xkcd

by **patzer** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:10 am UTC

Welcome cjq. New players already get 5 points after 3 on-topic posts, so I think this extra bonus is unnecessary.
I cast my vote against cjq's motion to give new players 3 points. Now 0 for, 1 against.
I cast my vote against Odin's motion to prevent people from accepting wagers when they know the outcome. Now 0 for, 3 against.
I guess that Fiery will post next.

by **orangedragonfire** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:16 am UTC

First off, welcome to Nomic 16.0.

Secondly, you forgot to vote on my motion; and you are required to vote on all active motions before making a new motion. This will give you a penalty, but as you have 0 points it shouldn't matter (whenever your points drop below 0, they are returned to 0)

Thirdly, you forgot to name your wager.

Fourthly, I cast my vote against cjq's motion to give new players 3 points. (now 0 for, 2 against) The reason being that new players can very quickly get 13 points. They get 5 point for a signature that advertises Nomic, 5 points after the first three post, and 3 points for joining Nomy (which means posting there once, as no stronger requirements are in the rules)

I cast my vote in favor of Odin's motion to prevent people from accepting wagers when they know the outcome. (now 1 for, 3 against)

by **patzer** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:54 am UTC

Fiery wrote:They get ... 3 points for joining Nomy (which means posting there once, as no stronger requirements are in the rules)

Didn't know that, collected my 3 points now.

by **careyhammer** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:31 pm UTC

I cast my vote against cjq's motion to give new players 3 points. Now 0 for, 3 against.

I accept cjq's wager.

by **careyhammer** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:41 pm UTC

I make a motion to require a list of current and past duels as part of a State of the Nomic post. For purposes of voting, this motion shall be refered to as Carey's motion to require a list of current and past duels as part of a State of the Nomic post.

by **careyhammer** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:46 pm UTC

I make a motion to respect The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic must never be refered to by nickname or user id or any pronoun. Instead, the title "Grand High Poobah of the Nomic" must always be used in their place. For purposes of voting, this motion shall be refered to as the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic's motion to respect The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic.

by **careyhammer** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:47 pm UTC

I make a motion to respect The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic must never be refered to by nickname or user id or any pronoun. Instead, the title "Grand High Poobah of the Nomic" must always be used in their place. For purposes of voting, this motion shall be refered to as the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic's motion to respect The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic.

by **careyhammer** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:54 pm UTC

Buy: Egoistical Voting Perk for 50 points

by **orangedragonfire** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:40 pm UTC

Your excessive use of double posting is getting quite annoying (seriously, five posts in a row? Two of which are identical?). You brought this upon yourself:

I'll have to penalize you either for making three motions when you are only allowed two, or for a redundant post (as per §01.04). Your choice. Also, you broke rule §02.02 by not calling it "Carey's motion to respect The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic." That is what the motion should be called according to the current rules, and what I will therefore call it.

I abstain from voting on Carey's motion to require a list of current and past duels as part of a State of the Nomic post. (now 0 for, 0 against, 1 abstain) because while I think that current duels should be part of the State of the Nomic post, past duels will just take up too much space.
I cast my vote against Carey's motion to respect The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. (now 0 for, 1 against) because it would completely mess up the player listing in the State of the Nomic Post.

Buy: Remove Carey's Grand High Poobah of the Nomic status for 25 points.
Buy :Grand High Poobah of the Nomic status for 35 points

I make a motion to amend the rights of the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic by adding that while double posting is allowed, posting more than two posts in a row isn't. Specifically, I'd like Rule §04.03 to read:

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, but no more than two posts in a row.
3) Permission to have one additional active motion.
4) Permission to have one additional active wager.
5) Permission to have one additional active duel.
6) Permission to have one additional active trade.
7) 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.

where the changes have been highlighted in bold.
For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Fiery's motion to prevent excessive amounts of posts by the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic.

(the rest of the changes are mostly cosmetic. I wrote "one additional active X" instead of "two active X" because that makes more sense now that there are actual ways of getting more wagers and duels apart from the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic status. Also, I added the right to have one more duel and trade, because we probably just didn't have duels and trades last time this rule was updated and that is the only reason I can see for this missing)

by **patzer** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:13 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to prevent excessive amounts of posts by the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. Now 1 for, 0 against.

by **Odilo** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:29 pm UTC

I cast my vote against cjq's motion to give new players 3 points. (Now 0 for, 4 against) Motion failed. Cjq penalized 2 points.
I cast my vote in favour of Carey's motion to require a list of current and past duels as part of a State of the Nomic post. (Now 1 for, 0 against, 1 abstain)
I cast my vote against Carey's motion to respect The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. (Now 0 for, 2 against)
I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to prevent excessive amounts of posts by the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. (Now 2 for, 0 against)

I retract my motion to prevent people from accepting wagers when they know the outcome.

