Nomic 5 - Proposal 308 - The Way of The Force (Pass)

[super_dipsy]

I pass the potato to connect4

Your little one might like to bite on it

[Crunkus_old]

In Nomic 5, there is a unit of currency known as midi-chlorians.

Midichlorians are defined as a unit of currency. Currency can be transferred in-thread. Can you give away midichlorians when you're already in the negative scale, lowering your negative midi-count even further? So if Crunkus is the Dark Lord with -30, and I'm at -20, can I give him 10 midichlorians, raising him to -20 and lowering me to -30?
And can I ally myself with a Jedi, giving him positive midis to both increase my Sith value and to raise his Jedi value?

Good points.

I could add a clause that any transfer of midi-chlorians from player to player must be approved by the person receiving the midi-chlorians. I could build a mechanism for that. That way the transfers would at least need to be consensual. Alliances but not offensive give-away attacks using midi-chlorian transfers. How does that sound?

I could also limit the amount of midi-chlorian transfers per turn. Any interest in that?

This also applies to Victory Points as well- it seems like Sith will eventually gain benefits from having negative Victory Points.

I'm not as bothered by that.

Currently, the language of the currency seems directed at positive-only currency. Defining Midichlorians as a currency that can hold negative value opens this can of worms.

There's already people with negative points in this game. I'd say the transfer of currency seems to be "only positive" language right now. Which is fine.

PPE: before posting, I looked up this clause:

For each unit of currency, the sum of all transfers made during a turn must be less than or equal to the number of units of that currency the player had at the start of the turn. This clause is narfable.

This requires transfers to only made by players with enough POSITIVE units of currency to cover the transfers. Disregard this question. Keep the Currency transfers in mind, however.

Oops. Already answered it. That was terribly inefficient of me. Me, inefficient? Parish the thought. Let me write another few pages on the subject.

One cool point though: because of the ability to transfer positive currency, it's relatively easy for a Jedi of any rank to switch to the Dark Side, while Sith have a much harder time returning to the Light. Oh, how the mighty can corrupt themselves. Almost poetic, actually.

Yeah, it kind of works.

-----

A FORCE PUSH by a Jedi Master has the effect of changing the possessor of the Target Thing to the active player whose scheduled turn to become the active player is the PULL VALUE ahead of the target player in the scheduled turn order.

That should read PUSH VALUE rather than PULL VALUE.

Nice. Fixed.

-----

Lightsabers:
Are the Bad Ass Sounds required to be played when a player transfers or uses his lightsaber? If not, I would be less than opposed to seeing it made so.

No. That's sort of a starchy goodness thing for now. I'd certainly encourage and expect a lot of youtube clips, pictures, and such being added to the course of this game indirectly as an indirect of this legislation...but I think it's actually cooler not to force people to do it a certain way. Don't you think?

Confrontations are left undefined. I look forward to figuring out how lightsaber duels work. I think they should include both skill with a lightsaber and mastery of the force, since they are two distinct fundamentals to Jedi/Sith combat. I also think that there should be midichlorian penalties for a Jedi who Confronts another Jedi.

I like to leave game space for others to explore. It's worth noting that as written the confrontation property can be applied to anything with that property equally well..not just lightsabers. Perhaps we'll even see a confrontation between someone with a light-saber and a really ferocious bunny with the property of confrontation. Stranger things have happened. It's up to the group and whoever writes the confrontation legislation.

The properties of the lightsabers constructed by the Sith should be changed to state that they will remain in the possession of the SITH who created them, not the JEDI. Either that, or just say PLAYER for both Jedi and Sith lightsabers.

How utterly sloppy of me. Fixed. Sith can give their sabers to anyone, that was the intention. Jedi can only give to other Jedi. Should be fixed now.

And what is the point of only allowing Jedi to give their lightsabers to other Jedi, but allowing Sith to give their lightsabers to anyone?

In lots of areas I tried to instill into the mechanics of things incentives and structure that encourages cooperation among Jedi and competition and greater freedom among the Sith. That was part of that. What do you think?

