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 1 Thoughts on simplicity 2 Actual Game Direction 3 Players 4 Nomic Positions 4.1 Mayor of Nomicapolis 4.2 Judge of Nomicapolis 4.3 Minister of Order / Gamemaster (for lack of a better name) 4.4 Governor General? 5 Speed up rulemaking 6 Rules with non-existant references 7 Comment on 313 8 Game Direction 9 More advanced Nomic / RPG nomic 10 Nomic Economy? 11 About time (no pun) 12 317

Thoughts on simplicity

Before I get to the meat of my topic, I suggest we adopt the convention of adding new "threads" to the top of this page. Dayd kicked it off with his post below, and I'll go with that. Either top or bottom would be fine, but if we put them at the bottom, you have to scroll farther to find the new stuff. Good call, Dayd. Also, I'd suggest we archive this at some point...

At any rate: Dayd posted a comment along with his vote on 323 to the effect of "Keep it simple, stupid." First I'll assume he's merely quoting the old saying and not calling me stupid. Second, I want to think about the idea of simplicity. As anyone can see by looking, 323 is easily the longest proposal or rule thus far. I could have made the proposal itself a lot simpler, as Dayd is apparently suggesting. One alternate proposal I could have made: "This rule creates the position of Supreme Grammarian. The Supreme Grammarian is elected by simple majority and may summarily correct spelling and/or grammar errors in any rule or proposal. The Supreme Grammarian may be removed from office by a supermajority vote. The Supreme Grammarian may resign his post at any time." That's about the simplest I can conceive of making this rule. The problem with making a simple rule is that it's complicated to enact. There are way too many questions about how this rule should be enacted.

If you look at my actual proposal, it's complicated, true. But it leaves very few questions about how it should operate. It outlines very clearly how the SG is nominated and elected, what his powers and responsibilities are, what the limitations on those powers are, and how the SG may be removed from office. In short, I believe that the more completely a rule outlines its intended use, the easier it is to use.

Another example of what I mean: Take a gander at rule 317, a rule I voted for, albeit with some reservation, because I made a stink about the term "consensus" and Dayd graciously fixed it. If we hit a snag and the game ended today, who would win? There is NO provision in 317 that covers this situation...Simulacrum and Sinblox are currently tied for the most points. Now there are a few points that could be raised: Sinblox is inactive, surely he can't win, right? Wrong - the rule simply says "...the player..." not "the active player...." Well, then, certainly Simulacrum and Sinblox would be declared co-winners and the game would be a tie, right? Wrong! 317 doesn't mention co-winners or ties in any way. In fact, it is quite clear - "the player [singular] with the most points is the winner." So I guess we'd be screwed and the whole game would be a wash, just because this particular rule is nice and simple.

Here's another situation involving the same rule (I'm not picking on your rule, Dayd, I basically picked it at random): If one player gains the lead, they can basically hold the entire game hostage to his whim. How? He just argues strenuously that a rule change he doesn't like is illegal. He doesn't even have to offer any reasoning. He just has to hold out that this rule is illegal, no matter what. So everybody else disagrees. But then, the "...legality of a rule change cannot be determined with finality," and the game ends, and he wins. Or if everyone else gives in, he has managed to singlehandedly thwart the majority. And he can just do it again and again. Another problem that could be fixed, with just a bit more complication in the rule itself. Applejuicefool 21:31, 24 November 2006 (EST)

Actual Game Direction

I would like to point out to everyone that this is in fact a game. At the moment in my opinion it isn't very "fun". It seems to be more of a "simulation" of a legislature. I am curious as to others real intention. As Applejuicefool has already stated he is against anyone gaining points. This is fine, but I think we do need some sort of direction, or at least some point instead of just making random rules that neither have any long term direction nor any lasting effect. My last two proposals were an attempt to make the game "fun" my creating a lasting position. So I really would like to know what the "actual game direction" is to be. It does appear that players want some sort of continous or restartable game. Therefore why don't we strive to make rules that actually support this direction, stating such in the proposers comments. --Dayd 21:05, 23 November 2006 (EST)

Whoa, hoss. I said that I am opposed to increasing the amount of points available, not that I'm "against anyone gaining points." I don't want to increase the ways players can get points, but I am fine with the ways that are currently on the books. Your mayor proposal would have severely limited the activities of most of the players, most of the time, while at the same time creating a position that is rife with opportunity for abuse. How is that fun? Applejuicefool 21:52, 23 November 2006 (EST)

I was hoping that it would create a heirarchal sort of game with 1 person acting as a "Gamemaster" taking charge. I thought it would be painful obvious that the person elected would have to be extremely active if they wanted to stay in that position otherwise the other players would simply vote him out. But that doesn't really matter any more since no one really liked the idea. I'm fine with that. I knew it was a shot in the dark to being with. I also thought it was something that would make the game different which is the real reason I did it.

