Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

Moderators: Crunkus, connect4

Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

Postby Zoomzip » 05 Mar 2014, 01:10

Before proposing this rule, I would like a clarification on the interpretation of Rule 304 and appeal to Judgement if necessary:

connect4 wrote:304. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote receives a three-fourths majority among the eligible voters. This rule is narfable.


It is my interpretation that this means a minimum of 75% of the votes cast in favor, not EXACTLY 75% of the votes cast in favor. Is that interpretation correct?

UPDATE: Current wording below:

Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

1. In order to propose a rule in accordance with Rule 301, an active player must possess a Thing upon the start of their turn.
2. The requirement to possess a Thing in order to propose a rule takes precedence over all timeframes specified in Rule 301.
3. This rule will not become effective until there are a minimum of five Things that exist, or until voting on Proposal 315 has been concluded.
4. Upon becoming effective in accordance with (3) above, this rule shall not become ineffective due to any change in the population of the number of Things or change in the numbering system for proposals.
Last edited by Zoomzip on 06 Mar 2014, 16:39, edited 3 times in total.
Kittens and rainbows. Forever. Wear your makeup like a man.

One of the moderators of the Mafia Form.
User avatar
Zoomzip
Premium Member
 
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11 Nov 2011, 05:29
Location: NoVa and The District
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (921)
All-game rating: (919)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Clarification Required

Postby Crunkus » 05 Mar 2014, 02:33

Zoomzip wrote:Before proposing this rule, I would like a clarification on the interpretation of Rule 304 and appeal to Judgement if necessary:

connect4 wrote:304. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote receives a three-fourths majority among the eligible voters. This rule is narfable.


It is my interpretation that this means a minimum of 75% of the votes cast in favor, not EXACTLY 75% of the votes cast in favor. Is that interpretation correct?


That interpretation has informally gone unchallenged thus far, yes.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Clarification Required

Postby Zoomzip » 05 Mar 2014, 05:37

Sweet. Here Goes:

Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

1. In order to propose a rule in accordance with Rule 301, an active player must possess a Thing upon the start of their turn.
2. The requirement to possess a Thing in order to propose a rule takes precedence over all timeframes specified in Rule 301.
3. This rule will not become effective until there are a minimum of five Things that exist, or until Proposal 315 has been voted on completley as specified in Rule 301, whichever occurs first chronologically.
4. Upon becoming effective in accordance with (3) above, this rule shall not become ineffective due to any change in the population of the number of Things or change in the numbering system for proposals.
5. If Rule 301 is repealed in accordance with Rule 103, then this rule shall be considered repealed as well.
Kittens and rainbows. Forever. Wear your makeup like a man.

One of the moderators of the Mafia Form.
User avatar
Zoomzip
Premium Member
 
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11 Nov 2011, 05:29
Location: NoVa and The District
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (921)
All-game rating: (919)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Clarification Required

Postby connect4 » 05 Mar 2014, 05:48

Zoomzip wrote:Sweet. Here Goes:

Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

1. In order to propose a rule in accordance with Rule 301, an active player must possess a Thing upon the start of their turn.
2. The requirement to possess a Thing in order to propose a rule takes precedence over all timeframes specified in Rule 301.
3. This rule will not become effective until there are a minimum of five Things that exist, or until Proposal 315 has been voted on completley as specified in Rule 301, whichever occurs first chronologically.
4. Upon becoming effective in accordance with (3) above, this rule shall not become ineffective due to any change in the population of the number of Things or change in the numbering system for proposals.
5. If Rule 301 is repealed in accordance with Rule 103, then this rule shall be considered repealed as well.


Current thoughts (quoted only so I can read on my phone and type at same time):
1). With 6 players and 75%+ needed for thing creation, all it takes is 2 jerks and no things are created by 315. Then game can't continue. Truly a no win. Admittedly I doubt we won't have any things by 315, but you never know...
2). This doesn't cover the case where someone transmutes 103/301, and thus this clause becomes moot.
D). There is no D. Only Zuul.
User avatar
connect4
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: 15 Nov 2008, 23:56
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1042)
All-game rating: (1012)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Clarification Required

Postby Zoomzip » 05 Mar 2014, 05:55

connect4 wrote:Current thoughts (quoted only so I can read on my phone and type at same time):
1). With 6 players and 75%+ needed for thing creation, all it takes is 2 jerks and no things are created by 315. Then game can't continue. Truly a no win. Admittedly I doubt we won't have any things by 315, but you never know...
2). This doesn't cover the case where someone transmutes 103/301, and thus this clause becomes moot.
D). There is no D. Only Zuul.


1) Correct. This rule incentives thing creation, both to allow you to bring proposals forward to vote (you want a rule? Better make a thing) and also to bring Rule 213 very much into play suddenly. Actually, a no-win is the exact wrong description, as it provides a path to victory via 213. Is someone about to have a turn, and they have no thing? Then they are about to win. Interesting tension, that. Well, to me at least.

2) If 103 and 301 are transmuted... I'm not sure I follow you here...

3) I am the gate keeper.
Kittens and rainbows. Forever. Wear your makeup like a man.

One of the moderators of the Mafia Form.
User avatar
Zoomzip
Premium Member
 
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11 Nov 2011, 05:29
Location: NoVa and The District
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (921)
All-game rating: (919)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Clarification Required

Postby connect4 » 05 Mar 2014, 06:24

I had logic for point 2. My brain is beyond fried. Will try to explain in morning.

Another nit: completely is misspelled in part c or 3 (whichever numbering is appropriate)
User avatar
connect4
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: 15 Nov 2008, 23:56
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1042)
All-game rating: (1012)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Clarification Required

Postby super_dipsy » 05 Mar 2014, 14:01

I think what C4 meant with 2 is you are specific linking the repeal of 301 in accordance with 103. The point is that if 103 is transmuted and then changed, there might not even be a 103. It may be there is an entirely different mechanism for repealing rules. I am also not entirely convinced it is possible to tie the repeal of one rule to another rule change - 103 is pretty clear that you can only change one rule at a time I think. Instead, I think you may have to simply state that rather than automatically repealed, that Rule 306 does not take effect if ..... .

What the if .... is depends on what you are trying to do. I assume what you mean is that if there is no defined turn process as laid out in 301 currently, then you want to no-op 306. That might be the route to get to what you want.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12062
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 931
Timezone: GMT

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

Postby Zoomzip » 05 Mar 2014, 18:50

Hmmmm... OK, I was just trying to include a way of taking this rule out if 301 changed to the point that it no longer mattered then it wouldn't stay around like dead wood. Striking that clause and amedning as follows:


Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

1. In order to propose a rule in accordance with Rule 301, an active player must possess a Thing upon the start of their turn.
2. The requirement to possess a Thing in order to propose a rule takes precedence over all timeframes specified in Rule 301.
3. This rule will not become effective until there are a minimum of five Things that exist, or until voting on Proposal 315 has been concluded.
4. Upon becoming effective in accordance with (3) above, this rule shall not become ineffective due to any change in the population of the number of Things or change in the numbering system for proposals.
Kittens and rainbows. Forever. Wear your makeup like a man.

One of the moderators of the Mafia Form.
User avatar
Zoomzip
Premium Member
 
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11 Nov 2011, 05:29
Location: NoVa and The District
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (921)
All-game rating: (919)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Clarification Required

Postby Crunkus » 05 Mar 2014, 20:06

If this rule and 301 contradict each other, 301 wins because of order. Doesn't that offer an obstacle here?
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Clarification Required

Postby Ugluk » 05 Mar 2014, 20:32

super_dipsy wrote:103 is pretty clear that you can only change one rule at a time I think.


I see no reason that a Rule cannot change Rules. A player may not directly impact more than one other rule (by amending, transmuting, or repealing) as their rule proposal, but rules go into effect after being voted on, at which time it is the rule itself doing things, not the player.
Niakan is a tease.
User avatar
Ugluk
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: 19 May 2009, 23:55
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1048)
All-game rating: (1028)
Timezone: GMT-8

Next

Return to Nomic 5 (finished)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest