Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

Moderators: Crunkus, connect4

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Clarification Required

Postby Crunkus » 05 Mar 2014, 21:12

If the rule's effect is meant to overrule the normal operation of rules that precede it...it's ineffective. Period.
(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, 22:28

Crunkus wrote:If the rule's effect is meant to overrule the normal operation of rules that precede it...it's ineffective. Period.


I disagree. Will explain when not on my phone, but I think the rules specifically allow for this.
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, 22:50

Zoomzip wrote:
Crunkus wrote:If the rule's effect is meant to overrule the normal operation of rules that precede it...it's ineffective. Period.


I disagree. Will explain when not on my phone, but I think the rules specifically allow for this.


It's called amending a rule. That's how you change the way an existing rule works. Making a rule with a higher ordinal value and saying it overrules it doesn't mean that it does unless you've repealed or appropriately amended 211.

As written, I don't see this rule actually doing anything without ridiculous judging that reduces the game to something where the rules mean absolutely anything you want them to which isn't very interesting to me.

This rule, if it focused on only amending one rule would work better as an amendment. That's how that is done.
(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, 23:22

OK, fair objection. Here's my answer.

First, 211 does provide for a principle of precedence, as shown in the bolded text below:

connect4 wrote:211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.


301 is mutable. 306 would be mutable. 306 explicitly states it takes precedence over 301 with respect to timeframes. Therefore, if passed, the rules governing timeframes of 306 are in play. If this were not permissible, then why does 211 include this principle of precedence as part of the nature of a rule?

But why not just amend 301? I could have, but I have stylistic reasons not to.

First reason is that I like 301 as an entity for what it does: administer the voting process and turn phasing. The intent of 301 is solely about voting and turns, and not about Things. Amending 301 to include Things dilutes the administrative purity of 301. Rather than have one rule govern things, and one rule govern voting, and one rule combining the two in a fun gameplay mechanic, we now have a mix and match that means digging around in 301 and potentially 302 to achieve a desired effect if you want to monkey with the ideas in 306. Isolating this in 306 makes future fine-tuning and amendment easier: You don't need to worry about amending 301 and 302 simultaneously, you can just focus on 306 (or 302) and it makes it easier for future rules.

Second, I view 306 as an elaboration of 301, but not an essential part of 301. I need precedence make 306 work, but 306 while adding complications to 301, I do not see it as a contradiction of 301, but rather a need additional layer to be added upon it. For that reason, rather than amend 301, I'd rather have 306 be its own rule. Again, I like that 301 has no mention of things, and let it function that way.
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 - Things and Enfranchisement

Postby Crunkus » 06 Mar 2014, 01:29

I accept that answer and cede the point, thank you for it.

Unfortunately, I'm just not a fan of this particular piece of legislation. (Also, a minor point: Could you put a copy of the most recent version of this proposal in your OP?)

For one thing, it penalizes new players barring some sort of special Thing that automatically jumps to the newest active player. I guess that's not a total wash...but actually proposing a Thing to go with this legislation to me is an absolute must. You could still do it now.

For another thing, it feels a bit like a sword Damocles. It's certainly a potentially massively important measure that I'm just not ready for yet.

I don't know, maybe if you actually pushed a Thing out at the same time.
(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 - Things and Enfranchisement

Postby super_dipsy » 06 Mar 2014, 07:37

Zoomzip, Crunkus has a point about new players arriving. A player is judged active when the vote on a proposal. Supposing the new player (as you did) joins in the voting turn of the last player on the roster. Then the next turn belongs to the new player and the new player may well not own a Thing. Following on from his suggestion about maybe you creating a Thing, perhaps you could have a Thing which has ownership transfer including the fact that when a new player becomes active that player immediately takes ownership of the Thing or something?