But back to the meat of my discussion: "Actual Game Direction". I want to see this game actual go some where. I don't know the exact causes of the game's first decline, but I'd really like to know what the real plan is. Like I was saying originally people seem to want to either play till someone crosses the finish line first. At which point we're going to start a new game any way. Or play till someone wins and then the game restarts itself with a set of rules that continue play. So I think my real question is how do we wish to procede in making the game loop. --Dayd 23:31, 23 November 2006 (EST)

Players

There are five 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

I think we better get more players soon, because it is getting harder and harder to introduce new players to the game since the game get's more and more complicated. I know a forum at utopiatemple.com where we might be able to recruit some. Does anyone think that is a good idea?
--Shivan 17:15, 16 November 2006 (EST)

I agree that we could use some new players, heck, I would be happy if all players listed in the census were active. However, I would caution against using forums that aren't nomic-specific or dealing with at least gaming in general. Any posting of links on sites otherwise might be considered spam and would be flagged as such. If you are already a community member of the aboved-mentioned site and are in good standings there, then I would encourage you to contact one of the moderators or admins and ask if it would be appropriate. I just don't want to give this wiki a bad reputation.

Having said that, I want let everyone know that I did a little search and found that we are currently ranked #28 on the list of most visited wikis hosted on editthis.info. I don't know if that is really something to proud of or not, I would assume so. Also, I entered the search terms: active nomic games on google.com and Nomicapolis showed up on the first 100 listings in the results (near the bottom of the page), so we are... out there. It gave me an idea, perhaps we could look through those search results and try to find websites that might be receptive of plugs or announcements of a game that is active and accepting new players.

I've also been mulling over an idea of maybe e-mailing political science and/or law professors and instructors at colleges and universities in hopes of getting their students involved here maybe for extra credit. But like I stated above, I don't like spam and that idea is as close as one can get to it. --Simulacrum 01:03, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Seeing how I am a political science major I have been putting out general feelers so see who might be interested in playing. I am considering doing some advertisement at least in my local realm. --Dayd 11:00, 17 November 2006 (EST)
Utopiatemple is deticated to gaming.

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.

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.

Governor General:

1. There shall always be a player designated "Governor General". This player's authority is activated when a player has the won the game or the game is unplayable or when there is unanimous consent for their powers to be activated.
2. The Governor General is elected by a simple majority. The Governor General may be recalled from their position at any time by a simple majority.
3. The Governor General may resign at any time without consequence.
4. When the Governor General's powers are activated their role is to make the game playable again. To do so, they have the authority to repeal rules, amend rules and to reset any attributes such as point counts of all players to an equal amount. The Governor General should make the minimum amount of changes possible to make the game workable again and should make all players equal in status.
5. Any changes the Governor General makes when their powers are activated is completely up to their discrestion, but may be over ridden by unanimous consent (excluding the Governor General in this vote.)
6. Once the Governor General's powers have been activated and they have finished making the game playable and equalizing players, they shall no longer be Governor General and a new election for this title shall be called. This does not preclude this player from becoming Governor General again.

In theory I'm in favor of player differentiation such as unique roles for players. I had been toying with the idea of proposing the position of Supreme Grammarian whose job is to summarily correct grammar and spelling errors in the rules. I have an English degree and am certified to teach English (though I'm teaching science - go figure) and minor errors occasionally glare out at me. This game is the ultimate rules-lawyer game and these errors could potentially be abused. Another idea would be the Metanomic General. This position would rotate through the players - once its power is used, the position would automatically rotate to the next player on the census. The power is this: The Metanomic General would devise a meta-rule which provides some stylish limit or outline which rule change proposals must follow in order to be considered proper. A meta-rule would last a month, at which time the next MG would implement his meta-rule. Examples might be: Rule proposals must be in verse; Rule proposals may not use the letter "e"; Rule proposals must consist of a single sentence; etc.

