xkcd

by **orangedragonfire** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:41 pm UTC

Soooo... yeah, I cast my vote against Godwin's motion to justify the existence of nicknames. Also, in case you were wondering, I have no idea what I was thinking while wrote the last post.

by **JesseScottOwen** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

orangedragonfire wrote:My fellow Nomicans, I had a vision when I created the nicknames. A vision of freedom of expression. Freeing people from having to use long complicated names, yet having them retain the possibility to do so. For after all, there are situations when a nickname just doesn't seem serious enough. And for a time, the freedom I envisioned was found in this game. But now I see that that same freedom is threatened, by a cruel, oppressive motion. A motion aimed at enslaving people, making them pay for even a slight expression of creative freedom by using the name of someone.

Yet there is still hope; the motion has not yet passed. So I call to you, people of Nomic: Join me! This is discrimination against our original names! I say we cannot let this stand! Let names and nicknames stand, side by side... as equals.

Nomic'ers,

If you don't like a motion, vote against it. But Fiery made it so that you can't play the game unless you have a nickname, so we all have nicknames now. If I thought I needed a nickname just for the heck of it, I would have made myself one when I joined the forums.

Sincerely,
The Grand Poobah Godwin

[EDIT] P.S. Something odd about web forums. People tend to get nicknames pretty quickly whether there's a rule or not. There's usually not a rule. So, validate the rule, and validate Fiery, OR agree with the more recent version of Fiery and repeal his rule after the allotted three days.

by **Snark** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

JesseScottOwen, you're not the Grand Poobah. But I am willing to grant you special considerations if you vote for my motion, and I become the Grand Poobah.

The offer above extends to anyone actually.

That's right all you wonderful people out there, I just introduced the first bribe. It's actually a double bribe, as I'm bribing people to bribe me.

Let's see how well this goes over.

by **orangedragonfire** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:08 pm UTC

Actually, that wasn't the first bribe. Remember when I made a motion to give Alex five points? ... yeah. It's a stealth bribe. See, if it passes, I get 2 points. So I bribe Alex with 5 points to vote for the motion, which might give me points, too.

by **Snark** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:19 pm UTC

Good point. I'm changing my vote to:

I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to reward the creator of the game.

And also,

I cast my vote against Godwin's motion to justify the existence of nicknames.

I'll change my votes if you make me the Poobah.

by **JesseScottOwen** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:26 pm UTC

Let's make some things clear.

1. Snark is certainly not the Grand Poobah.
2. I am certainly the real Grand Poobah.
3. Snark, you are not the only player with votes. There still will be rain in that plain down in Spain. Even that will remain with out you.
4. I nominate Fiery as other real Grand Poobah. (Him and I are the only two to have double-posted. Therefore, Poobah status.)
5. I cast my vote against Snark's motion to have a political campaign.

by **orangedragonfire** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:34 pm UTC

Note that nominating a Grand Poobah of the Nomic doesn't do anything, as there are no current rules as how to select one. Arbiters, on the other hand...

by **Snark** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:40 pm UTC

orangedragonfire wrote:
I make a motion to give the following powers to the person holding the title of Grand High Poobah of the Nomic:
1) The ability to veto the last motion that has been passed.
2) The privilege to doublepost in this thread.
3) Permission to have two active motions at once.
4) The right to brag about this title.
Note that in order for someone to hold this title, there must first be a rule stating that it is given to someone.

The unnumbered sentence at the end was italicized and in bold and is therefore part of the rule involving the title of Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. Therefore no one is the GHPotN until a rule is in effect that states that the title has been given to someone.

JesseScottOwen wrote:4. I nominate Fiery as other real Grand Poobah. (Him and I are the only two to have double-posted. Therefore, Poobah status.)