I make a motion to reduce the amount of votes needed to pass or fail a motion to three. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Odin's motion to reduce the amount of points needed to three.
Now that the game has slowed down a lot, and there are less players, I think we should go back to only needing three points.

I guess that Fiery will post next.

by **orangedragonfire** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:49 pm UTC

Actually, since the number of player seems to vary a lot, I think a motion that allows for a variable amount of votes needed to pass or fail a motion would be more sensible. Basically, give someone the authority to switch between 3 and 4 votes for passing/failing motions. Just my thought about the matter. I'd make a motion to that extend myself, but I already have two active, and more planned that are more important than this.

by **Odilo** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:21 am UTC

Carey loses 6 points for not accepting my duel withing 48 hours.
I lose 10 points and Carey wins 10 points for my 1st wager.
I win 5 points and Carey loses 5 points for my 2nd wager. (Winning lottery number is 60)

I challenge Patzer to a duel by Pistols at High Noon.

I retract my motion to reduce the amount of points needed to three.

I make a motion to give the arbiter the ability to change the amount of votes needed to pass or fail a motion. This would be accomplished by the arbiter writing in bold italics, "The amount of votes needed to pass and fail motions has been changed to X." where X is either 3 or 4. For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to Odin's motion to make it possible to change the amount of votes needed.

by **cjquines** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:13 am UTC

I quit.

by **careyhammer** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:54 am UTC

D'oh!

Dont quit, it's just getting fun!

The identical posts were an accident. My bad.

by **patzer** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:44 am UTC

I accept Odin's challenge and request Fiery to be judge
I cast my vote in favour of Carey's motion to require a list of current and past duels as part of a State of the Nomic post. (Now 2 for, 0 against, 1 abstain)
I cast my vote against Carey's motion to respect The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. (Now 0 for, 3 against)
I cast my vote in favour of Odin's motion to make it possible to change the amount of votes needed. (Now 1 for, 0 against)

by **orangedragonfire** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:58 am UTC

I cast my vote in favour of Odin's motion to make it possible to change the amount of votes needed. (Now 2 for, 0 against)

by **careyhammer** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:03 pm UTC

Is anyone there? How about a nice SotN?

by **orangedragonfire** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:16 pm UTC

As arbiter, I declare that Carey's posting the same post twice is a breach of rule §01.04. As this was done without by mistake, I give only 1 point penalty. With modifiers, this comes to 1 point (1 point*2 for honor -1 for Protection)

(awarded Fiery 1 point for taking a pawn)
(awarded Patzer 8 points for taking a queen)
(awarded Fiery 8 points for taking a queen)
(awarded Patzer 3 points for taking a bishop)
(+10 points to Carey and -10 points to Odin for wager)
(awarded Odin 1 point for guessing correctly)
(+2 points to Odin and -2 points to Fiery due to Charity)
(penalized Odin 3 points for not writing "This wager's name will be Odin's Wager #2")
(penalized cjq 1 point for not writing "This wager's name will be Cjq's Wager #1")
(returned cjq to 0 points)
(awarded Patzer 1 point for guessing correctly)
(charged Carey 50 points for Egoistical Voting Perk)

Honor: 5 points
Fiery
Odin
Carey
Froggy
Chia
Spikey

Investments:
12 Carey
10 Fiery
6 Snarky
6 Alex
6 Spikey
6 Odin
6 Patzer
6 Chia
4 Tim
2 Null

(awarded 3 points each to Patzer and Odin for joining Nomy 1.0)
(penalized Carey 1 point (see top of post for reason))
(charged Fiery a total of 60 point for removing and buying the honorable title of Grand High Poobah of the Nomic)
(penalized cjq 1 point for motion failing)
(returned cjq to 0 points)
(awarded Odin 1 point for guessing correctly)
(awarded Fiery 2 points for State of the Nomic Post)

(+5 points to Odin and -5 points to Carey for wager)
(penalized Carey 5 points for refusing the duel against Odin)

The State of the Nomic
Rules
All Motions

Players:

Spoiler:

Chess Game:

Spoiler:

Current Wagers:

Spoiler:

Tournaments:

Spoiler:

Active Duels:

Spoiler:

Open Trades:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **Snark** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:23 pm UTC

Charity: Give 16 points of my points to Fiery

I'll be doing this every other page or so.

by **orangedragonfire** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:24 pm UTC

Buy: Egoistical Voting Perk for 50 points.

I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to prevent excessive amounts of posts by the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic.

I'll be judge for Odin against Patzer. The duel starts now...

Snark wrote:Charity: Give 16 points of my points to Fiery

I'll be doing this every other page or so.

Uhmmm... thanks. May I ask why?

by **Kyreles** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:29 pm UTC

I pick the nickname Ky.

I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to allow Double Motions (Now 4 for, 0 against, 1 abstain) Motion passes.
I cast my vote against of Carey's motion to require a list of current and past duels as part of a State of the Nomic post. (Now 1 for, 1 against, 1 abstain)
I cast my vote against Carey's motion to respect The Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. (Now 0 for, 4 against) Motion fails.
I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to prevent excessive amounts of posts by the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic. (Now 4 for, 0 against) Motion Passes.
I cast my vote in favour of Odin's motion to make it possible to change the amount of votes needed. (Now 3 for, 0 against)

I move that firey be declared winner of Nomic 16.0 and must now create Nomic 16.1 per rule §04.04. This rule shall supersede any other rule in place determining how the winner of Nomic 16.0 is determined. For the purposes of voting, this montion shall be refered to as Kyreles' motion to start a new nomic that people don't feel intimated to join.

I guess that Fiery will post next.

by **Snark** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:44 pm UTC

orangedragonfire wrote:Buy: Egoistical Voting Perk for 50 points.

I cast my vote in favor of Fiery's motion to prevent excessive amounts of posts by the Grand High Poobah of the Nomic.

I'll be judge for Odin against Patzer. The duel starts now...

Snark wrote:Charity: Give 16 points of my points to Fiery

I'll be doing this every other page or so.

Uhmmm... thanks. May I ask why?

I don't like accumulating points for no reason. So I'll be giving them to whomever I feel like it every couple of times I get points from my investments.

by **Odilo** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:04 pm UTC

Fiery, in your SotN you missed that I won my 2nd wager. Also, since Carey has honour and took longer than 48 hours to accept my duel, he is assumed to have refused the duel.

I abstain from voting on Kyreles' motion to start a new nomic that people don't feel intimated to join. (0 for, 0 against, 1 abstain)

I guess that Fiery will post next.

by **orangedragonfire** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:09 pm UTC

We really need to limit the amount of penalties people can get from one post...

(-16 points to Snarky and +16 points to Fiery due to Charity)
(charged Fiery 50 points for Egoistical Voting Perk)
(penalized Fiery 3 points for not giving an overview over votes)
(awarded Fiery 8 points for motion passing)
(penalized Carey 7 points for motion failing)
(awarded Fiery 8 points for motion passing)
(penalized Ky 1 point for not writing "Fiery awarded 8 points")
(penalized Ky 1 point for getting the vote count on Carey's motion to require a list of current and past duels as part of a State of the Nomic post wrong)
(penalized Ky 1 point for not writing "Carey penalized 8 points")
(penalized Ky 1 point for not writing "Fiery awarded 8 points")
(penalized Ky 1 point for using his name instead of his nickname for the motion)
(returned Ky to 0 points)
(awarded Ky 5 points for Nomic signature)
(awarded Ky 3 points for joining Nomy 1.0)
(awarded Odin 1 point for guessing correctly)
(awarded Fiery 2 points for State of the Nomic Post)

The State of the Nomic
Rules
All Motions

Players:

Spoiler:

Chess Game:

Spoiler:

Current Wagers:

Spoiler:

Tournaments:

Spoiler:

Active Duels:

Spoiler:

Open Trades:

Spoiler:

Active motions:

Spoiler:

by **Kyreles** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:14 pm UTC

orangedragonfire wrote:We really need to limit the amount of penalties people can get from one post...

(penalized Ky 1 point for not writing "Fiery awarded 8 points")
(penalized Ky 1 point for getting the vote count on Carey's motion to require a list of current and past duels as part of a State of the Nomic post wrong)
(penalized Ky 1 point for not writing "Carey penalized 8 points")
(penalized Ky 1 point for not writing "Fiery awarded 8 points")
(penalized Ky 1 point for using his name instead of his nickname for the motion)
(returned Ky to 0 points)

Sorry. I tried to read over the rules, but I missed some...

by **orangedragonfire** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:33 pm UTC

No problem. You got it almost right, and that is quite impressive. You'll catch up quickly on the rest.

I cast my vote against Kyreles' motion to start a new nomic that people don't feel intimated to join. (now 0 for, 1 against) because I quite enjoy the current Nomic - and I want to win, instead of this "firey"

I make a motion to limit the number of penalties a player can get for a single post. This shall be done by adding the following rule:
A player may only get 1 penalty for each post. The highest penalty shall be chosen as the one to be give. If there are more than 3 different causes for penalties in the post, the arbiter may set the penalty for the post.
For the purposes of voting, this motion shall be referred to as Fiery's motion to reduce penalties.

I make a motion to amend the requirements for posting State of the Nomic Post. In addition to after a motion has been accepted, refused, retracted or amended, I'd like you to be able to make a State of the Nomic post after a new page has been started in the thread, or at least ten different posts with at least one official action in each of these have been made. Specifically, I'd like the last section of rule §01.01 to read:

Any player who makes a State of the Nomic post will be awarded 2 points if a) the information is accurate or later edited for accuracy and b)
* a new page has been started or
* at least ten different posts with at least one official action in each of these have been made or
* at least one motion has passed, failed, been withdrawn, or been amended
since the last State of the Nomic post. It is forbidden to vote on a motion, making it pass or fail, then post a state of the nomic, then double posting to pass or fail another motion and state of the nomic in an attempt to maximize the number of points they can get from it.

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

by **orangedragonfire** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:46 pm UTC

Oh, also, I challenge Ky to a duel by Pistols at High Noon.

by **patzer** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:06 pm UTC

I believe I have won the duel...
I cast my vote against Kyreles' motion to start a new nomic that people don't feel intimated to join. (now 0 for, 2 against)

by **Kyreles** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:07 pm UTC

I accept Fiery's challange and I request Snark to be judge

by **orangedragonfire** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:14 pm UTC

Patzer has won a duel against Odin. Patzer gains 3 points, Odin loses 2 points.

by **patzer** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:17 pm UTC

ky, snark isn't active so it might be a good idea to pick someone else to be judge..
I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to reduce penalties. (now 1 for, 0 against)
I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to allow more SotN posts. (now 1 for, 0 against)

by **Snark** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:20 pm UTC

I agree to judge the duel between Fiery and Ky by Pistols at High Noon.

This is post 0. Your duel begins now.

by **Kyreles** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:20 pm UTC

I request that the judge of my duel with Fiery be changed to INt€rN€t WaNd€r€R.

I think he has to accept? "If a judge is taking too long, the players may request a new judge"

[edit]shit, now what?[/edit]

by **orangedragonfire** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:32 pm UTC

I guess Snarky gets to be judge, and the duel has started. After all, he didn't take too long, and you only get to switch judge if the judge takes too long to respond. On that note:

I request that the judge of my duel with Odin be changed to Ky.

Oh, and STEP.

by **Odilo** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:22 pm UTC

Aww, I lost my duel. Things have been going slowly lately, so I thought I'd be safe not checking back for a few hours. Oh well, I'm glad things are starting to pick up again.

I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to reduce penalties. (Now 2 for, 0 against)
I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to allow more SotN posts. (Now 2 for, 0 against)

by **orangedragonfire** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:24 pm UTC

I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to reduce penalties. (Now 3 for, 0 against)
I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to allow more SotN posts. (Now 3 for, 0 against)

/edit: Step.

by **Kyreles** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:30 am UTC

I challange Odin to a duel by Drinks at Dusk for the title of Duelist.
Buy: Investment for 2 points.

I can't find a rule that says how many active duels I can have at once. The duelist can have 5, but how many can I?

orangedragonfire wrote:I request that the judge of my duel with Odin be changed to Ky.

Does Odin need to confirm? And is this the Pistols At High Noon from the SotN?

by **Odilo** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:09 am UTC

Kyreles wrote:I can't find a rule that says how many active duels I can have at once. The duelist can have 5, but how many can I?

You can only have one duel at a time, so I'll duel you as soon as your current one is done.

Kyreles wrote:Does Odin need to confirm? And is this the Pistols At High Noon from the SotN?

Yes, it's Pistols at High Noon. I'm not sure if I need to confirm the request for a new judge, the rules aren't clear on that. Just in case:
I confirm Fiery's request that Ky judge our duel.

by **careyhammer** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:17 am UTC

I cast my vote in favor of Odin's motion to make it possible to change the amount of votes needed. Now 4 for, 0 against. Motion passes, Odin awarded 8 points.
I cast my vote against Kyreles' motion to start a new nomic that people don't feel intimated to join. (now 0 for, 3 against)
I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to reduce penalties. (Now 4 for, 0 against) Motion passes, Fiery awarded 8 points.
I cast my vote in favour of Fiery's motion to allow more SotN posts. (Now 4 for, 0 against) Motion passes, Fiery awarded 8 points.
Penalty to me for not updating the wiki.

Who is online