IMHO by explicitly defining what a rule change is (one of 3 things) 103 implicitly says what it is not: everything that is not one of those 3 things. Otherwise a rule change can be ANYTHING and it’s meaningless to list the 3 things.
Hey everybody!
Wow, sorry I missed all of the initial debate, then took me a good deal of time to wade through the posts. But causality issues aside, it seems we have moved beyond some of the initial problems.
I vote Yes to Prop 302 despite its defeated status, because of the aforementiond “Machiavellian” tactics and general common sense.
OK, Soup’s been added as a new player (since he [he?] now meets the eligibility requirements). I’ll add Spurious George and his vote as soon as I update the site again.
Zev
Implicitly stating doesn’t mean it’s not still an assumption:)
Good thing it doesn’t matter, because it’d be easy as heck to fix:D
Argh! Just found out from the family that I have to take a two day trip to the beach.
This will obviously conflict with this fast-moving thread, and according to Rule 105, cause a major hang-up. I’m guessing that I have either two options - either somehow a vacationing/abandoned player system be set up ASAP, or since the term “player” is never defined, I can cede my “player” descriptor temporarily.
From what I read of the Soup_du_jour issue, a player is defined (although never in the rules) as having emailed zev and/or posting to this thread expressing a wish. I therefore express my wish to withdraw as a player (and since I have no points anyway) I’ll restart when I get back.
Enjoy!
I think given what we’ve experienced so far today with tracking down players, that we should A) respect PoignantSod’s wishes and/or B) put him in some sort of “frozen player” position.
That might be an idea for Prop 307 or something like that (as I believe we have a few more issues at stake as well).
Fair enough PoignantSod. I suppose you could also leave a standing order to vote YES or NO regardless as well. However, we’d then be stuck by the time we got up to your turn if we haven’t ammended things by then. But OTOH, I doubt we’re going to get up to your turn in two days…
Zev Steinhardt
I hereby INVOKE JUDGMENT on the scoring of Proposal 301, per Rule 202, which states:
Now, based on the mathematics above, it is my opinion that Achernar’s score should stand at -1, not the current -10 as reflected on the website. Now, I can’t figure who will Judge this issue. I leave that for y’all… :smack:
BraheSilver’s score will also need to be modified at the close of voting for Prop 302.
If zev doesn’t wan’t to deal with scoring (in addition to updating the website), I volunteer.
Yeah, given the past few pages of Nomic soap opera, I doubt we’ll get to the end of the list in two days. Hell, we haven’t gone two complete turns yet.
DON’T DO THAT! We’ll never finish!
I’ll admit that I took that rule to mean that he gets points only if it passes, but it clearly does not say that. I’ll amend the scores the next time I update the site.
Zev Steinhardt
Yeah, there’s nothing stating he can’t pre-vote, right? Just say “I vote YES on 303 and 304” and you’re good for a few days.
Or, he could quit the game and re-join after returning. This would alter his order in the player list, though.
iampunha, while I agree that something like that would solve problems, I think that’s exactly what Nomic is **not **supposed to do - make up new rules outside the proper frame of the game. Creating a new “frozen” status for a player should require several proposal attempts, and possibly multiple rules, to implement.
It seems to me, though my turn is a long ways away, that the urgently needed rules are rules that should handle:
- establishing a time frame for voting (24 hrs, 48 hours after proposal?)
- automatic vote casting if votes are not received from a player (or automatic ABSTAIN votes) [Or, define “participate in” as voting or failing to vote within the established time frame.]
- a rule codifying ABSTAIN votes, if they exist, and their impact, or lack thereof, on scoring and passing of proposals.
- a rule for kicking inactive or unreachable players from the game, or freezing their participation.
Assuming my Proposed Proposal is accepted, Rule 105 can be amended until it is impossible to see how its mutated state was arrived at from its present state. So all those things could, in theory, be addressed. I think. Or something.
I am so glad I don’t have to worry about this:D
NOW EVERYONE VOTE ON PROP 302 IF YOU HAVEN’T DONE SO YET!
OK, the scoring has been updated. We’re still waiting on three votes on 302 to proceed.
If I hear back from PoignantSod before tomorrow and he wants to pre-vote, then we’ll leave him on the active players list; otherwise he will be removed as per his request (and his right under Rule 113).
Zev Steinhardt
Sorry, make that two votes. We still need to hear from Little Nemo and TJDude825.
Zev Steinhardt
Hi. I’m back. Thanks, Mikie, for fixing my score. However, now that I see that I am negatively contributing to BraheSilver’s score, I feel bad.
Incidentally, I think the best solution would be to change 105 to the following, whoever finally does it:
I think this is sufficiently simple, yet will do everything we want it to do.
I agree with this, but I also think that somebody should make a proposition that makes it explicit. Something like, "If, at the time of voting, a player’s vote may be unambigously determined from previous statements, the unambiguous vote shall be accepted as a regular vote.
Sweet baby Baal on a bed of lettuce! I step out for 18 hours and the thread gains 150 posts.
So… Achernar’s turn is officially over? My proposal is being voted on, even if it was posted before Judgement on the previous turn was finished? I sit here and don’t have to do anything?
While I sat here earlier and posted roughly 80 times and my turn STILL isn’t here.
We’re still waiting on Little Nemo…
Zev Steinhardt
I feel like Godot.
Just so everyone knows I work evenings and just got home from work. The last thing I did before going to work and the first thing upon my return was checking this thread.
So on the assumption that all of the following is legal: I hereby withdraw my no vote to any and all versions of rule 301. I hereby vote in favor of Achernar’s rule 301 which would turn rule 105 from a immutabel rule into a mutable one. And I hereby vote in favor of BraheSilver’s rule 302 that people cannot vote against their own rule change proposals.
Does this help get us back on track?
Now here are my three suggested rules for addressing some of the problems that have occurred. I am hoping whomever has a turn may choose to propose them.
303 (mutable) - Procedure for becoming a player
This procedures of this rule will be retroactively applicable to all players when it is passed.
- Any person may join this game as a voting player by posting a message stating their intent to do so in this thread.
- All persons keep their status as players until one of the following situations occur:
2a. They state in this thread that they are resigning as a player;
2b. They do not participate in the game by voting or posting a message for a period of two weeks;
2c. They are evicted from the game by a majority vote of the other players. - Players who left the game under the conditions of sections 303.2a or 303.2b may re-enter it at anytime by stating their intent to do so. Players who left the game under the conditions of section 303.2c may re-enter the game by a majority vote of the players.
- Players who left the game and re-enter it will start with the score they had when they left.
304 (mutable) - Procedure for proposals
- Any player may propose a rule change at any time.
- Players may propose a new rule by posting the proposed rule in this thread and assigning it the next unused number.
- Players may propose an amendment to an existing rule by posting the number and text of the rule they propose to amend in this thread with their proposed new text in italics.
- Players may propose a repeal of a rule by stating this proposal in this thread with the number and text of the rule they propose to repeal.
- Players may propose a repeal of an amendment to a rule by stating this proposal in this thread with the number and text of the rule they propose to repeal and also with the text of the rule as it existed before the passage of the amendment.
- Players may propose a alteration of a rule change that has been proposed but not passed by stating this proposal in this thread with the text of the proposal and also with the text of their proposed alteration with their altered text in italics. The number of this alternative proposal will be the same as the original proposal followed by a letter “a”. If more than one alterative proposal is active, subsequent proposals will be distinguished by consecutive letters of the alphabet.
- Players may make minor changes, such as correcting typographical errors, to proposals if no other players dispute the change by the time the proposal is passed. Any proposal changed in this manner will be considered as being the original proposal for all purposes.
- This rule takes precedence over rules 201 and 202 where it conflicts with them.
305 (mutable) - Procedure for passing a rule change
- Any player may vote on a proposal at any time following the time it is proposed to the time it is passed. A players votes by posting a statement in this thread that they are voting for or against a proposal and giving the number of the proposal.
- Votes cannot be made conditional on any other matters.
- Players may not cast votes for other players or allow other players to cast votes for them.
- A player is assumed to have voted in favor of a proposal by proposing it.
- Any player who does not cast a vote is assumed not to have made a vote.
- A player’s vote remains unchanged unless the player posts a statement in this thread saying they are changing their vote or withdrawing their vote. The most recent posted statement of a vote is the valid one.
- Once a proposal has been passed, no further votes on it or changes of the votes on it may be made.
- Once one version of a proposal is passed, no alternative version of this same proposal may be passed. The proposal will be known by its number and all letters denoting alternative proposals will be dropped.
- A proposal is passed if:
9a. A unanimous vote in favor of it is made among the players;
9b. Two days have passed since it was proposed and a simple majority of all players have voted in favor of it;
9c. Seven days have passed since it was proposed and a simple majority of all players have voted on it and a simple majority of the voters have voted in favor of it. - This rule takes precedence over rules 105, 203, and 302 where it conflicts with them. It will only go into effect if rule 105 is changed to a mutable rule.