Nomic 29.0

For all your silly time-killing forum games.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Nomic 29.0

Postby dimitriye98 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:35 pm UTC

There doesn't seem to be one going, so let's start one.

Rules:
  1. A new rule may be adopted by unanimous approval by all active players.
  2. Modification and deletion of any rule is allowed, and has the same restrictions as the introduction of a new rule.
  3. The term 'player' refers to any xkcd fora user who has posted in this thread.
  4. The term 'active player' refers to a player who has posted in this thread during the last 3 turns.
  5. Unless otherwise specified, new rules are added to the end of the rules list when they accepted, even if there are gaps in the numbering.
  6. Multiple rules may be created in a single proposal.
  7. The term 'proposal' refers to a list of changes to the game state which will take effect if it passes. This includes (but is not limited to) adding, deleting, and modifying rules.
  8. Any player may make a proposal by posting it in this thread and giving it a unique name.
  9. Any given proposal can be active, passed, or failed. Newly created proposals will be active.
  10. Any player may vote for or against an active proposal by posting their vote in this thread. Players are allowed to change or remove their vote on a proposal after making it, provided that the proposal is still active. Statements using terms other than 'vote' (such as 'approve' or 'agree') will also count as votes as long as the player's intent is clear.
  11. If at any point all active players are voting for a proposal then it passes, and if at any point all active players are voting against a proposal then it fails.
  12. If a proposal is active 3 turns after being created, it will pass if more players are voting for it than against it, and fails otherwise.
  13. The player making a proposal is assumed to approve it (or vote for it) by default.
  14. In the event that two rules conflict, the higher-numbered rule takes precedence.
  15. In order to be valid, proposals and votes must be posted in bold.
  16. When a proposal is made, it may be declared as a counter-proposal to an existing active proposal. It will also become a counter-proposal to any other counter-proposals of that proposal. If a proposal passes, then all counter-proposals to it will automatically fail.
  17. Let there be defined a class of fictitious object known as a tag.
  18. Every tag has an associated "parent" which is either a player or another tag.
  19. A tag is said to "belong" to its parent, which in turn "has" the tag.
  20. Let there be a class of tag known as an attribute.
  21. An attribute consists of a name and an integer numeric value.
  22. In the event that an attribute's value would become non-integer, it shall be rounded towards negative infinity.
  23. No two attributes of the same name shall belong to the same parent.
  24. Let all players have an attribute with the name "Health", which shall start at a default value of 10.
  25. If a player's health becomes less than 0, that player becomes "dead".
  26. There exists, independent of any given player, a directed graph consisting of nodes and edges, which is known as the world. Each node of the world may be called a location, and each edge a route.
  27. There is one location in the world, known as the origin, which will always exist.
  28. Each player is associated with exactly one location. This is the origin by default, and will also be set to the origin if their current location is undefined or does not exist.
  29. Each route may be associated with a set of requirements, which determine whether a player can use that route
  30. If there exists a route from a player's current location to another location, and they satisfy all requirements for this route, then the player may change their location to the other location by stating so in this thread. This is known as moving or traveling.
  31. There is the notion of the current Turn (numbered from 1), and the first Turn starts at 00:00 UTC on the day immediately after this rule is passed.
  32. Each Turn is either a Day or Night (also both numbered from 1); the first Turn is Day 1, (then Night 1, etc.) and thereafter Turns alternate from being Day and Night.
  33. No changes to when Turns start shall apply retroactively.
  34. If any dead player creates a proposal that is rejected, that player becomes a "zombie".
  35. A proposal may have conditions added to it before it can be passed; in this case, if the proposal would otherwise pass, the proposal passes when the conditions are validated. If a proposal may only pass when another proposal passes, and that proposal fails, then it also fails.
  36. It is possible to abstain from a proposal; while a player abstains from a proposal they are not considered active in respect to that proposal.
  37. Every 24 hours at 00:00 UTC, the current turn number advances by 1, unless prevented by another rule.
  38. Let there be four new locations in the world known as the "North Forest", the "East Forest", the "South Forest", and the "West Forest".
  39. Let a route exist from the West Forest to the origin and vice versa.
  40. A player in any of the locations created by rule 1 of this proposal [to be replaced by the appropriate rule number] may attempt to navigate the forest. They must generate a random number from 1-4 in a verifiable manner. A temporary route is then created from their current location to the nth location created by rule 1 of this proposal [likewise substituted]. They must immediately travel this route, and it ceases to exist immediately after. A player cannot attempt to navigate the forest if it would be impossible for them to travel the route thusly generated.
  41. Let all players have an attribute with the name "Refresh", which shall start at a default value of 3.
  42. Let all players have an attribute with the name "Tempo", which shall start at a default value equal to the player's Refresh.
  43. Let no player voluntarily take actions which would directly make their Tempo less than zero.
  44. At the beginning of every turn, let each player's Tempo become equal to their Refresh.
  45. All routes shall have an attribute known as "Length", with a default value of 2.
  46. Traveling a route shall cost a player tempo equal to the route's length.
  47. A tick is a unit of distance. The distance from one node to another in ticks is the amount of tempo that would be necessary to travel the shortest route from that node to the other.
Last edited by dimitriye98 on Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:58 am UTC, edited 7 times in total.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
emlightened
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere cosy.

Re: Nomic

Postby emlightened » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:21 pm UTC

I propose and approve that Modification and deletion of any rule is allowed, and has the same restrictions as the introduction of a new rule.
The Seven Wonders of the World:
To see
To hear
To touch
To taste
To feel
To laugh
And to love

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic

Postby dimitriye98 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:41 am UTC

Agreed. That rule is adopted.

I propose the addition of a new rule: An active player is one who has posted in the preceding three days.

I propose that rule 1 be modified by replacing the word "players" with "active players".
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic

Postby faubiguy » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:10 am UTC

I deny dimitriye98's proposal.

I propose to establish the following rules:
  • The term 'player' refers to any xkcd fora user who has posted in this thread.
  • The term 'active player' refers to a player who has posted in this thread the last 3 days.
Additionally, the term 'player' in rule 1 is changed to 'active player'.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's player definition proposal.

(This is basically dimitriye's proposal with the base-term player defined as well. It might require the multiple rule proposal or proposal proposal below to be valid)

I propose to establish the following rule:
  • Unless otherwise specified, new rules are added to the end of the rules list when they accepted, even if there are gaps in the numbering.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's rule-numbering proposal.

(This prevents confusion between new rules and deleted rules sharing the same number, and avoids conflict between proposals which are compatible except for adding a rule at the same number)

I propose to establish the following rule:
  • Multiple rules may be created in a single proposal
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's multiple rule proposal

(This is possibly needed to bootstrap the next proposal, which completely subsumes it)

I propose to establish the following rules:
  • The term 'proposal' refers to a list of changes to the game state which will take effect if it passes. This includes (but is not limited to) adding, deleting, and modifying rules.
  • Any player may make a proposal by posting it in this thread and giving it a unique name.
  • Any given proposal can be active, passed, or failed. Newly created proposals will be active.
  • Any player may vote for or against an active proposal by posting their vote in this thread. Players are allowed to change or remove their vote on a proposal after making it, provided that the proposal is still active. Statements using terms other than 'vote' (such as 'approve' or 'agree') will also count as votes as long as the player's intent is clear.
  • If at any point all active players are voting for a proposal then it passes, and if at any point all active players are voting against a proposal then it fails.
  • If a proposal is active 3 days after being created, it will pass if more players are voting for it than against it, and fail otherwise.
Additionally, if faubiguy's multiple rule proposal has passed then the rule created by it is removed.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's proposal proposal.

(More flexible than just adding rules on at a time, and specifies exactly how proposals work. The voting mechanism isn't meant to be final, just to allow proposals to pass without unanimous approval)

I propose to establish the following rule:
  • The player making a proposal is assumed to approve it (or vote for it) by default.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's default-approval proposal.

(So you don't have to specifically approve your own proposals, or)

I propose to establish the following rule:
  • In the event that two rules conflict, the higher-numbered rule takes precedence.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's conflict-resolution proposal

(This way if a contradiction arises it can be fixed by passing a new rule, as long as that's still possible)

I propose to establish the following rule:
  • In order to be valid, proposals and votes must be posted in bold.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's proposal visibility proposal

(Fairly standard rule in past Nomics that I agree is useful)

I approve faubiguy's player definition proposal, faubiguy's rule-numbering proposal, faubiguy's multiple rule proposal, faubiguy's proposal proposal, faubiguy's default-approval proposal, faubiguy's conflict-resolution proposal, and faubiguy's proposal visibility proposal.

