xkcd

by **Story Weaver** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:56 pm UTC

For the purposes of voting, this shall be referred to as matt96's motion to point out that story weaver did not take a nick name.

Hi Matt96, I did take a nickname (Spikey), see here.

Also, I am not sure that your motion is required - if someone breaks the rules there is already provision for pointing it out, at which point they lose a point (See rule §010). Do we really need to formalize this?

by **Snark** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:12 pm UTC

I cast my vote against Story Weaver's motion to reward dedication to the realm. (Now 0 for, 2 against, 1 abstain)
I cast my vote against Carey's motion to give everyone a chance to vote. (Now 0 for, 1 against, 0 abstain)

I make a motion to disallow editing posts in this forum except when a correction needs to be made to a State of the Nomic. For the purposes of voting, this motion will be referred to as Snarky's motion to create accountability and reduce confusion.

(awarded 2 points to Snark for State of the Nomic Post)
(awarded 2 points to Snark for his motion for improved rules for gambling passing)
(awarded 4 points to Monty for his motion to allow trivial point gain passing)

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

Please let me know if anything needs to be changed. Thanks!

by **Story Weaver** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:23 pm UTC

@Snark: I was just writing one of these! You beat me to it - takes so long! Some corrections:

You should get 2 points for the State of the Nomic (given Monty's motion to allow more trivial point gain)
In Rule §017 that should be "the player who had insufficient points is penalized 6 points"
In Rule §011 that should be "Any player who makes a State of the Nomic post will be awarded 2 points"
In Rule §010 that should be "If it fails, they lose 2 points" (just grammar this time!)

I retract my motion to reward dedication to the realm. Perhaps we should increase the number of points though? Maybe to 3?
I cast my vote against Carey's motion to give everyone a chance to vote. I think that keeping track of time durations makes things too complicated.

I don't think we should disallow editing of posts altogether - I think it's fine to edit your post so long as you are:

Adding to it, not changing anything that already stands (I do this when I have thought of something more I wanted to say - for example I realise there is another motion to vote on
The last poster

If you agree, Snark, you could retract your motion and reissue it in that more nuanced form?

by **Odilo** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:39 pm UTC

I pick the nickname Odin.

I cast my vote against Carey's motion to give everyone a chance to vote. (Now 0 for, 3 against, 1 abstain) Motion fails. Carey penalized 2 points.

by **Story Weaver** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:52 pm UTC

Welcome Odin!

I wager 2 points that the XKCD comic tomorrow (Monday 26th) will contain someone wearing a hat. This wager's name will be Spikey's Wager #1. For your information this has been true of 4 of the last 10 comics.

What do people think is the right number of people for this game? I wonder if we are now approaching the limit, as I think with too many people this may get very chaotic.

by **Snark** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:58 pm UTC

@Story Weaver
I fixed the things you mentioned. Thanks for the help. Also, you unfortunately lose 2 points for not giving a running count after voting against Carey's motion.

Per your suggestion: I retract Snarky's motion to create accountability and reduce confusion.

I make a motion to disallow editing posts in this forum except 1) When a correction needs to be made to a State of the Nomic or 2) One is adding to their post without changing anything already written (one would not be allowed to add the running count after one of their votes) AND a new State of the Nomic has not been written since the time of that post, or 3) The post in question is the last post. For the purposes of voting, this motion will be referred to as Snarky's better motion to create accountability and reduce confusion.

by **careyhammer** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:59 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favour of Snarky's better motion to create accountability and reduce confusion. (Now 1 for, 0 against)

Odilo wrote:I pick the nickname Odin.

I cast my vote against Carey's motion to give everyone a chance to vote. (Now 0 for, 3 against, 1 abstain) Motion fails. Carey penalized 2 points.

Did I miss something? Who abstained?

Story Weaver wrote:What do people think is the right number of people for this game? I wonder if we are now approaching the limit, as I think with too many people this may get very chaotic.

That was kind of the idea behind my motion. With more players, it is a race for the first three votes to pass or defeat any motion. Maybe we should increase the number of votes needed to four?

I make a motion to amend rule §004 to require four votes to accept or refuse a motion. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Carey's motion to require four votes.

by **Snark** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:00 pm UTC

I accept Spikey's Wager #1.

(would have penalized Carey 2 points for his motion to give everyone a chance to vote failing but Carey had 0 points already)
(would have penalized Odin 2 points for putting his motion in bold but not italics but Odin had 0 points already)
(awarded Snarky 2 points for State of the Nomic)

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Wagers:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **orangedragonfire** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:58 pm UTC

careyhammer wrote:That was kind of the idea behind my motion. With more players, it is a race for the first three votes to pass or defeat any motion. Maybe we should increase the number of votes needed to four?

While it is a good idea, it only works either for motions where people vote. See my motion, for example, which was been on 2-2 for quite a while, despite the fact that there are enough people who could give a deciding vote. If we raise the cap to 4 votes to win, we need some way to ensure that 7 people vote per motion. (which is the maximum number required to decide a motion)

I cast my vote in favour of Snarky's better motion to create accountability and reduce confusion. (Now 2 for, 0 against)

---

/edit: Snarky, you missed Carey's motion to require four votes in your state of the Nomic post, and his vote on your motion.

by **careyhammer** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:30 pm UTC

Thats two votes for Snarky's motion, I voted for it earlier.

Story Weaver wrote:The wording of Fiery's motion to encourage voting is "In order to make a motion, a player has to have voted on all active motions at that time." In the new rule §030, we can now abstain from motions explicitly. However, in that rule, "abstaining" is not defined to be the same as "voting" - so if Fiery's motion went through you would have to explicitly vote in favour or against each motion if you wanted to make a new motion. In other words, abstention doesn't help this problem.

Fiery, may I suggest that you amend your motion so that it reads something like: "In order to make a motion, a player has to have voted on or abstained from each active motion at that time."

I would have voted for Fiery's motion, but Story Weaver makes a good point there. I'll vote for it if Fiery amends it according to his suggestion.

by **orangedragonfire** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:37 pm UTC

I amend my motion to encourage voting in the following way: Instead of "voted on" it shall now say "voted on or abstained from". The complete revised motion is now as follows:

Motion to include the following rule in the rules: In order to make a motion, a player has to have voted on or abstained from all active motions at that time.

by **careyhammer** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:57 pm UTC

Now we have rules for making motions and retracting motions. I'm not sure that amending a motion is legal. I will interpret Firey's amendment as a retraction and a new motion.

I cast my vote in favor of Firey's new motion to encourage voting. (Now 1 for, 0 against)

by **Snark** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:18 am UTC

Fixed errors. Thanks Fiery.

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:37 am UTC

careyhammer wrote:I'm not sure that amending a motion is legal.

Right, I forgot about that.

I withdraw my motion to encourage voting. because there is something more urgent.

I make a motion to add the following rule:

Once a motion is made and before it is accepted, it may be amended. Amendments of purely grammatical nature do not affect votes; amendments that alter the content of a motion render all votes for the motion void. To amend a motion, one has to write "I amend my [motion name] in the following way: [Description of changes] The complete revised motion is now as follows: [Complete amended motion]"
An example:
I amend my motion to encourage voting in the following way: Instead of "voted on" it shall now say "voted on or abstained from". The complete revised motion is now as follows:

Motion to include the following rule in the rules: In order to make a motion, a player has to have voted on or abstained from all active motions at that time.

For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Fiery's motion to allow motion amending.

by **Story Weaver** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:13 am UTC

Snark wrote:@Story Weaver
I fixed the things you mentioned. Thanks for the help. Also, you unfortunately lose 2 points for not giving a running count after voting against Carey's motion.

Ack! Hoisted by my own petard.

Even worse, I have lost my wager with Snarky (there are no hats, alas). The rules do not seem to say what happens when a wager is won/lost, so I shall say I give Snarky 2 points. I say this in good will, not attempting to break the rules, but to keep the spirit of them until the Arbiter can clarify what is required.

After all this, I think I have 4 points left (8 - 2 - 2). Possibly I shall have to make a motion to care for destitute Nomicans...

I cast my vote in favour of Snarky's better motion to create accountability and reduce confusion. (Now 3 for, 0 against). Motion passed. Snarky awarded 4 points..

I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to allow motion amending. (Now 1 for, 0 against).

Edit: I cast my vote against Carey's motion to require four votes. (Now 0 for, 1 against). I'm sorry, I keep voting against these kind of things, but I really am quite happy with the current system.

by **clockworkmonk** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:57 pm UTC

I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to allow motion amending.(1 for, 1 against) the reason being that any change to a motion, including grammar and the example used, alter the content of the motion, making the example invalid as well. if it allowed amending a motion to fall in line with rules changed/passed since the motion passed I would be in favor of it.