First, nominating was for the position of arbiter (Thanks for the backup, Fiery). Second, although Poobah grants the ability to doublepost, this doesn't mean that doubleposting makes one the Poobah. If you have any questions, please see Why Godwin is Wrong.

by **JesseScottOwen** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:44 pm UTC

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I just said I was the Grand Poobah, and invited Fiery to join me in that status. I never said I was the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. That would be blasphemy.

by **orangedragonfire** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:58 pm UTC

Well, I guess there isn't much happening here until some other people get here who can vote on the active motions, or make new motions.

by **ahammel** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:42 pm UTC

The state of the nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current rule set:

Spoiler:

All motions

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

Edited for formating

by **matt96** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:51 pm UTC

I cast my vote against Snark's motion to have a political campaign

I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to reward the creator of the game

I cast my vote against Godwin's motion to justify the existence of nicknames

I make a motion to Prohibit one from voting in favor of their own motion. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Matt96's motion to formalize a rule we have been observing that isn't actually in the rules.

by **ahammel** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:53 pm UTC

I cast my vote against Snark's motion to have a political campaign. Motion fails 3-0
I cast my vote in favor or Fiery's motion to reward the creator of the game.
I cast my vote against Godwin's motion to justify the existence of nicknames Motion fails 3-0

I nominate Alex for the position of arbiter.

I make a motion to amend the rule set to add the following rule:

§011 A State of the Nomic post has the following properties

- It begins with the phrase: The State of the Nomic:
- It contains the following information, wrapped in spoiler tags:
-- The rule set at the time of posting
-- A list of the current players with one or more points, along with their scores
-- A list of the active motions and a summary of the votes for and against

Any player who makes a State of the Nomic post will be awarded one point if a) the information is accurate or later edited for accuracy and b) at least one motion has passed, failed or been withdrawn since the last State of the Nomic post.

For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be refered to as Alex's motion to reward helpful Nomicers.

by **orangedragonfire** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Alex's motion to reward helpful Nomicers.

I make a motion to include the following rule in the ruleset: It is not allowed to include the number of the rule you think a motion will get if it passes in the motion. The rulenumber will be given naturally at the time of approval of the motion; the new rule will get the lowest natural number not currently used by any other rule. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be refered to as Fiery's motion to avoid rule numbering confusion.

by **ahammel** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:12 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to avoid rule numbering confusion and apologize for being the inspiration for it.

by **matt96** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Alex's motion to reward helpful Nomicers.

I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to avoid rule numbering confusion

by **Snark** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:39 am UTC

I make a motion to award 3 points apiece to the first three people to vote in favor of this motion (without ever voting against the motion or withdrawing their vote). For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Snark's second attempt at bribery.

I cast my vote in favor of Snark's second attempt at bribery.

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:25 am UTC

Ahhh, yes, voting for yourself... let me just fix that for you.

I nominate Fiery as arbiter.

I cast my vote against Snark's second attempt at bribery.
I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to avoid rule numbering confusion. Motion passed, Fiery earns 2 points

I make a motion to admend rule §3 by adding the following:

Players may not vote more than once on a motion, and they may not vote on their own motions.

Snark's vote on his own motion shall be declared invalid. Furthermore, for trying to break the Nomic, he shall receive no points should his second attempt at bribery be accepted. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Fiery's motion to fix things.

I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to fix things.
I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to fix things.
I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to fix things. Motion passed, Fiery earns 2 points

I make a motion to give Fiery the title of Defender of the Nomic, for saving the Nomic. This title shall have bragging rights, and be awarded to anyone else who also saves the Nomic (there may be more than one Defender of the Nomic.). Should a Defender of the Nomic make an action that harms the Nomic, the title will be removed, although it can be re-earned. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Fiery's motion to create a new title.

---

The state of the nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current rule set:

Spoiler:

All motions

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **matt96** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:49 am UTC

I second the nomination of Fiery for the position of arbiter
I cast my vote against Snark's second attempt at bribery.
I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to create a new title.
I retract my (matt96's) motion to formalize a rule we have been observing that isn't actually in the rules,
as it has already now been dealt with.
I make a motion to prevent motions from directly rewarding everyone who vote in favor of it, anyone who vote in favor of it, and only those who vote in favor of it. For the purposes of voting, this will be referred to as Matt96's

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:02 am UTC

Thanks for the support

Also, your current motion doesn't have a name. It just says "... t. For the purposes of voting, this will be referred to as Matt96's"

by **Snark** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:04 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:§004:
If at any point there are three votes from three different players in favor of a motion, the motion passes and is acted upon. If at any point there are three votes from three different players against a motion, the motion fails.