Anyway, the Governer General is a good idea. I think that, if winning simply resets the game, then there should be some in-game benefit for previous game winners - that way there's some built-in incentive to win. Applejuicefool 22:06, 15 April 2006 (PDT)

I like those suggestions, especially the Supreme Grammarian. My nomic experience is pretty limited but I have seen well-meaning rules exploited by very minor loop holes, so someone who can copy edit would be good in keeping our rules tight. sinblox 19:18, 16 April 2006 (PDT)

I agree that the idea of a Governer General is a good one, I also think that the Supreme Grammarian would definately be worthwhile. I would prefer that the Metanomic General be contained into a sub-game with some sort of award for active participation. This is only because I am not good at that sort of thing but I am willing to try it out. Simulacrum 22:54, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

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) --Shivan 17:31, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Rules with non-existant references

Rule 111, an immutable rule, refers to a Judge. In Progress: depending on outcome of 321

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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)

---

In a way I actually think 4 sounds best. It would be fun if they game was productive in some way. Stockinvesting probably involves to much money, but there are many other posibilities on the web. There are many ways to make a few dollars if you are a couple of persons that team up. Since this is a rather complicated game we know that people are devoted. In the future we could divide the game into two levels: level 2 which involves real things (but not large sums of money), and level 1 that is just game.
I think that letting the game go on forever is a bit lame, it's like playing WOW. In theory it is almost impossible for one person to win, if one person was 10 points from winning all other players would pass a law that resets all the points. The only way to win is by the paradoxrule.--Shivan 17:22, 16 November 2006 (EST)

More advanced Nomic / RPG nomic

I thought maybe we should try to make nomic more advanced by making more types of points. For example if you had held an office and did a good job you would be awarded some "confirdence points", it would give a bonus for election for a office, or if someone in a office suddenly goes inactive then player with the highest number of confirdence points takes over. I also thought of making an actual economic system, by adding Nomic$, you could exchange them for normal points.--Shivan 00:45, 17 November 2006 (EST)

I was thinking of introducing a form of currency called Subers that would replace our use of points, with subers players could eventually buy elections or pay-off fellow players for voting in their favor. Corruption?... nah economics! --Simulacrum 02:42, 18 November 2006 (EST)

Also I find it a but funny that Shivan mentioned that it would be lame that this game would play like WOW then mention adding some sort of RPG element... heh heh --Simulacrum 02:42, 18 November 2006 (EST)

Wow is lame becuase the numbers increase but gameplay remains the same. In nomic the gameplay changes constantly.--Shivan 13:25, 20 November 2006 (EST)

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?

About time (no pun)

I don't know if anybody else has come across this but I see that this wiki is displaying at least two different timezones. One is UTC which is the wiki software default, the other looks like the server's local time EST. I personally have no way of correcting this as it requires editting a php file on the server. I have requested that our host on editthis.info reset our global timezone to UTC (a neutral time, in my opinion). In the meantime, I would like to request that players do not propose any further rule-changes that implement a narrowly defined window of action of less than 48 hrs (though I'm not really worried about it,) and also be somewhat lenient in enforcement of the rules if there may be a question of lag or whatnot. I do not think that major problems exist but I just wanted to let y'all know.

Example of what I am talking about:

• 05:10 is time in UTC as of this edit using {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}
• 00:10, 18 November 2006 (EST) is a sig timestamp that is labeled as EST using ~~~~~.

I want those two to be the same so that there is no confusion as to if voting began to early or if some one missed the deadline etc.

By the way (sorry about the rambling), speaking of timezones, where is everyone else located? I am in Texas of US and my timezone is CST—Central Standard Time which is -6:00 (UTC). Simulacrum 00:10, 18 November 2006 (EST)

Hey! Me too! I live in Big Spring, which is about 40 miles east of Midland on I-20. As for the time thing, perhaps anybody with a time critical post (proposers, voters, etc.) should just add the CURRENTTIME thing to their posts. Maybe we should make that a rule? Or amend 306 to include it? Applejuicefool 10:10, 18 November 2006 (EST)

Well that's interesting...I'm located in Indiana EST and I changed my setting to display local time. Did anyone else do that as well? I mean it's hard for me to believe that my local settings are having global impact. Also since that wiki is set for UTC that is the offical game time. I don't know if that's understood, but that was what I was working with even though I'm EST. --Dayd 10:05, 18 November 2006 (EST)

317

I went ahead and enacted 317, since it had been more than 24 hours since the last vote (cf. 313), a quorum had been reached, and all votes were "for". I hope I did it right... Applejuicefool 10:05, 21 November 2006 (EST)

Similarly, 318 failed to meet quorum, and it had been 24 hours since the last vote. I see no provision for extending the vote time, so out it goes. Applejuicefool 10:12, 21 November 2006 (EST)