I cast my vote in favor of Carey's motion to require four votes. (Now 1 for, 1 against)

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:27 pm UTC

clockworkmonk wrote:I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to allow motion amending.(1 for, 1 against) the reason being that any change to a motion, including grammar and the example used, alter the content of the motion, making the example invalid as well. if it allowed amending a motion to fall in line with rules changed/passed since the motion passed I would be in favor of it.

Well, altering the content of the motion is the entire point - but only slightly. We've had loads of posts that say "If your motion said this, then I would vote for it." But under the current rules, you can't edit you motion, which sort of defeats the points of those arguments. This basically enables you to take feedback from other players into account, and to fix errors or things you hadn't thought of - or new things that come up.
Technically, you could enter the content of a motion drastically if this gets approved. But I don't see the problem in that either - if people don't like the alterations, they don't have to vote for them.

(awarded Fiery 2 points for State of the Nomic)
(penalized Spikey 2 points for breaking rule §019)
(+2 points to snarky and -2 points to spikey due to wager)

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Wagers:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **clockworkmonk** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:55 pm UTC

my issue is that it potentially creates motions that have votes for (or against) that would not represent the players who voted opinions on the matter after the edit. while it is clunky, the retract-resubmit option is better for individual's abilities to voice what they think.

I make a motion to begin a mini-game thingy.
Once per day (a day being defined at midnight to midnight, GMT) a player may attempt to guess the name of the next poster. if they are correct, they are awarded one point.
For the purposes of voting, this motion will be referred to as Monty's motion for added silliness.

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:11 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Monty's motion for added silliness. because we need to start making this game about more than just editing rules. They are the main focus, and a great starting point, but you can only refine your rules for so long.

clockworkmonk wrote:my issue is that it potentially creates motions that have votes for (or against) that would not represent the players who voted opinions on the matter after the edit. while it is clunky, the retract-resubmit option is better for individual's abilities to voice what they think.

Note the part of my motion that says "amendments that alter the content of a motion render all votes for the motion void". As for votes against the motion - well, I assume that people would only vote against a motion if they are sure that they won't like any alterations of it. If they think that it would be good with a simple amendment, they the obvious thing to do (if my motion passes) is to abstain from voting on the motion until an adjustment to that end has been made. And if the motionmaker refuses to amend his motion to your liking, you can still vote against it.

by **Snark** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:21 pm UTC

I cast my vote against Carey's motion to require four votes. (Now 1 for, 2 against) because it's hard enough to pass motions.
I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to allow motion amending. (Now 2 for, 1 against) because it'd be nice to be able to fix grammar without resetting the vote count to zero.
I cast my vote against Monty's motion for added silliness. (Now 1 for, 1 against) because we haven't disallowed double posting.

I make a motion to remove §016 (quoted below) because it's so incredibly confusing and intricate, and we have another simpler method for determing the winner already in place.

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. However, a player may also gain the status of the Winner by any other method to do so described in the rules.

For the purposes of voting, this motion will be referred to as Snarky's motion to remove an overcomplicated rule.

@Fiery
In your most recent State of the Nomic, in §021, can you change "disallow" to "disallowed"? Thanks.
Also, you unfortunately lose two points for not providing a running count after your most recent vote.

by **Story Weaver** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:26 pm UTC

orangedragonfire wrote:we need to start making this game about more than just editing rules. They are the main focus, and a great starting point, but you can only refine your rules for so long.

Indeed, which brings me to this: I have a notion in mind for a motion. Specifically, a motion about duelling. However, the rules are quite lengthy. I don't think they are really very complicated - you just have to be quite wordy to cover enough of the cases - otherwise the Arbiter ends up working over time to resolve ambiguities.

Since the rules are quite long, and since this is a new area for this game of Nomic, I thought rather than making the motion now, I would instead air my ideas and invite comment. That way, if there is anything that someone wants to amend, or if there are things I have gotten wrong, we can make any necessary changes before I put it to a formal vote.