This was part of the original rules and was not changed before Fiery self-voted for his motion to fix things. I'm not sure how things should play out now, but that motion should NOT have gone through. The rule says three different players.

by **shirosuzume** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:16 pm UTC

I pick the nickname Suz.

I agree with Snark, that according to the previously outlined rules, Fiery can't vote a motion into a rule all by himself.

I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to fix things. (Would that I had line item veto. Too much in there.)
I cast my vote in favor of Alex's motion to reward helpful Nomicers. Motion passed, Alex earns 2 points.
I second the nomination of Alex to be arbiter.

I am neutral on Snark's second attempt at bribery.

I make a motion to amend rule §003 to add that No player shall vote for his own motion, and no player may vote for or against a motion more than once (though they may change their vote). For the purposes of voting, this shall be referred to as Suz's simplified obvious rule.

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Rules:

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Current motions

Spoiler:

Note that I did not include Fiery's second motion from his post (Fiery's motion to create a new title), as he made one, which has not passed yet, and you are only able to have one motion at a time. Fiery's second motion (the one about Defender of the Nomic) is therefore a non-entity.

*edited: as I had voted for Fiery's motion to create a new title before I realized I didn't need to do that...

by **ahammel** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

Yeah, under the original rules the votes have to come from three different players. I suppose that could have been more obvious.

I cast my vote against Snark's second attempt at bribery. Motion fails, Snark loses one point.
I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to fix things.
I cast my vote in favor of Matt96's :lol:

I cast my vote in favor of Suz's simplified obvious rule.

by **Snark** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

I make a motion to make a rule stating that the first person to reach 30 points will become the (one and only) Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. For the purposes of voting, this shall be referred to as Snark's motion that involves bribery in almost no way whatsoever and concerns only Poobah-related material.

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:33 pm UTC

I retract my motion to fix things.

I cast my vote in favor of Suz's simplified obvious rule.

I cast my vote in favor of Matt96's

by **ahammel** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:39 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Snark's motion that involves bribery in almost no way whatsoever and concerns only Poobah-related material.

I make a motion to create the position of winner of the Nomic. When a winner is declared, he or she shall make a post in the Games section of the xkcd fora titled Nomic 16.1 declaring the start of a new Nomic with an inital set of rules. These rules should be simple and suitable for the beginning of a Nomic, but shall otherwise be chosen at the winner's sole discresion. A winner shall be declared either by a motion to that effect, or according to a rule stating a victory condition. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be known as Alex's motion to establish the duties of the winner.

I'm not sure about a victory condition, but it would probably be a good idea to make sure it occurs before the game becomes so complicated that everybody loses interest (as seems to have happend in previous Nomics on this forum).

by **JesseScottOwen** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:50 pm UTC

I make a motion to add the following rule: Any player who promotes this game of Nomic with a link in their signature gets 5 points as long as the link remains in their sig. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be known as JesseScottOwen's attempt to draw more players to the game.

by **ahammel** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:52 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of JesseScottOwen's attempt to draw more players to the game.

by **shirosuzume** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:16 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Matt96's (untitled motion). Motion passed, Rule §013 created. Matt96 awarded 2 points.
I cast my vote in favor of Snark's motion that involves bribery in almost no way whatsoever and concerns only Poobah-related material.
I cast my vote in favor of Alex's motion to establish the duties of the winner.
I cast my vote in favor of JesseScottOwen's attempt to draw more players to the game.

I'm just feeling all kinds of affirmative today. So... now we have two nominations for arbiter. I have a motion open so can't make one, we should have a motion to figure that out? Also how the winner gets picked.

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **ahammel** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:44 pm UTC

Suz wrote:So... now we have two nominations for arbiter. I have a motion open so can't make one, we should have a motion to figure that out? Also how the winner gets picked.

There's already a provision for this in the rules:

Any player aside from the nominator may second the nomination by posting "I second the nomination of [nickname] for the position of arbiter". Once a player has been nominated and seconded by two different players, he or she must accept the positon by posting "I accept the position or arbiter". The first player to do so becomes the arbiter.