I recommend that we not add a rule limiting the number of proposals per post. They often seem like a good idea at the time, but in my experience they almost always just end up slowing the game down too much.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic

Postby faubiguy » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:30 am UTC

I propose to establish the following rule:
  • When a proposal is made, it may be declared as a counter-proposal to an existing active proposal. It will also become a counter-proposal to any other counter-proposals of that proposal. If a proposal passes, then all counter-proposals to it will automatically fail.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's counter-proposal proposal

(This should perhaps make it a bit easier to propose modified versions of or alternatives to existing proposals, as a more general alternative to previous games where this was done by giving them the same rule number.)

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic

Postby dimitriye98 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:00 am UTC

I approve faubiguy's player definition proposal, faubiguy's rule-numbering proposal, faubiguy's multiple rule proposal, faubiguy's proposal proposal, faubiguy's default-approval proposal, faubiguy's conflict-resolution proposal, faubiguy's proposal visibility proposal.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic

Postby faubiguy » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:59 am UTC

I propose that this game of Nomic be officially titled "Nomic 29.0", and the thread title be edited to match.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's Nomic-number proposal

There have been quite a few un-numbered Nomics here, but I like the numbers, and 29(.0) is the next one that hasn't yet been used. While they don't affect gameplay, it could be argued that the numbers make the game stand out more and thus attract activity. And even that's not the case, I still like how they look :P

I propose that the following rule be established:
  • There exists a notion of the current Day (note the capitalization), which is similar to a round number. Each post has a specific Day on which is is considered to take place. Regardless of what method is used to determine the Day of a post, it will always be the greater than or equal to the Day of the preceding post.
  • By default, the Day of post is equal to the number of real days from the first post in this thread until that post, rounded down. This may be redefined by a later rule, in which case the redefinition will apply to future posts, but not those already made.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's time-keeping proposal


The intent here is to create a generic system for keeping track of in-game time so that events in-game can depend on time without that necessarily being the same as real time, and also to make it easier for different time-based rules to be synchronized. This is inspired by mafia, but is potentially broader in scope. For example, the Day of a post could be redefined to be based on some turn-taking mechanism, or post-count, or be able to be fast-forwarded or slowed-down using items or actions, etc, depending on how the game develops later on. The downside to this approach is the potential complexity involved in keeping track of Days, which might outweigh the benefits. Therefore I'm not myself voting for or against it right now, but simply proposing it for discussion.

I approve of faubiguy's counter-proposal proposal and faubiguy's Nomic-number proposal

I remove my vote from faubiguy's time-keeping proposal, if I'm voting for it

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic

Postby dimitriye98 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:06 pm UTC

I like the notion of timekeeping, but "real days" is ambiguous, as we're not all in the same time zone. One could interpret the midnight epoch as being defined at the initial post of the game, but I'd prefer to make it midnight UTC. Thus:

I propose that the following rules be established:
  • There exists a notion of the current Day (note the capitalization), which is similar to a round number. Each post has a specific Day on which is is considered to take place. Regardless of what method is used to determine the Day of a post, it will always be the greater than or equal to the Day of the preceding post.
  • The initial post in this thread is to have occurred on Day 1, with a new Day beginning every midnight UTC.
  • Any changes to the method of numbering days shall not affect posts already made.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as dimitriye98's time-keeping proposal.


I approve dimitriye98's time-keeping proposal.

Counter-proposals are unfortunately not yet a thing.

BTW, faubiguy, you don't technically have to use the proposal format from the last game. There're no rules specifying it. I mean, I like it myself, so I'll continue to use it, but (as of yet) there's no mandate to do so.

I approve of faubiguy's Nomic-number proposal.

While I'd prefer that the Nomic numbers be in Roman numerals or at least not have the decimal, consistency is more important than æsthetics.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic

Postby faubiguy » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:18 pm UTC

Yes, the intent was to measure time relative to the initial post. I can see how UTC might be easier to work with though, so I approve of dimitriye98's time-keeping proposal.

I know that proposal format isn't required; I just prefer it myself.

User avatar
emlightened
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere cosy.

Re: Nomic

Postby emlightened » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:43 pm UTC

As I don't really want to bother listing them all, I vote for all proposals currently open except faubiguy's time-keeping proposal, dimitriye98's time-keeping proposal and faubiguy's Nomic-number proposal.

I want to include a mechanic for Nights to exist, which instantly becomes harder once either of the current time keeping proposals pass. I also want to abstain from the last one, but that's not an option yet.

I'll likely make proposals for both later tonight.
The Seven Wonders of the World:
To see
To hear
To touch
To taste
To feel
To laugh
And to love

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic

Postby dimitriye98 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:46 pm UTC

Alright, time to collate all those and add them to the rules list.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic

Postby dimitriye98 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:13 pm UTC

Alright, added all that.

