Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Moderators: Crunkus, connect4

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Crunkus » 18 Mar 2014, 16:13

Pagane wrote:Done. The possessor shall state "I seek Draconian Rule" in size 125 or greater, and present the Thing that he wishes to create during the proposal phase. During voting, all other players may vote Draco: AYE/NAY in green, size 125 or greater, on whether the possessor may use Draco's Law at the end of the current turn.

Quick question- would voting to allow or disallow the use of Draco's Law still raise or lower one's midi-chlorian count? I assume it would, but since it's not actually voting on a Thing...


I believe midichlorians are tied to voting in any context AYE NAY, so yes. I'll check a bit later.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Crunkus » 18 Mar 2014, 16:15

308.I.H: Having an AYE vote cast and remain in play by the end of a voting phase in any legally meaningful context (proposal voting, Thing approval, etc...) causes a player to add 2 midi-chlorians to their midi-chlorian level for each such AYE vote that was cast by that player this turn.
308.I.I: Having a NAY vote cast and remain in play by the end of a voting phase in any legally meaningful context (proposal voting, Thing approval, etc...) causes a player to subtract 2 midi-chlorians to their midi-chlorian level for each such NAY vote that was cast by that player this turn.


Yes, it would be midi-chlorian relevant. This is a legally meaningful context.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Crunkus » 18 Mar 2014, 16:16

Glad we could find a loophole to that.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby pjkon » 18 Mar 2014, 19:34

I read the rules and I don't think that not being a player prohibits me from posting in this thread, but if there is some guideline of the forum or something that prohibits this post please tell me and I will delete it.

I hereby steel 40 points from each active player pursuant to rule 116, reducing everyone below zero points and making me the winner of nomic 5, according to rule 209 despite the fact that I am not an active player in the game according to rule 214.

My point here is that there are no rules prohibiting the steeling of points, or preventing non-players from winning the game. Therefore, anyone can choose to win the game at any point according to rule 116 unless, as it would seem to have been generally decided by the people currently playing this game, if any rule sets forth a particular method of determining a given game state, such as points, possession of things, currency, etc. then it is implied to prohibit all other methods of changing the game state, such as the steeling of points that I just did.

If this is the case however, then the thing under discussion (Draco’s Law) would indeed appear to be a violation of rule 302. In fact rule 308 clauses III C vi b and IV D vi d (the ones about lightsaber construction) also conflict with rule 302 in the same way. This would not be a problem, since rules can change other rules, but rule 308 does not state that it overrules or amends rule 302, and because of that annoying rule 211 (seriously, the LOWER ordinal number? Why? This just slows the game down it seems, since the rules can just be amended anyway…) rule 302 actually is considered to be the governing rule in this situation, prohibiting lightsaber construction.

This also poses a problem for things more generally and makes the bookie’s book entirely illegal, since it changes points without using a method set forth by a rule. In fact things would be entirely powerless to have any affects whatsoever outside the ability to negate or alter the effects of narfable clauses.

This could be escaped if it was to be determined, by consensus or judgment I would assume, that rule 302 essentially gives things the ability to modify any game state whatsoever as long as they do not actually conflict with a rule. This seems to be the intent of rule 302 clauses C and E after all. If we are to take this interpretation however, Crunkus’s original objection to Draco’s Law is actually wrong since rule 302 states in clause C that things can have game relevant affects, presumably, under this interpretation, allowing things to have any game relevant affects, including affecting game states such as points, whatsoever so long as they do not contradict rules.

Interestingly though, for this to work rule 302 would have to be considered an amendment to ALL mutable rules, since it gives things the power to overrule their implied prohibition on affecting game states, the ways of affecting which are described therein…could this be implied? Can amendment ever be implied? Can it only be implied over the implicit prohibitions herein described?

Maybe I am just completely confused on these rules. This post is an attempt to clear up those questions surrounding the changing of game states without the explicit conformance to provisions in rules. I am also interested in joining the game, if of course I can actually get my head around the rules enough to do it. Crunkus’s Star Wars rule has made it impossible for me to stay away. Does anyone have an answer as to how these things are being decided now? It all made sense to me until I started thinking about it, and now I don't know what the accepted practice is.
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Crunkus » 19 Mar 2014, 15:46

pjkon wrote:I read the rules and I don't think that not being a player prohibits me from posting in this thread, but if there is some guideline of the forum or something that prohibits this post please tell me and I will delete it.


Welcome, and you can post anywhere you want in this game. You are officially active and in the game once you vote on a proposal during the voting phase. (215)

pjkon wrote:My point here is that there are no rules prohibiting the steeling of points, or preventing non-players from winning the game. Therefore, anyone can choose to win the game at any point according to rule 116 unless, as it would seem to have been generally decided by the people currently playing this game, if any rule sets forth a particular method of determining a given game state, such as points, possession of things, currency, etc. then it is implied to prohibit all other methods of changing the game state, such as the steeling of points that I just did.



There are rules regulating the transfer of points. The are rules regulating how one enters the game. Winning the game has rules regulating. The concept of creating Thing, enacting abilities, are all defined by rules. There a rule defining what thing as a game concept is and what it can and cannot do.

pjkon wrote:If this is the case however, then the thing under discussion (Draco’s Law) would indeed appear to be a violation of rule 302. In fact rule 308 clauses III C vi b and IV D vi d (the ones about lightsaber construction) also conflict with rule 302 in the same way. This would not be a problem, since rules can change other rules, but rule 308 does not state that it overrules or amends rule 302, and because of that annoying rule 211 (seriously, the LOWER ordinal number? Why? This just slows the game down it seems, since the rules can just be amended anyway…) rule 302 actually is considered to be the governing rule in this situation, prohibiting lightsaber construction.

This also poses a problem for things more generally and makes the bookie’s book entirely illegal, since it changes points without using a method set forth by a rule. In fact things would be entirely powerless to have any affects whatsoever outside the ability to negate or alter the effects of narfable clauses.

This could be escaped if it was to be determined, by consensus or judgment I would assume, that rule 302 essentially gives things the ability to modify any game state whatsoever as long as they do not actually conflict with a rule. This seems to be the intent of rule 302 clauses C and E after all. If we are to take this interpretation however, Crunkus’s original objection to Draco’s Law is actually wrong since rule 302 states in clause C that things can have game relevant affects, presumably, under this interpretation, allowing things to have any game relevant affects, including affecting game states such as points, whatsoever so long as they do not contradict rules.


Consensus, judgment, or interpretation is not necessary.

When the effect of a Thing conflicts with a rule, the rule has priority unless the rule specifically states that the entire rule or an aspect of that rule can be overruled potentially by a Thing.


302 already says that. A narfable clause is a rule that say an aspect of that rule can be overruled by a thing. A rule permits itself to be altered in this way, so it is allowed, there is no contradiction with narfability.

Things do not by their nature change rules unless the rules themselves ALLOW for it.

My objection to Draco's law was that it was modifying the procedure for votes for thing creation. This was already defined in a non-narfable rule clause.

Thing creation can be initiated by the proposer during the proposal phase. This clause is narfable.


302 does not define how a thing most be created. It does define how votes relevant to thing creation must be formatted. It does define one way of creating a thing. Pagane was creating another means to create thing and vote on them. Since the process of voting on created things is regulated in a non-narfable manner, Pagane needed to sidestep this somehow or be in conflict with the rule. Instead, the vote is on something else defined by that rule that isn't a thing which has the effect of directly creating the thing cited earlier.

Lightsaber production is defined by 308. It is a non-voting based way to create a thing. Since 302 does not attempt to define the only ways things can be created, this doesn't conflict with anything. If there was rule that stated all created things must be voted upon, similar to one of the immutable rules does about rules, that would be one thing. Such a rule about things does not exist. A rule or a Thing can create a thing.

Things do not by their nature change rules unless the rules themselves ALLOW for it.

pjkon wrote:Interestingly though, for this to work rule 302 would have to be considered an amendment to ALL mutable rules, since it gives things the power to overrule their implied prohibition on affecting game states, the ways of affecting which are described therein…could this be implied? Can amendment ever be implied? Can it only be implied over the implicit prohibitions herein described?


It does not give things the power to overule rules. The narfable rules individually, themselves, articulate that they can be modified by the action of a Thing. 302 simply defines what narfability is so they can do that just by saying the clause is narfable. It doesn't have to amend any rule this way, because the rules themselves that Things can overrule already explicitly allow for it. A rule doesn't have an implied prohibition. A rule either manages something or it doesn't. If it does, and it's not narfable, a thing cannot affect within that sphere. If it doesn't, then it's fair game...as things, as defined by rule 302 have the capacity to define effects in this space. 302 amends nothing. It creates a game concept that cannot amend a rule. The only way that game concept can "amend" a rule is if the rule we're talking about explicitly allows for it. That's not amendment, that's following the rule in question.

I'm not sure how you've demonstrated 302 amends anything here.

pjkon wrote:Maybe I am just completely confused on these rules. This post is an attempt to clear up those questions surrounding the changing of game states without the explicit conformance to provisions in rules.


302 allows for game state changes not prohibited by or in contradiction with the rules through a specific defined path. I do not understand what this doesn't conform with.

pjkon wrote: I am also interested in joining the game, if of course I can actually get my head around the rules enough to do it. Crunkus’s Star Wars rule has made it impossible for me to stay away. Does anyone have an answer as to how these things are being decided now? It all made sense to me until I started thinking about it, and now I don't know what the accepted practice is.


If something occurs, and someone disagrees judgment can be invoked. See the relevant rules for details. Somethings we just collectively decide and no one invokes judgment. Or if someone has, the collective judgment can influence the judge's ruling. It really just saves time.

Perfectly willing to has out the details of all of this. If there are still outstanding issues, let's try quoting the rules in question. I feel like I haven't answered all of your concerns yet head on.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby pjkon » 19 Mar 2014, 16:55

Crunkus wrote:
pjkon wrote:I read the rules and I don't think that not being a player prohibits me from posting in this thread, but if there is some guideline of the forum or something that prohibits this post please tell me and I will delete it.


Welcome, and you can post anywhere you want in this game. You are officially active and in the game once you vote on a proposal during the voting phase. (215)

pjkon wrote:My point here is that there are no rules prohibiting the steeling of points, or preventing non-players from winning the game. Therefore, anyone can choose to win the game at any point according to rule 116 unless, as it would seem to have been generally decided by the people currently playing this game, if any rule sets forth a particular method of determining a given game state, such as points, possession of things, currency, etc. then it is implied to prohibit all other methods of changing the game state, such as the steeling of points that I just did.



There are rules regulating the transfer of points. The are rules regulating how one enters the game. Winning the game has rules regulating. The concept of creating Thing, enacting abilities, are all defined by rules. There a rule defining what thing as a game concept is and what it can and cannot do.

This is all true, but unless the definition of these processes means that all other processes are not allowed, I could simple post that I am hereby creating an object called bonus check which gives the possessor 200 points per turn, effective immediately or upon turn start, whichever is sooner, with the possession property that I start with it, the flow property that it can never move, and the legacy property that it is retained by inactive players, plus protection. The fact that a rule sets forth procedures for something such as thing creation or point gaining must, if such things are to be successfully avoided, prohibit all other methods of thing creation or point gaining.


pjkon wrote:If this is the case however, then the thing under discussion (Draco’s Law) would indeed appear to be a violation of rule 302. In fact rule 308 clauses III C vi b and IV D vi d (the ones about lightsaber construction) also conflict with rule 302 in the same way. This would not be a problem, since rules can change other rules, but rule 308 does not state that it overrules or amends rule 302, and because of that annoying rule 211 (seriously, the LOWER ordinal number? Why? This just slows the game down it seems, since the rules can just be amended anyway…) rule 302 actually is considered to be the governing rule in this situation, prohibiting lightsaber construction.

This also poses a problem for things more generally and makes the bookie’s book entirely illegal, since it changes points without using a method set forth by a rule. In fact things would be entirely powerless to have any affects whatsoever outside the ability to negate or alter the effects of narfable clauses.

This could be escaped if it was to be determined, by consensus or judgment I would assume, that rule 302 essentially gives things the ability to modify any game state whatsoever as long as they do not actually conflict with a rule. This seems to be the intent of rule 302 clauses C and E after all. If we are to take this interpretation however, Crunkus’s original objection to Draco’s Law is actually wrong since rule 302 states in clause C that things can have game relevant affects, presumably, under this interpretation, allowing things to have any game relevant affects, including affecting game states such as points, whatsoever so long as they do not contradict rules.


Consensus, judgment, or interpretation is not necessary.

When the effect of a Thing conflicts with a rule, the rule has priority unless the rule specifically states that the entire rule or an aspect of that rule can be overruled potentially by a Thing.


302 already says that. A narfable clause is a rule that say an aspect of that rule can be overruled by a thing. A rule permits itself to be altered in this way, so it is allowed, there is no contradiction with narfability.

Things do not by their nature change rules unless the rules themselves ALLOW for it.

My objection to Draco's law was that it was modifying the procedure for votes for thing creation. This was already defined in a non-narfable rule clause.

Yes, but if rules prohibit those changes to game states which they do not specifically allow then rules like thing creation do contradict earlier rules in that they override those prohibitions.

Thing creation can be initiated by the proposer during the proposal phase. This clause is narfable.