Spoiler:

Here is the formal bit that would be added to the rules:

Rules on duelling:
Anyone may challenge another person to a duel by saying "I challenge [name] to a duel by [method]" where "name" is the username or nick name of the person challenged, and "method" is one of the prescribed methods of duelling (see below).
If you have challenged X to a duel, and they have not responded, you can retract your challenge by saying "I retract my challenge to X".
If you have been challenged to a duel by X you can respond to the challenge. Either you can refuse the duel by saying "I refuse X's challenge", or you can accept by saying "I accept X's challenge and request Y to be judge", where "Y" is the username or nick name of a proposed judge.
After a duel has been accepted matters proceed informally until a judge chosen by the person challenged has agreed to act as judge.
Once a duel has been accepted, and a judge selected, the duel may proceed according to the method in the original challenge.
When the duel has been resolved the winner of the duel gains 3 points, and the loser loses 2 point. The judge must declare this by saying "X has won a duel against Y. X gains 3 points, Y loses 2 points"
Duelling method: Sabres at dawn.
There are multiple rounds in this method.
In each round the participants choose either "Strike", "Parry", or "Feint" and send their decision via PM to the judge
The winner of the round is the participant whose action beats their opponents. Strike beats Feint, Feint beats Parry, Parry beats Strike. If both particpants choose the same action then the round is a draw.
After the judge has received each participant's action, the judge must post the result like this: "[challenger][strikes/parries/feints], [challengee][strikes/parries/feints]. [challenger/challengee] scores a hit! OR Neither scores a hit."
Once one participant has won two rounds, the duel is resolved, and they are the winner

An example:
Alice: I challenge Bob to a duel by sabres at dawn.
Bob: I accept Alice's challenge and request Charlie to be judge. You will regret this!
Charlie (informally): Sure, I will be judge.
Charlie (having received PMs): Alice strikes, Bob feints. Alice scores a hit!
Charlie (having received PMs): Alice feints, Bob parries. Alice scores a hit! Alice has won a duel against Bob. Alice gainst 3 points, Bob loses 2 points.

Note that there are no penalties for refusing a duel. This is because I see these rules for duelling being for friendly duels as sport between Nomicans. It may be that in the future rules may be introduced that, for more serious situations, demand a duel. In that case, there may be loss of face (and points!) incurred for refusing a duel. In these early days though, there is no shame in refusing a duel.

Note also that duels introduce more points into the game, as the total number of points acoss both duellists is greater after a duel than before.

I cast my vote in favour of Monty's motion for added silliness. (Now 2 for, 2 against).

@Fiery: You didn't include a vote summary - it seems that rule is tripping everyone up. Perhaps we should distinguish between deliberate breaking of the rules, and accidental slips of the mind, like that? Give people a fair warning to edit and fix their mistakes?

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:51 pm UTC

Snark wrote:In your most recent State of the Nomic, in §021, can you change "disallow" to "disallowed"? Thanks.
Also, you unfortunately lose two points for not providing a running count after your most recent vote.

Done.
Also, dammit. :roll:

Story Weaver wrote:@Fiery: You didn't include a vote summary - it seems that rule is tripping everyone up. Perhaps we should distinguish between deliberate breaking of the rules, and accidental slips of the mind, like that? Give people a fair warning to edit and fix their mistakes?

It's only until we get used to it. Also, rules lawyering is what this game is all about, isn't it? Oh, and you loose two points for writing (Now 2 for, 2 against) instead of the correct (Now 2 for, 1 against). :twisted:

by **Story Weaver** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favour of Snarky's motion to remove an overcomplicated rule. (Now 1 for, 0 against)

I figured that double posting wasn't allowed anyway, by general forum rules...

So the summary for Monty's motion is now 2 for, 1 against.

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

Actually, there are precious few rules that apply to the Forum Games section. See here.

by **careyhammer** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:17 pm UTC

At this point, we are in danger of a new person joining the game, voting for Monty's motion and passing it, and then spamming the forum with I predict the next post is me. This is the kind of situation that my motion to require four votes would help avoid.

I cast my vote against Monty's motion for added silliness(now 2 for, 2 against)
I cast my vote in favor of Snarky's motion to remove an overcomplicated rule. (Now 2 for, 0 against)
I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to allow motion amending. (Now 3 for, 1 against) Motion passes, Fiery awarded 4 points

I like that dueling proposal. I would vote for it.

by **clockworkmonk** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:41 pm UTC

the limit of once per day, with day defined, is meant to prevent that. Anyways
I retract Monty's Motion for added silliness.

I make a motion to begin a mini-game thingy.
Once per day (a day being defined at midnight to midnight, GMT) a player may attempt to guess the name of the next poster. They cannot guess that they themselves will be the next poster. if they are correct, they are awarded one point.
For the purposes of voting, this motion will be referred to as Monty's motion for added silliness, now with flavor.
re edited, as was ninja'd by state of nomic

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:42 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favour of Snarky's motion to remove an overcomplicated rule. (Now 2 for, 1 against)

I, too, would vote for the duel thing.

I make a motion to add the following rule:

Whenever any player gains or looses points an updated table of current scores must be included in the post where it first became apparent that points where lost or gained.

For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Fiery's motion to keep track of the score.

(penalized Fiery 2 points for breaking rule §019)
(penalized Spikey 2 points for breaking rule §019)
(awarded Fiery 2 points for State of the Nomic Post)

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Wagers:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **clockworkmonk** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:44 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Snarky's motion to remove an overcomplicated rule. (Now 3 for, 0 against) motion passes, Snarky is awarded 4 points

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:45 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Monty's motion for added sillyness, now with flavor. (now 1 for, 0 against)

by **clockworkmonk** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:53 pm UTC

I request clarification on rule 4, particularly " If the motion passes, the next person to make a State of the Nomic post has to include any changes to the rules in their post."

Does this mean the rule is not in effect until it is put into a state of the nomic post?

by **orangedragonfire** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:02 pm UTC

As arbiter, I refer you to another part of rule §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.

So the rule is in effect as soon as it is accepted. This is already stated in the rules, so I see no need to modify them.

by **Snark** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:55 pm UTC

Buy: Double Down perk for 20 points.

I make a motion to add deciding wagers to the duties of the arbiter. I'd like to add the following sentence to §008:

The arbiter may also be called upon to resolve disagreements regarding the outcome of wagers. If the arbiter himself is involved in the wager in question, the arbiter shall appoint a neutral party, a temporary assistant arbiter, to decide the outcome of the wager in which the arbiter is involved.

And add the following sentence to §017:

Disagreements over the rightful winner of a wager will be settled by the arbiter.

For the purposes of voting, this motion will be referred to as Snark's motion to prevent disputes regarding wagers.

by **Snark** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

I amend my motion to prevent disputes regarding wagers in the following way: Changed rule numbers to rule descriptions. The complete revised motion is now as follows:
I make a motion to add deciding wagers to the duties of the arbiter. I'd like to add the following sentence to the rule detailing the duties of the arbiter:

The arbiter may also be called upon to resolve disagreements regarding the outcome of wagers. If the arbiter himself is involved in the wager in question, the arbiter shall appoint a neutral party, a temporary assistant arbiter, to decide the outcome of the wager in which the arbiter is involved.

And add the following sentence to the rule detailing how wagers are made:

Disagreements over the rightful winner of a wager will be settled by the arbiter.

For the purposes of voting, this motion will be still be referred to as Snark's motion to prevent disputes regarding wagers. (Now 0 for, 0 against)

(awarded Snarky 4 points for his motion to remove an overcomplicated rule passing)
(charged Snarky 20 points for purchasing Double Down perk)
(awarded Snarky 2 points for State of the Nomic Post)

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Wagers:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **Story Weaver** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:03 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favour of Monty's motion for added silliness, now with flavor. Now (2 for, 0 against)
I cast my vote in favour of Snark's motion to prevent disputes regarding wagers. Now (1 for, 0 against)

In the mean time, while my duelling idea is mulled over:

I make a motion that every player in this game of Nomic receive one internet cookie. If and when this motion is passed, Story Weaver will post pictures of delicious cookies equal in number to the number of players listed in the most recent State of the Nomic post. For the purpose's of voting, this motion will be referred to as Spikey's motion to give everyone cookies. Because, hey, everyone likes cookies.

by **careyhammer** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:53 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Monty's motion for added silliness, now with flavor. (Now 3 for, 0 against)
Motion passes, Monty awarded 4 points.
I cast my vote in favor of Snark's motion to prevent disputes regarding wagers. (Now 2 for, 0 against)
I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to keep track of the score. (Now 1 for, 0 against)
I cast my vote in favor of Spikey's motion to give everyone cookies. (Now 1 for, 0 against)

I guess that Fiery will be the next poster.

Here is my first State of the Nomic Post. Please let me know if I did anything wrong.

(awarded Monty 4 points for motion for added silliness, now with flavor.)
(awarded Carey 2 points for State of the Nomic Post.)