I propose the following rule:
  • Upon being entered into the rules list, rules may not be modified.
  • No rule number shall be used twice.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as dimitriye98's proposal for a consistent rule chronology.


Since we've already passed formal machinery making later rules have precedence over earlier ones, I'd prefer if changes to rules be made by simply making new rules which supersede the old rule. The advantage is that the rules list gives a complete timeline of the evolution of the rules if that's done. Early rules never get modified, they simply get superseded, and they remain on the record in their original form if we ever want to go back and see what the rules used to be.

That being said, I think we're at the point we can actually start to make game mechanics, thus:

I propose the following rules:
  • Let there be defined a class of fictitious object known as a tag.
  • Every tag has an associated "parent" which is either a player or another tag.
  • A tag is said to "belong" to its parent, which in turn "has" the tag.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as dimitriye98's tag proposal.


I propose the following rules:
  • Let there be a class of tag known as an attribute.
  • An attribute consists of a name and an integer numeric value.
  • In the event that an attribute's value would become non-integer, it shall be rounded towards negative infinity.
  • No two attributes of the same name shall belong to the same parent.
  • Let all players have an attribute with the name "Health", which shall start at a default value of 10.
  • If a player's health becomes less than 0, that player becomes "dead".
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as dimitriye98's health proposal.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic

Postby faubiguy » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:38 pm UTC

Vote for dimitriye98's tag proposal, and dimitriye98's health proposal

Vote against dimitriye98's proposal for a consistent rule chronology.
The idea seems useful, but I think this could lead to problems where a rule's relation to another rule changes due to being re-numbered when modified, and cause confusion by separating related rules when one is modified. An alternative might be to give each rule a version number in addition to the rule number, and require that the version be incremented each time the rule is modified. Then a record of past rule versions can be kept without needing to change the numbers.


I propose to establish the following rules:
  • There exists, independent of any given player, a directed graph consisting of nodes and edges, which is known as the world. Each node of the world may be called a location, and each edge a route.
  • There is one location in the world, known as the origin, which will always exist.
  • Each player is associated with exactly one location. This is the origin by default, and will also be set to the origin if their current location is undefined or does not exist.
  • Each route may be associated with a set of requirements, which determine whether a player can use that route
  • If there exists a route from a player's current location to another location, and they satisfy all requirements for this route, then the player may change their location to the other location by stating so in this thread. This is known as moving or traveling.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's location proposal

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic

Postby dimitriye98 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:59 am UTC

The rule wouldn't be renumbered when modified per say, you wouldn't modify the rule. Instead, you'd make a new rule declaring the desired change. E.g. the active players change probably would've been written: "New rules shall only require the approval of active players to be adopted."

Anyway, I vote in favor of faubiguy's location proposal.

I propose to establish the following rules:
  • Let there be a concept of a "turn".
  • Let each turn start at 00:00 UTC, and last 24 hours.
  • Let all players have an attribute with the name "Refresh", which shall start at a default value of 3.
  • Let all players have an attribute with the name "Tempo", which shall start at a default value equal to the player's Refresh.
  • Let no player voluntarily take actions which would directly make their Tempo less than zero.
  • At the beginning of every turn, let each player's Tempo become equal to their Refresh.
  • All routes shall have an attribute known as "Length", with a default value of 2.
  • Traveling a route shall cost a player tempo equal to the route's length.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as dimitriye98's turn structure proposal.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic

Postby faubiguy » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:40 pm UTC

"renumbering" was probably the wrong word to use. I mean more that the number referring to some specific rule content would change when that rule is pseudo-amended. For example if rules 25-28 work together, and we want to change part of rule 25, then the new rule replacing it might be rule 44, which would separate it from from rules 26-28 and change it's precedence relation to other rules. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what you mean, of course.

No vote on the turn structure proposal yet. If emlightened posts a time-keeping proposal soon, then I'd like to see if the turns can use that rather than being fixed to using Earth days.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic

Postby faubiguy » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:41 pm UTC

Also, what happens if a proposal passes that refers to some concept defined in another proposal, but the other proposal hasn't passed?

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic

Postby dimitriye98 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:51 pm UTC

Right now? Ambiguity happens. We should probably allow proposals to restrict the conditions under which they can be adopted.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
emlightened
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere cosy.

Re: Nomic

Postby emlightened » Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:32 pm UTC

Right. Bleh. Sorry for being late. Mind if I include the concept of turn in it?

