Page 4 of 5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 18:10
by Pagane
NAY
NAY

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 18:12
by Crunkus_old
NAY
NAY

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 18:39
by Zoomzip
Independent Arguments for 306 and The Potato

First, let me extend my thanks to everyone for their thoughts and debate so far. Even if both proposals go down in flames, I at least appreciate the thought that has gone into the various arguments. I agree we are in voting time, so let me proceed with two arguments for why you should vote AYE on both proposals

In Defense of 306
Nomic is a game of emergent phenomenon. There is the metagame of rules that we play at all times, and then the game which emerges from those rules. Rules like 301 about proposals and timeframes are purely about the metagame, and rules like 302 about Things. 306 does allow the two to be linked, in what I think are fun and interesting ways, but I admit there are other ways of going about this, perhaps some more elegant than others.

Currently there is a 75% majority needed to pass rules. That means that NAY votes are powerful, only a few are needed to halt a rule. This is understandable, but I urge you to take a point of view similar to that of an improvisational theatre performer: Nomic works best as a collective exercise of group minds. I approach the default position to any change in the game from a "Yes, And..." or "Yes, But..." point of view. For me, anything that adds to the game is worth exploring, and my default position will be to vote in favor of a proposal unless it seems to destroy the game.

The opposition have some concerns about 306. I think these concerns are not trivial, certainly worth consideration. Perhaps this rule is too early in its introduction, but that is easily dealt with. If this rule seems to be coming into play too soon, then a proposal to amend 306 to delay its implementation should easily gather the required support (and the proposer the spoils of points along with it).

Nomic is an exploration of the collective conscious, and I have no idea what may emerge. I argue that this rule incentives us to figure out what may happen, to explore the pure game dynamic of Things and see what delights they may provide for us, to encourage all of us to let more Things into our lives.

In Defense of The Potato
The Potato is a thing of beauty, and there is no reason not to vote for it. We don't know what things do, but the Potato suddenly adds a pure game dynamic where little exists so far. Independently of 306, does it grant any player an unreasonable advantage or disadvantage? I argue no, the Thing exists in and of itself. It introduces new concepts to the game for other players to consider exploiting later: Food, Value, Starchy Goodness. What do these things mean? I have no idea, but I am curious and they are made as blind offers to be built upon by any other. The potato moves -- So what? Ugluk has noted that if we are down to two players, there is a potential concern, but that seems an extreme case that perhaps the solution is to make sure that we stay active, the game alive. I see no reason to oppose the Potato, let it exist, and let the potential of what it represents grow into the hearts of us all.

I ask you to play this game with optimism, and a willingness to see what happens. Vote for morning in Nomiconia. Vote AYE.

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 18:40
by Zoomzip
And with that:

AYE
AYE

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 19:29
by Crunkus_old
Zoomzip wrote:And with that:

AYE
AYE


Technical note: You are not eligible to blue vote.

Rule 302 clause K wrote:During the Voting phase, any player who did not initiate the creation of the Thing being voted on who is also active may vote on the proposed creation of the Thing.

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 19:31
by Zoomzip
You are quite correct. That vote should not count.

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 07 Mar 2014, 19:31
by Crunkus_old
Bah.

AYE

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 08 Mar 2014, 00:35
by Ugluk
AYE
NAY

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 08 Mar 2014, 03:33
by connect4
I think I'm the last man standing, and therefore my red vote will end the phase. I think at this point neither proposal nor thing will be passing, as I see two NAY's for each. I do note that SD was going to review the Thing.

I'm leaning against the proposal, but I believe the Potatoe is of amazing goodness. I ask Pagane/Ugluk why the potatoe should not be created.

AYE

Holding off on Red vote while giving said players a chance to respond. I think that regardless of the passage of the bill, there is no downside to the Potatoe.

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 306 - Things and Enfranchisement

PostPosted: 08 Mar 2014, 03:34
by connect4
That being said, I'll give a little bit of time before red voting. Expect the red vote tomorrow, unless the potatoe is ready to pass. That being said, if anyone not named ZZ wants the main proposal to pass, feel free to use this time to argue for it. I'm buying you all time.