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Wagers:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **orangedragonfire** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:16 am UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Snark's motion to prevent disputes regarding wagers. (Now 3 for, 0 against) Motion passes. Snarky awarded 8 points.
I cast my vote against Spikey's motion to give everyone cookies. (Now 1 for, 1 against) Cookies are a tool of the Dark Side... cake is much better.

Buy: Double Down perk for 20 points.

I guess that Snarky will be the next poster.

(awarded Fiery 2 points for State of the Nomic Post.)
(charged Fiery 20 point for Double Down perk)
(awarded Carey 1 point for guessing correctly)

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Wagers:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **Snark** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:30 pm UTC

Fiery guessed the next poster correctly! Fiery awarded 1 point.

@Fiery
I request clarification. We have a rule that states that a rule must remain in place for 3 days after being passed, but we also have a rule that states that the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic can veto the last motion passed. Does the first rule make the second one void? Or does the veto power take precedence?

@Fiery
In your most recent State of the Nomic, in the active motions, you forgot to include your vote against Motion #51.

I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to keep track of the score (Now 1 for, 1 against) because I don't want it to be overly difficult for people to vote on motions and make wagers. I think State of the Nomics come often enough that it isn't difficult to keep track of the points.

I make a motion to alter the powers of the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. See the proposed new wording below. The underlined words indicate new additions.

The person holding the title of Grand High Poobah of the Nomic has:
1) The ability to veto the last motion that has been passed. This ability takes preference to rules concerning the minimum amount of time a motion must remain active. This ability may be used only once per day (a day being defined as being from midnight to midnight, GMT).
2) The privilege to doublepost in this thread.
3) Permission to have two active motions at once.
4) Permission to have two active wagers at once.
5) 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.

For the purposes of voting, this motion will be referred to as Snarky's motion to prevent the Poobah from being a juggernaut and vetoing a cheeseload of motions.

by **ahammel** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:37 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favor Snarky's motion to prevent the Poobah from being a juggernaut and vetoing a cheeseload of motions. Now 1 for, 0 against.
I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to keep track of the score. Now 1 for, 2 against.
I cast my vote against Carey's motion to require four votes. Now 1 for, 3 against. Motion fails, Carey penalized 4 points. Although it might be wise to take steps to avoid minority tyranny if the game gets much bigger.
I cast my vote in favor of Spikey's motion to give everybody cookies. Now 2 for 1 against.

I guess that Fiery will be the next poster.

by **Story Weaver** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

I guess that Fiery will be the next poster.

I cast my vote against Fiery's motion to keep track of the score (Now 1 for, 3 against). Motion fails, Fiery penalized 4 points..

I cast my vote in favour of Snarky's motion to prevent the Poobah from being a juggernaut and vetoing a cheeseload of motions (Now 2 for, 0 against).

Some thoughts on rules (ah! I need to be able to make more motions, someone vote for cookies!):

I'm not sure I like the being able to get rid of peoples' Double Down perks, as once (say) Snark gets really high on points with his own perk, any time someone tries to get the Double Down perk, he could get rid of it again. Maybe instead the Double Down perk should last for a limited period of time? Then it's a kind of gamble to see if you can get more than 20 points in that time period to make buying the perk worth it.

Here's a taster cookie!

Edit: Shouldn't Carey have been penalized 2 points for his motion failing as he does not have the Double Down perk? And does this mean that Alex loses 2 points for getting the rules wrong?

by **orangedragonfire** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:28 pm UTC

As arbiter, I declare that if a rule is vetoed or otherwise to be removed before the three day limit stated in the rules, the rule will stay active until the end of the three day period and then be removed. The following shall be added to rule §009 to make this clear:

If a rule is by any means set to be removed within this period, it will stay active until the end of the three days and only then be removed.

I make a motion to make the following amendments to rule $010:
- raise the cost of removing the double down perk to 40 points
- add a new item that can be bought: Investments. The first investment a player buys costs 2 points, each subsequent investment cost twice of the one bought before that (so the n-th investment for each player will cost 2^n points). At the start of each page in this thread, each player shall receive 2 points for each investment he/she owns.
For the purposes of voting, this motion will be referred to as Fierys motion to add investments.

(awarded Fiery 2 points for State of the Nomic Post.)
(penalized Carey 2 points for failed motion.)
(penalized Fiery 4 points for failed motion.)
(awarded Spikey 1 point for guessing correctly.)

The State of the Nomic:

Players:

Spoiler:

Current Wagers:

Spoiler:

Current Rules

Spoiler:

All motions:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

Who is online