I propose that the following rules be established:
  • There is the notion of the current Turn (numbered from 1), and the first Turn starts at 00:00 UTC on the day immediately after this rule is passed.
  • Each Turn is either a Day or Night (also both numbered from 1); the first Turn is Day 1, (then Night 1, etc.) and thereafter Turns alternate from being Day and Night.
  • No changes to when Turns start shall apply retroactively.
  • Rules 4 and 12 are modified such that "thread the last 3 days" is replaced with "thread in the last 3 Turns" and "active 3 days after" is replaced with "active 3 Turns after", respectively.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as emlightened's time-and-turn-keeping proposal, and this is a counter-proposal to faubiguy's time-keeping proposal, dimitriye98's time-keeping proposal,
and unfortunately I can't have it counter just the first two rules of dimitriye98's turn structure proposal, even though I can vote for only part of a proposal (right?)

So, there's that. I'm pretty sure that I vote on a per-rule basis, though, so I vote for dimitriye98's tag proposal, dimitriye98's health proposal, and rules 3-8 of dimitriye98's turn structure proposal.

I also vote for faubiguy's location proposal, so that the turn structure proposal makes sense. :D


Anyway, yeah, it may be convenient to add some rules which allow and prevent people to manage rule creation and approval better.

I propose that the following rules be established:
  • A proposal may have conditions added to it before it can be passed; in this case, if the proposal would otherwise pass, the proposal passes when the conditions are validated. If a proposal may only pass when another proposal passes, and that proposal fails, then it also fails.
  • It is possible to abstain from a proposal; while a player abstains from a proposal they are not considered active in respect to that proposal.
  • A proposal may split a proposal into a number of subproposals which are named by the proposal name, followed by a numbered sublist of the rules listed in the new subproposal.
This proposal is to be known as emlightened's proposal proposal.



Oh, and I don't know if anyone else would like this idea, but here goes:

I propose that the following rules get established:
  • There are a collection of Rule Categories which include "Rule Rules", "Misc Rules", and "Turn Rules". Any player may propose for there to be more turn rules added at any time.
  • Below the main rules list, there is a spoilered list titled by each Rule Category. All rules are listed in at least one Rule Category. This is done by the discretion of whoever currently maintains the rules list.
  • If more than one player requests that a rule is added to a Rule Category (or removed from Misc), than that is done.
This is known as emlightened's rule categorisation proposal.
The Seven Wonders of the World:
To see
To hear
To touch
To taste
To feel
To laugh
And to love

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic

Postby faubiguy » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:57 pm UTC

I had intended proposals to be atomic, so that either it passes and everything inside happens, or it fails and nothing does. In that case voting for part of a proposal doesn't make much sense. If you allow parts of proposals to be voted on, then it gets a lot more complicated with respect to a proposal's status (i.e. open, passed, failed), and perhaps more importantly there's the issue of how part of a proposal can pass if it depends on other parts. In this case, the word "turn" used by rules 3-8 of dimitriye98's turn structure proposal is not the same as in emlightened's time-keeping proposal. More generally, if a proposal changes the game state in some way (e.g. creating a new location) and then changes it further in a way that depends on that first change (e.g. creating routes to that location), there's no good way to apply only the second part (e.g. creating routes to a location that doesn't exist).

Unless someone has a solution to both of those issues, I think the best way to vote for only part of a proposal is to create a new proposal containing only those parts you agree with as a counter-proposal to the original (this isn't perfect, as it changes proposal creation time but IMO that's not as big a problem as the above).

Since the current rules on proposals seem to be ambiguous regarding this:
I propose to establish the following rule:
  • Each proposal is a single indivisible unit; votes may only be cast for or against full proposals, and proposals will only pass or fail in their entirety
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's proposal indivisibility proposal


I like rules 1 and 2 of emlightened's proposal proposal, but I don't think I understand the purpose of subproposals. As a solution to the problems with voting for part of a proposal they might be a good idea, but I'm not sure what emlightened's intent is.

As solution to dividing proposals without allowing arbitrary divisions, this might be extended with the more general notion of a group of proposals, where if a group passes or fails, then all contained proposals do as well, and if a proposal in a group passes or fails without the group, then it's just removed from it. A proposal with subproposals would just be a group that's created by default, and other player's could create groups that might, for instance, contain all but one of the sub-proposals of a given proposal, or combine multiple proposals. The problem with arbitrary division could be mitigated with the constraint that subproposals that depend on other subproposals are conditional on them.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic

Postby faubiguy » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:00 pm UTC

Remove vote from faubiguy's proposal indivisibility proposal
since I'm not sure to what extent it conflicts with subproposals, if they're adopted.

User avatar
emlightened
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere cosy.

Re: Nomic

Postby emlightened » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:18 pm UTC

The reason I wanted to add subpropoals was so that a proposal could be made that is a counterproposal to some part of another proposal, but not the entire other proposal. This could be added more directly, and doing that would probably leave less room for exploitation and be clearer. Does that sound more sensible/useful?
The Seven Wonders of the World:
To see
To hear
To touch
To taste
To feel
To laugh
And to love

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic

Postby dimitriye98 » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:19 pm UTC

Yeah, following the rules as they are, rather explicitly, you vote for proposals, not rules.

I vote against faubiguy's proposal indivisibility proposal.

There's no need, given the above.

I vote against emlightened's rule categorisation [sic] proposal.

There's no need for official categories, if the rules list grows large enough to require categorization, that can be done, no rule specifies the order the rules are to be listed in.

I vote against emlightened's proposal proposal.

I think breaking proposal atomicity is a bad idea.

I vote in favor of emlightened's time-and-turn-keeping proposal.

I'll update the rules list in a bit.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby faubiguy » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:34 am UTC

I hadn't actually done so yet, so let me now vote for of emlightened's time-and-turn-keeping proposal.

I propose to remove rule 34 from the rules list and apply the modifications within directly to the mentioned rules.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's rule 34 proposal

While it's valid as is due to rule precedence, it will be less confusing if information needed to know the real content of rules 4 and 12 is in one place in rather than two. If we want to keep a chronology of changes, I think it should be kept separate from the main rules list for that reason.

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby dimitriye98 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:14 pm UTC

I'm actually reasonably certain that's what emlightened intended and that I made a copying error, so I'm just gonna make that change. Em can correct me if my assumption is wrong.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby heuristically_alone » Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:10 am UTC

New Proposal:
If any dead player creates a proposal that is rejected, that player becomes a "zombie".

This proposal is hereto known as "The Apocalypse is Coming"
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

Beatrice wrote:The world is quiet here.

Tillian wrote:sig'd

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby faubiguy » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:20 pm UTC

Vote for "The Apocalypse is Coming"

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby faubiguy » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:32 pm UTC

Since I like these two rules in emlightened's proposal proposal but there seems to be some disagreement on the subproposals rule:

I propose to establish the following rule:
  • A proposal may have conditions added to it before it can be passed; in this case, if the proposal would otherwise pass, the proposal passes when the conditions are validated. If a proposal may only pass when another proposal passes, and that proposal fails, then it also fails.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's condition proposal.


I propose to establish the following rule:
  • It is possible to abstain from a proposal; while a player abstains from a proposal they are not considered active in respect to that proposal.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's abstention proposal.


(These are both taken directly from emlightened's proposal proposal, so they aren't really mine as the names indicate — I'm just following the convention of prepending the possessive form of one's username to proposals one makes).

Vote against emlightened's proposal proposal

User avatar
emlightened
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere cosy.

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby emlightened » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:09 pm UTC

I propose that this game of Nomic be officially titled "Nomic 29.0", and the thread title be edited to match.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as emlightened's Nomic-number proposal.


:D

Vote for faubiguy's abstention proposal, faubiguy's condition proposal and "The Apocalypse is Coming".

It is currently Night 1.
The Seven Wonders of the World:
To see
To hear
To touch
To taste
To feel
To laugh
And to love

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby heuristically_alone » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:19 pm UTC

Vote against emlightened's proposal proposal
Vote for faubiguy's abstention proposal, faubiguy's condition proposal, and emlightened's Nomic-number proposal


I propose that once every night, any player may deal one damage to any one player within one node of their location, thus decreasing the value of their health by one. If they do so, the attacking player must roll d6. If an even number is rolled, the value of the attacking player's health is decreased by 2.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as Sniper's Law.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

Beatrice wrote:The world is quiet here.

Tillian wrote:sig'd

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby faubiguy » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:37 pm UTC

emlightened wrote:It is currently Night 1.


As far as I can tell, the rules don't say anything about when turns other than Day 1 start, so it should still be Day 1.

I propose to establish the following rule:
  • Every 24 hours at 00:00 UTC, the current turn number advances by 1, unless prevented by another rule.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as faubiguy's turn-advancement proposal.


Vote for emlightened's Nomic-number proposal and Sniper's Law

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby heuristically_alone » Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:01 am UTC

So to clarify faubiguy's turn-advancement proposal, If we were in Day 1, then 24 hours night 1 would start then 24 hours later Day 2 would start?
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

Beatrice wrote:The world is quiet here.

Tillian wrote:sig'd

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic 29.0

Postby dimitriye98 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:54 am UTC

I vote in favor of "The Apocalypse is Coming", faubiguy's condition proposal, faubiguy's abstention proposal, and faubiguy's turn-advancement proposal.

I vote against Sniper's Law.
"Within one node of their location" is ill-defined.

I propose the following amendment:
Rule 11 is amended to only require a majority of active players.

For the purposes of voting and record, this shall be known as dimitriye98's short-circuiting proposal.


I propose the following rules:
  • Let there be four new locations in the world known as the "North Forest", the "East Forest", the "South Forest", and the "West Forest".
  • Let a route exist from the West Forest to the origin and vice versa.
  • A player in any of the locations created by rule 1 of this proposal [to be replaced by the appropriate rule number] may attempt to navigate the forest. They must generate a random number from 1-4 in a verifiable manner and travel to the nth location created in rule 1 of this proposal [likewise substituted] where n is the number generated.
For the purpose of voting and record let this be known as Dimitriye98's magical forest proposal.


I propose the following rules:
  • Let there be a location in the world known as the "Castle in the Sky".
  • Let there be a route from the Castle in the Sky to the Origin.
  • Let any player who travels the route created by rule 2 of this proposal [to be replaced by the appropriate rule number] take 4 damage.
For the purpose of voting and record let this be known as Dimitriye98's floating castle proposal.


Some fun locations. Don't do anything for now, and one is entirely inaccessible, but we can do something with them in the future.

I'll add the new rules tomorrow, and perhaps get around to creating a wiki page to let the rest of you take on some of that burden. :P
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: Nomic 29.0

Postby heuristically_alone » Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:07 am UTC

I propose the following rule:
A node is a unit of measurement used to define distance. One node unit is the shortest distance any player may travel in the direction of north, west, east, or south of their current location. When a player is considered to be moving a distance of n, it is defined as moving n nodes, where n is a number defining the distance. The words nodes and distance can be used interchangeably.
For the purposes of voting and record, this proposal will forever be known as Heury's Node Theorem.

I vote in favor of dimitriye98's short-circuiting proposal.

I vote in favor of Dimitriye98's magical forest proposal
on condition that the following proposal is passed, or any other proposal defining how often we can move.

I propose the following rule:
Once during each day turn, each player may invoke an action to change their location as defined by any other rule containing a method of movement.
For the purposes of voting and record, this proposal is known as Heury's Movement Method.


I'm not 100% satisfied with my wording on this last proposal.....

Also, in Dimitriye98's magical forest proposal there is only a route to the West Forest. Did you mean for their not to be a route yet to the north, east and, and south forests?
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

Beatrice wrote:The world is quiet here.

Tillian wrote:sig'd

User avatar
dimitriye98
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:04 pm UTC
Location: nullptr

Re: Nomic 29.0

Postby dimitriye98 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:31 pm UTC

Yeah, the only explicit route is supposed to be to the West forest. Getting to the others requires navigating the forest and is random. Hopefully we'll build new locations off the sides of the forest.

I propose the following rules as a counterproposal to dimitriye98's magical forest proposal:
  • Let there be four new locations in the world known as the "North Forest", the "East Forest", the "South Forest", and the "West Forest".
  • Let a route exist from the West Forest to the origin and vice versa.
  • A player in any of the locations created by rule 1 of this proposal [to be replaced by the appropriate rule number] may attempt to navigate the forest. They must generate a random number from 1-4 in a verifiable manner. A temporary route is then created from their current location to the nth location created by rule 1 of this proposal [likewise substituted]. They must immediately travel this route, and it ceases to exist immediately after. A player cannot attempt to navigate the forest if it would be impossible for them to travel the route thusly generated.
For the purpose of voting and record let this be known as dimitriye98's second magical forest proposal.


I vote against dimitriye98's magical forest proposal.