Edit: Fiery and I have already been nominated and seconded, so somebody needs to second one of those nominations again to decide the issue.

by **Snark** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:47 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Suz's simplified obvious rule

by **Snark** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:51 pm UTC

I second the nomination of Fiery for the position of arbiter

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:14 pm UTC

I accept the position or arbiter.
I cast my vote against Snark's motion that involves bribery in almost no way whatsoever and concerns only Poobah-related material.
I cast my vote in favor of Alex's motion to establish the duties of the winner.
I cast my vote in favor of JesseScottOwen's attempt to draw more players to the game. Motion passed, Rule §014 created, Godwin awarded 2 points

I make a motion to create the title of Defender of the Nomic. This title shall have bragging rights, and be awarded to anyone else who saves the Nomic (there may be more than one Defender of the Nomic.). Should a Defender of the Nomic make an action that harms the Nomic, the title will be removed, although it can be re-earned. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Fiery's motion to create a new title.

(awarded Fiery 1 point for State of the Nomic Post (assuming it is accurate))

---

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **shirosuzume** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:18 pm UTC

I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to create a new title.

Now that my other motion passed...

I make a motion to create the definition of Winner of this Nomic:

The Winner shall have previously attained the rank of Grand High Poobah of the Nomic (GHPotN)
At some point while holding this status, another player will garner enough points to be considered GHPotN; at this time, the player can officially challenge the GHPotN by stating, "I challenge your status as GHPotN and request a vote to determine the true holder of the rank."
A vote shall take place among the GHPotN, the challenger, and any Poobahs Emeriti (see below); when 24 hours have passed or 2/3 of players have voted, whichever comes later, the tally shall be counted.
If the current holder of the GHPotN title has won the tally, that player becomes The Winner.
If the challenger wins the tally, that player becomes GHPotN until such time as that player is challenged as set forth here; in that case, the previous GHPotN becomes Poobah Emeritus.
Any and all Poobahs Emeritus are included in each Challenger's Vote and can re-attain status of GHPotN if they win the tally.
Poobahs Emeriti can re-challenge the current GHPotN when they have gained 5 points from the time of being made Poobah Emeritus.
Only if the current holder of the GHPotN title can become the Winner, if and only if they win the tally.

For the purposes of voting, this shall be referred to as Suz's attempt to create a somewhat convoluted definition of The Winner.

This is only going to work if we get more players, though

.

*Edit: Got ninja'd, didn't need to reproduce the whole State of the Nomic. Those posts take a long time to run through...

by **shirosuzume** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:26 pm UTC

Fiery, you forgot to award me 2 points for my motion having gotten passed, and you can award yourself 5 points for having Nomic in your sig, right? ... and you have to modify the All motions list, and the current motions list... so, no point for you until you modify :p

by **orangedragonfire** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:24 am UTC

Yes... I missed the vote on your motion be Snark. Which made me think your motion wasn't accepted yet, and explains the missing points and the missing update in Active and All Motions. As for the 5 points, I added the signature after the post, so I didn't have the points at the time of the post.

by **JesseScottOwen** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:44 am UTC

When someone does end up redoing a State of the Nomic post, please note my sig. Grazie.

by **ahammel** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:48 am UTC

I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to create a new title the grounds that the actions "save the Nomic" and "harm the Nomic" are poorly defined.
I cast my vote in favor Suz's attempt to create a somewhat convoluted definition of The Winner

by **Snark** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:55 am UTC

Some of the language in Suz's motion seems to rely on my current motion being passed. This may not strictly be the case, but it seems that way to me.

by **orangedragonfire** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:13 am UTC

I cast my in favor of Suz's attempt to create a somewhat convoluted definition of The Winner

To avoid loosing a point:
I retract my motion to create a new title.

I make a motion to add the following to rule §003:

The player who makes the deciding vote on a motion must after his/her vote write "Motion [passed/denied or appropriate synonym]. [Player name/nickname] [awarded/penalized or appropriate synonym] [# of points] points." where the number of points is as specified in the rules. For example, one could write "I cast my vote in favor of Alex's motion to grant himself a meaningless title." Motion passed. Alex awarded 2 points.

For the purposes of voting, this shall be referred to as Fiery's motion to make it clear when a motion is decided.

(awarded Fiery 1 point for State of the Nomic Post (assuming it is accurate))
(awarded Fiery, Alex, Suz and Godwin 5 points each for signature)

---

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

Who is online