-----

This ability can only be successfully used by a Sith if that Sith has not yet used a Darth Ability during the current turn.

If a Darth uses Force Domination, Force Fear or Force Lightning, he cannot use another Darth ability earlier in the turn. Can he still use Construct Lightsaber AFTER he has used one of these during the same turn?

No. Darth is an easier title to achieve, and has a broad range of potent powers, but they can only use on Darth Ability a turn. The Jedi construct lightsaber has a lot of upsides compared to the sith version, although a sith will no doubt build the first personalized lightsaber.

The skin on the right side of Darth Pagane's face begins to slough off slowly:

So I can be a Sith Lord AND Two-Face. I approve.

Yeah, I wanted to have something in there that registered with the idea of bodily corruption of the Sith. I encourage players to detail their bodily degredations for flavour.

-----

Anakyn Skywalker's Second Lightsaber can be used to block Dark Lord abilities. To do so, do you Confront the Dark Lord? If not, how do you trigger the trolling-the-Dark-Lord bit?

Yeah, you have to target the Dark Lord with that particular lightsaber. The only way to do that is with the confront mechanic. Right now there is a means to target a player with the confront property, it makes it clear that it initiates a confrontation, but the significance of the confrontation is nada at this point. To the Dark Lord of the Sith abilities the only thing that matters is whether or not that lightsaber targeted the dark lord of the sith...we can confront with this legislation through light-sabers...but the confrontation itself hasn't been developed yet beyond an indirect effect detailed under some Dark Lord of the Sith abilities that ASSL works to provide a counterpoint for.
-----

There aren't any Narfable Clauses. I'd be much happier if this were changed.
PPE: I see you already fixed that, Crunkus.

Yes indeed I did. Do you approve of the narfing choices?

-----

In Conclusion: I really look forward to seeing how this dynamic plays out!

I'm glad! That was definitely what I was going for.

My absolute favorite bit is the Dark Seduction, giving brand new players a grand entrance, a large boost in points, and a fast track to becoming a Darth.

I discussed this with Ugluk a bit privately, and he mentioned we should really have a corrupting influence mechanic in there. I thought it was an amazing idea, and it combined with my love of giving new players incentive to join the game and active players incentive to go out and recruit.

I also really enjoy the different dynamics for Jedi and Sith: the Jedi are more balanced, and their control of AYE votes and possession of Things is incredibly powerful, while the Sith are more offensively based, and their powers grow enormously once a Dark Lord has risen.

It's coming together nicely. I hope we can all continue to collaborate to make this even better. Thank you all for your efforts and taking the time to read the entire thing.

[connect4]

Good points.

I could add a clause that any transfer of midi-chlorians from player to player must be approved by the person receiving the midi-chlorians. I could build a mechanism for that. That way the transfers would at least need to be consensual. Alliances but not offensive give-away attacks using midi-chlorian transfers. How does that sound?

I could also limit the amount of midi-chlorian transfers per turn. Any interest in that?

Limit per turn is already built in in 307 (2 per turn but narfable).

I don't know if you need to build in a transfer mechanism. According to the current rules, only Jedi can give their midi-chlorians away. Think of it as fighting the Dark Side when they try to do so, if they transfer it to a Sith. If you want the power of a Sith, you'd better be prepared to fight all sorts of Jedi. Since transfers require positive currency, the Sith can't use it.

Another unofficial weapon in the battle against evil.

[Crunkus_old]

Good points.

I could add a clause that any transfer of midi-chlorians from player to player must be approved by the person receiving the midi-chlorians. I could build a mechanism for that. That way the transfers would at least need to be consensual. Alliances but not offensive give-away attacks using midi-chlorian transfers. How does that sound?

I could also limit the amount of midi-chlorian transfers per turn. Any interest in that?

Limit per turn is already built in in 307 (2 per turn but narfable).

I don't know if you need to build in a transfer mechanism. According to the current rules, only Jedi can give their midi-chlorians away. Think of it as fighting the Dark Side when they try to do so, if they transfer it to a Sith. If you want the power of a Sith, you'd better be prepared to fight all sorts of Jedi. Since transfers require positive currency, the Sith can't use it.

Another unofficial weapon in the battle against evil.

I see you can't transfer more than 2 per turn that way?

That seems reasonable. I'm going back to read it again.

EDIT: I see 10 per transfer, 2 transfers max.

I can live with that I guess. 20 points is quite a swing but it's nice that it's just a Jedi thing, and I dig the sacrificial nature of it.

[Pagane]

Dark Seduction:
Nowhere does it say that Nomic posts cannot be edited. Can a Dark Lord convince a new player who DIDN'T fulfill the Dark Seduction criteria in his initial post to go back and edit his first post to get the Dark Seduction benefits?
I'd recommend either explicitly banning this or allowing incoming players to post their submission to the Dark Lord in any post before the voting is closed on the proposal in which they enter the game.
I'm tempted to try to become the Dark Lord just so I can scour the forums for Nomic recruits with promises of power and glory.

In lots of areas I tried to instill into the mechanics of things incentives and structure that encourages cooperation among Jedi and competition and greater freedom among the Sith. That was part of that. What do you think?

Ah, I get it now. And if a Sith gives a lightsaber to a Jedi, that lightsaber out of Sith-circulation unless the holder crosses from being a Jedi to being a Sith.

Yeah, I wanted to have something in there that registered with the idea of bodily corruption of the Sith. I encourage players to detail their bodily degredations for flavour.

This is great. I encourage those players with artistic talent to wear updated avatars as they degrade more and more.

Do you approve of the narfing choices?

Narfing the Darths' inability to use multiple abilities in one turn? I love it. Dark Bodily Degradations? I'd embrace them if I were Sith, but if some Sith want to protect against that you've left the door open for them.

[Crunkus_old]

Dark Seduction:
Nowhere does it say that Nomic posts cannot be edited. Can a Dark Lord convince a new player who DIDN'T fulfill the Dark Seduction criteria in his initial post to go back and edit his first post to get the Dark Seduction benefits?
I'd recommend either explicitly banning this or allowing incoming players to post their submission to the Dark Lord in any post before the voting is closed on the proposal in which they enter the game.

Thank you Pagane. I've added a fifth primary clause to this rule, called The Force and Fizzing. It might need the language cleaned up a bit, you all can maybe review it and offer suggestions. I wanted to write it such that we could just cover this for future rules and things by just adding a clause that says "No Fizzing." and leaving it at that. I don't I can ban such a think unilaterally with just my rule, but I can do so with reference to the concepts defined by that rule. I'd note that since the Bookie's Book has the property of being Protected, and that property is defined by this rule, this would render a de facto No fizzing clause on the Bookie's Book as well, which is nice. Until then, I guess we're just going to have to be gentlemen about it. The only command content left (I'm not counting votes as command content here and I don't think my fizzing clause does either) that isn't subject to no fizzing is the potato and currency exchanges. Perhaps that could be amended in, or perhaps another solution can be thought of to deal with that.

V. The Force and Fizzing

1. No Fizzing.
   
   1. If a post was edited that contained a size, colour, html code, or in its own line sensitive game concept activation/initiation type content (hereafter to be referred to as command content) that is referenced in this rule, or by any Thing or property of a Thing defined in this rule, or by and Thing created as a result of a clause in this rule, then any command content in that post is to be ignored. Players in Nomic 5 voting AYE to this proposal or making use of any game concept that is derived in part from this rule are honour-bound in a way as outside Nomic as it is possible to be stipulated within the bounds of Nomic to not purposely abuse this mechanic to advantage in order to have inconvenient command content nullified. In short, the act of post-submit revision to manipulate this rule's and this rule's derivative command content is rendered illegal and otherwise unsavory by this clause. Accidental post-submit revision without such intent will have the same ignoring of command content effect unless the turn is complete. Future rules may simply give their rule a clause which states simply: No fizzing, and it will be understood as a game concept to refer to this same prohibition.

I'm tempted to try to become the Dark Lord just so I can scour the forums for Nomic recruits with promises of power and glory.

I also think this is a rich vein to mine. I'd personally be disposed to other incentives to get people out there trying to lure people into the game. That sort of effort should be rewarded.

[Pagane]

Thanks, Crunkus. It seems to me like the term 'command content' DOES include votes, but I'm certainly not opposed to 'no fizzing' applying to votes as well.

Nothing else strikes me as a potential issue right now(though I'm imagining all the fun that FORCE PUSH/PULL is going to cause), but I'll review it again with fresh eyes during the voting phase.

Great piece, Crunkus!

[Crunkus_old]

It would count votes IF the votes were related to that rule and its derivatives. For instance, it might well apply to the votes associated with something like you seem to be envisioning. But votes for proposals? That's not something my fizzing clause has jurisdiction over unless the no fizzing clause were amended to the proper proposal or made into it's own devoted universally applying rule. But then I'd argue you'd sort of have to make the rule about fizzing...which would be a rather disappointing rule overall in my view. I tried, as big as this thing is, to make everything in it about ONE thing. The fizzing clause is only about my rule, because if it were more...I'd be crossing a line as I see it at least.

[Pagane]

I think the crucial bit is the fact that CC is defined first.

a post ... that contain{s} a size, colour, html code, or in its own line sensitive game concept activation/initiation type content (hereafter to be referred to as command content) that is referenced in this rule

You're saying "the command content referenced in this rule," which seems to say that command content doesn't HAVE to reference this rule, which would mean ANY post with size/color/html code or own-line-game-concept etc contains command content.
That would also mean that that command content(proposal votes), not having originated(that might be a better word than 'referenced') in this rule, wouldn't be subject to the 'no fizzing' clause.

[Crunkus_old]

I think the crucial bit is the fact that CC is defined first.

a post ... that contain{s} a size, colour, html code, or in its own line sensitive game concept activation/initiation type content (hereafter to be referred to as command content) that is referenced in this rule

You're saying "the command content referenced in this rule," which seems to say that command content doesn't HAVE to reference this rule, which would mean ANY post with size/color/html code or own-line-game-concept etc contains command content.

That would also mean that that command content(proposal votes), not having originated(that might be a better word than 'referenced') in this rule, wouldn't be subject to the 'no fizzing' clause.

Yes, any post with yada yada yada contains command content but that doesn't mean it is command content referenced in this rule and its derivatives. I mean I could say that there's a game concept called WOOTSAUCE which refers to any use of the letter "F" but that doesn't mean that any use of the letter F is WOOTSAUCE referenced in THIS rule.

I really don't think there's any good way to fizproof 301 or 302 short of amending them. Well, I suppose someone could create a Thing which allowed for amending, but I don't think that would work because it would contradict 301 which doesn't have any narfable clauses.

If you really are intent on fizproofing them, I don't see the argument. I think the best way would be simply to call a judgment on anyone that does it and have the judge lay down the smack. I seriously doubt anyone wouldn't judge against that. As for doing it in a way that can't be caught...that's just not really winning within the bounds of the game...I don't think anyone wants to win a game which is essentially about convincing everyone else you deserve to win like that. Every game has ways to cheat not covered in the rules because no rules can be completely comprehensive. That's why we have judges and the concept of gaming etiquette.

I'm not sure fizzproofing 301 and 302 is really necessary in the end. We now (or will) have an easy solution for future legislation that has command content to sidestep this in 2 words. 301 and 302, and I guess the transfer of currency in 307 (oh and the potato) are just going to have to skate through on the threat of judgment and fallout from doing something that quite arguably falls outside the scope of the game.

I mean, we can create a crisis akin to this about almost anything if we have a mind to. Some of that is what Nomic sometimes is, and some of it crosses a line. It's ultimately up to the judging mechanisms and our own taste as gamers do sort out.

Bottom line: Let's all just informally agree: No fizzing.

It worked for the crisis of 302 adjudication.