The new wording is much more awkward, but makes it compatible with any other rules regarding routes, setting up for my next proposal:

I propose to establish the following rules:
  • Let all players have an attribute with the name "Refresh", which shall start at a default value of 3.
  • Let all players have an attribute with the name "Tempo", which shall start at a default value equal to the player's Refresh.
  • Let no player voluntarily take actions which would directly make their Tempo less than zero.
  • At the beginning of every turn, let each player's Tempo become equal to their Refresh.
  • All routes shall have an attribute known as "Length", with a default value of 2.
  • Traveling a route shall cost a player tempo equal to the route's length.
For the purposes of record and voting, this shall be known as dimitriye98's new turn structure proposal.




I propose to establish the following rule:
  • A tick is a unit of distance. The distance from one node to another in ticks is the amount of tempo that would be necessary to travel the shortest route from that node to the other.
Let this proposal be a counterproposal to Heury's Node Theorem.
Let this proposal depend upon dimitriye98's new turn structure proposal.
For the purposes of voting and record, this shall be known as dimitriye98's distance proposal.
Join nomic. It's awesome and fun.

User avatar
faubiguy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Re: Nomic 29.0

Postby faubiguy » Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:37 am UTC

Vote for dimitriye98's floating castle proposal, dimitriye98's second magical forest proposal, dimitriye98's new turn structure proposal, and dimitriye98's distance proposal.

User avatar
emlightened
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere cosy.

Re: Nomic 19.0

Postby emlightened » Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:58 pm UTC

faubiguy wrote:
emlightened wrote:It is currently Night 1.


As far as I can tell, the rules don't say anything about when turns other than Day 1 start, so it should still be Day 1.

:oops:

Well, at least that doesn't make it feel like I'm wasting gametime yet. Votes for faubiguy's turn-advancement proposal.

Votes against Sniper's Law. This is mainly down to personal preference than any flaw in the rule. Sorry.

Votes for dimitriye98's floating castle proposal, dimitriye98's second magical forest proposal, and dimitriye98's new turn structure proposal.


I vote against dimitriye98's short-circuiting proposal, and raise the following counterproposal (to be referred to as emli's short-circuiting proposal):

Rule 11 is amended to only require over two thirds of active players.


Sorry, but if most people are voting for/against, then this is too marginal for my tastes.
The Seven Wonders of the World:
To see
To hear
To touch
To taste
To feel
To laugh
And to love

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: Nomic 29.0

Postby heuristically_alone » Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:59 am UTC

Vote for dimitriye98's second magical forest proposal, dimitriye98's new turn structure proposal, and dimitriye98's distance proposal.

Vote against dimitriye98's magical forest proposal and emli's short-circuiting proposal.

At least at this point, majority vote is still more than 2/3rds anyways.

I propose the following rule:
If a zombie is at the same location as another player at the end of a Night Turn, that player's health value becomes less than zero and becomes a zombie.

This proposal is to be known as Henry's Fear the Night.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

Beatrice wrote:The world is quiet here.

Tillian wrote:sig'd

User avatar
emlightened
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere cosy.

Re: Nomic 29.0

Postby emlightened » Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:06 am UTC

heuristically_alone wrote:At least at this point, majority vote is still more than 2/3rds anyways.
But it won't be if we get another player. Suppose two people vote for, two people vote against, and halfway through all of that a counterproposal is proposed. The proposal could easily be "unfairly" passed.
The Seven Wonders of the World:
To see
To hear
To touch
To taste
To feel
To laugh
And to love

username5243
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:43 am UTC
Location: None of your business

Re: Nomic 29.0

Postby username5243 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:47 am UTC

I vote for all proposals except dimitriye's second magical forest proposal, emli's short-circuiting proposal, and Sniper's Law.

[b]I propose the following rules, to be known as username's wiki proposal:
1) There exists a wiki page that is used for keeping track of the game state.
2) The wiki page must include a list of all proposals currently active and how many for and against it has.
3) The wiki should also store all the attributes and locatons of all players.
This is a signature, in case you didn't notice.

Current tokens: 66.562

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: Nomic 29.0

Postby heuristically_alone » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:13 am UTC

I propose the following rule that would be put into effect if and only if username's wiki proposal is passed:

Each player is responsible for updating their own proposals in Nomic 29.0's exisiting wiki page that are proposed in this thread and how many for and against it has. Furthermore, each player is also responsible for updating their attributes and locations within this same wiki page. Any player may update another player's proposals, attributes, and locations. If a player fails to update such information within 24 hours that the information exists in Nomic 29.0 (or without another player updating it for them), that player is penalized by having the value of their health attribute decreased by 1.

This proposal shall be known as Heury's Do Your Own Work Proposal.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

Beatrice wrote:The world is quiet here.

Tillian wrote:sig'd


Return to “Forum Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 34 guests