Page 4 of 4

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

PostPosted: 24 Feb 2014, 01:07
by Crunkus
Pagane wrote:@Crunkus- this is the fist bit of legislation in a series that I have in mind. With the party system active, we will be able to create new powers for controlling the flow of the game for parties to try to control. I hinted at this with the clause stating the conditions for a party to be considered to be the Majority. It opens the floor to future questions about what being a Majority means. I'm leaving the effects of this proposal very open-ended on purpose: I'm sure that I won't be the only person to bring ideas to the floor regarding jobs and abilities that parties can preform. I think that it will also incentivize players to recruit more people into the game as they try to boost the ranks of their own parties.


So this doesn't do anything, but the next piece of party legislation might? Not good enough, sorry.

I think the players already have plenty of incentive to organize absent this legislation and again, aside from you saying it does, I don't see how this concretely does anything that you say claim it will.

I would vote for the vague concept, but not for this particular law. This is a bad use of rulespace.

Pagane wrote:Alliances will always form, yes. But this opens endless possibilities to give newfound strengths and abilities to public alliances, and of course makes the prospect of betrayal and backstabbing that much more inviting.


Could you explain to me like I'm 5 how this does anything that someone proposing a party informally and giving it a name and a public face and setting up a pm tree among party members wouldn't do?

If we don't need it, we shouldn't be passing it into law. I don't blame you, similar issues with my own attempts to codify a party system led to me abandoning the concept for my own rule.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

PostPosted: 24 Feb 2014, 01:09
by Crunkus
May end up passing anyway though, a lot of you seem to be just rubber-stamping these things.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

PostPosted: 24 Feb 2014, 19:52
by Quantum Hovercraft
Now I've changed my mind again. Next person make sure you're legislation does something.

NAY

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

PostPosted: 24 Feb 2014, 22:40
by Pagane
The voting period has ended.

AYE: (3) Pagane, Super_Dipsy, Connect4
NAY (3) Crunkus, Quantum Hovercraft, Ugluk

Having failed to reach a 3/4ths majority, Proposal 303 fails.


Pezgod1, having not voted, is declared inactive. Quantum Hovercraft is up to bat.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

PostPosted: 24 Feb 2014, 22:51
by connect4
I believe point scoring goes as follows:

Pagane gains (3/6) * (303-291) = 6 points for votes cast on the proposal.
Pagane loses 10 points for a defeated proposal.

I don't think there are any other scoring issues thereof.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

PostPosted: 25 Feb 2014, 00:28
by Ugluk
Unless I am mistaken, it failed with a 4/6 majority, rather than 3/6.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

PostPosted: 25 Feb 2014, 00:46
by connect4
Ugluk wrote:Unless I am mistaken, it failed with a 4/6 majority, rather than 3/6.


Who was the 4gh? I haven't gone back to check time stamps.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

PostPosted: 25 Feb 2014, 01:31
by Ugluk
I was mistaken. I didn't see QH's second flop.

Re: Nomic 5 - Proposal 303: "Party Time"

PostPosted: 26 Feb 2014, 23:53
by connect4
Based on my count, we're 49 hours since results were posted. That renders QH inactive, until his next vote, and puts super_dipsy on the clock.