But I also confess I am struggling to understand how this would work. What worries me in particular is that ownership of a Thing is decided by the Thing definition. I as a player may have no control over whether I own the Thing in question; it may be decided by other means. So for example if Stalin's Stamp had passed then it was always owned by someone who WASN'T about to have a turn. What this means to me is that through no fault of your own you may well be left without ownership of a Thing. If all Things had to include a way that a player could take ownership of them, then you would be OK to insist a player owns one because you are simply forcing each player to take ownership of one to have a turn. But the way Things are currently defined, you could even have a situation where only ONE person could move (owning all the Things) ;)
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12060
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 Crunkus » 06 Mar 2014, 14:48

super_dipsy wrote:Zoomzip, Crunkus has a point about new players arriving. A player is judged active when the vote on a proposal. Supposing the new player (as you did) joins in the voting turn of the last player on the roster. Then the next turn belongs to the new player and the new player may well not own a Thing. Following on from his suggestion about maybe you creating a Thing, perhaps you could have a Thing which has ownership transfer including the fact that when a new player becomes active that player immediately takes ownership of the Thing or something?


Again, it's within his power to create a thing this turn. If he's not even going to bother, I'm not casting an AYE on the basis that I have that option later.

super_dipsy wrote:But I also confess I am struggling to understand how this would work. What worries me in particular is that ownership of a Thing is decided by the Thing definition. I as a player may have no control over whether I own the Thing in question; it may be decided by other means. So for example if Stalin's Stamp had passed then it was always owned by someone who WASN'T about to have a turn. What this means to me is that through no fault of your own you may well be left without ownership of a Thing. If all Things had to include a way that a player could take ownership of them, then you would be OK to insist a player owns one because you are simply forcing each player to take ownership of one to have a turn. But the way Things are currently defined, you could even have a situation where only ONE person could move (owning all the Things) ;)


Indeed, and it isn't that tough for that situation to come to pass. Things are a lot easier to manipulate once they come into being. This would have been more appropriate after we had a bunch of things in play.
(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 - Things and Enfranchisement

Postby Pagane » 06 Mar 2014, 16:09

Later on(say, well after the point at which this rule goes into effect), this could be an interesting rule motivating players with turns coming up to somehow grab ownership of a Thing. At this point, we have no Things and no idea what Things will exist a round from now. I will vote NAY.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Previously known as Santiago Matamoros.
User avatar
Pagane
 
Posts: 596
Joined: 04 Nov 2013, 01:59
Location: Wine Country, Virginia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1079)
All-game rating: (1085)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

Postby Zoomzip » 06 Mar 2014, 16:37

Crunkus raises an excellent point about new players that I admit had not occurred to me. He also, rightly, points out that if I like Things so much, why am I not proposing one? So, I will start by proposing a thing that I think might help address both concerns.

So, with that in mind, a thing proposal as well:

Thing proposal

Potato
Name: Potato
Properties:
Possession: The potato is initially possessed by ZoomZip
Flow: The potato must be given to another player during each turn by the current possesser. A legible, bolded statement is sufficient to accomplish this goal. For example, if ZoomZip has the potato posts the phrase "I give the potato to Crunkus" is sufficient to transfer possession of the potato to Crunkus. Upon receiving the potato, the potato may then not be given away until the next turn begins. The potato may not be given back to the player who gave someone the potato the turn previously. If a player does not give the potato away as required in this rule, the potato flows to the next eligible active player in alphabetical order after the player current holder (moving to the start of the alphabet if the end of the alphabet is reached). In order to be eligible, a player must be active and not the player who gave the potato to the current holder the previous turn.
Legacy: If the player possessing the potato becomes inactive, then the potato moves automatically as if the current holder had not passed the potato, as described in its Flow property.

Other:
The potato has starchy goodness.
The potato has a value of 1.
The potato is food.
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 - Things and Enfranchisement

Postby Zoomzip » 06 Mar 2014, 16:38

Crunkus wrote:Unfortunately, I'm just not a fan of this particular piece of legislation. (Also, a minor point: Could you put a copy of the most recent version of this proposal in your OP?)


Done.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Nomic 5 (finished)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest