in. I see about 4 options as far as general direction goes:
- Play to win. We play with an in-game mechanic for "winning" with the idea that the game will come to a halt at some point in the future, with a definite winner.
- Play for longevity/stability. We play to create an ongoing, constantly evolving game that, ideally, would never produce a winner/end of game, but would go on indefinitley.
- Play for win, with some sort of loop so that the game resets after a win. As I have stated above, if we go this route, I'd like to see the winner of a round have some sort of benefit in the next round (but not necessarily a benefit that would give him an advantage toward winning the next round).
- Play toward some real-world goal. This might be a bit unrealistic, but it could be possible to use the Nomicapolis rules and rule-generating system to work toward a goal that could benefit the players in the real world. The one example I can think of off the cuff is: Creating rules for a (real world) stock market investing scheme, with the profits to be split by the players.
Of the four options, 1 is my least favorite. 4, while it has some interesting possibilities, is probably too risky for a group of strangers to get involved with. I favor option 3, personally. What do ya'll think? Applejuicefool 23:38, 14 November 2006 (EST)
Out of the list above from most favorite to least is as follows:
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 1
I like #2 the best because I hope that this game will go on indefinitely, even after we, the current players, are long gone. #3 is okay because every once in a while it would be nice to start over with a clean-slate. I see #1 as moot because I'd start the game over again anyways.
#4 is really interesting, however I see a more philanthropic real-world goal such as organizing people we know in donating time or money to some sort of charity-of-the-month in order to gain in-game benefits or awards. As such I don't think it should be focus of the game... maybe at most a side contest.
We could do blend of #2 & #3 where there would be rounds and if a round ended the rules would be reset at the initial state (105 corrected) with some addition holdovers that were prearranged. The winner might have some sort of right or priviledge such as veto powers, double counted votes or something as simple as a recognition in a future hall of fame. Simulacrum 02:24, 15 November 2006 (EST)
I think I'd have to list 3,2,1,4. I do not support 4 at all. I think that could breach 113 and I would never consent to changing that. I would like to see some sort of recurring game mechanism or just restarting from scratch. While I would support playing just to play I think it would need a rewards or rank system to create a feeling of achievement. --Dayd 21:27, 15 November 2006 (EST)
- 113 discusses penalties; in my way of thinking, 4 would be about real world rewards, not penalties. In fact, I would definitely oppose any form of the game that requires a participant to suffer a real-world loss. Even so, I question your use of the word "breach". "Activate" might be a more appropriate word. According to 113, a player may never suffer a penalty more severe than loss of the game. Therefore, if you are ever faced with a situation you can't live with, you can always just say, "I lose" and step away from the situation. I, for one, would certainly welcome you to the next game, or "round" or whatever we're going to call it. The point is, a rule breach is a violation of the rule. Penalties don't violate 113, 113 just gives players an option when a penalty arises. Of course, that's all probably moot, because some sort of blend of 2 and 3 seem to be consensus (there's that word again!). Applejuicefool 22:47, 15 November 2006 (EST)