302 does not define how a thing most be created. It does define how votes relevant to thing creation must be formatted. It does define one way of creating a thing. Pagane was creating another means to create thing and vote on them. Since the process of voting on created things is regulated in a non-narfable manner, Pagane needed to sidestep this somehow or be in conflict with the rule. Instead, the vote is on something else defined by that rule that isn't a thing which has the effect of directly creating the thing cited earlier.

Lightsaber production is defined by 308. It is a non-voting based way to create a thing. Since 302 does not attempt to define the only ways things can be created, this doesn't conflict with anything. If there was rule that stated all created things must be voted upon, similar to one of the immutable rules does about rules, that would be one thing. Such a rule about things does not exist. A rule or a Thing can create a thing.

Things do not by their nature change rules unless the rules themselves ALLOW for it.

I answered above why it must be assumed that the rules prohibit changes to game states that they do not specifically allow for the change of. All things which affect points, things, or midi-chlorians in any way are therefore in contradiction with those, presumably non-narfable, implied clauses.

pjkon wrote:Interestingly though, for this to work rule 302 would have to be considered an amendment to ALL mutable rules, since it gives things the power to overrule their implied prohibition on affecting game states, the ways of affecting which are described therein…could this be implied? Can amendment ever be implied? Can it only be implied over the implicit prohibitions herein described?


It does not give things the power to overule rules. The narfable rules individually, themselves, articulate that they can be modified by the action of a Thing. 302 simply defines what narfability is so they can do that just by saying the clause is narfable. It doesn't have to amend any rule this way, because the rules themselves that Things can overrule already explicitly allow for it. A rule doesn't have an implied prohibition. A rule either manages something or it doesn't. If it does, and it's not narfable, a thing cannot affect within that sphere. If it doesn't, then it's fair game...as things, as defined by rule 302 have the capacity to define effects in this space. 302 amends nothing. It creates a game concept that cannot amend a rule. The only way that game concept can "amend" a rule is if the rule we're talking about explicitly allows for it. That's not amendment, that's following the rule in question.

I'm not sure how you've demonstrated 302 amends anything here.

It amends the implied prohibitions which have to exist for game states not to be changes by such ridiculous methods as the ones I proposed to allow me to win the game without being active.

pjkon wrote:Maybe I am just completely confused on these rules. This post is an attempt to clear up those questions surrounding the changing of game states without the explicit conformance to provisions in rules.


302 allows for game state changes not prohibited by or in contradiction with the rules through a specific defined path. I do not understand what this doesn't conform with.

It wouldn't conform with the implied prohibition.

pjkon wrote: I am also interested in joining the game, if of course I can actually get my head around the rules enough to do it. Crunkus’s Star Wars rule has made it impossible for me to stay away. Does anyone have an answer as to how these things are being decided now? It all made sense to me until I started thinking about it, and now I don't know what the accepted practice is.

If something occurs, and someone disagrees judgment can be invoked. See the relevant rules for details. Somethings we just collectively decide and no one invokes judgment. Or if someone has, the collective judgment can influence the judge's ruling. It really just saves time.

Perfectly willing to has out the details of all of this. If there are still outstanding issues, let's try quoting the rules in question. I feel like I haven't answered all of your concerns yet head on.
Thank you for helping me to understand the rules. A pm I got from SD made me think of a possibility, which might resolve all of these issues. Is it the case that the rules in no way prohibit those changes to game state that are not specifically allowed, but the entire structure of the rules has this as an underlying assumption, and so any rule, or other defined in-game factor can be created to change the game state in any way that does not directly contradict another rule, but these things must themselves come into existence through a defined manner? This would resolve all of the issues, since the prohibition on undefined game state changes comes not from rules which must be amended, but from the structure of the rules, which extends to cover those new rules which are created to change the game state in new ways. Is this right?]



I tried to make my comments in a color that was not yet being used for any kind of command content. I think I succeeded, but if I didn't it is fortunately invalid anyway as I am not a player and it does not say anything which would "command" and game state change. I didn't quote any of the rules here, because my question is not about any specific rules but on how the rules are, as a matter of general acceptance, interpreted.
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby super_dipsy » 19 Mar 2014, 17:48

OVER/UNDER: 2 RED AYES

My understanding is the Voting period started yesterday!

Sorry to be so silent, I spotted a small flaw in the Bookies Book thing; if I want to see how the discussion goes before I place the betting context, I cannot post until the Voting phase. If I start discussing before I make the post then the proposer could call time and start the voting phase, and since my FIRST post will not be to set the betting context I get fined 10 points. So I either have to set the betting line up front (which I didn't want to do) or I have to keep quiet until the betting phase starts. Now I am safe.

I find this is an interesting idea as a proposal, but I am not convinced yet that it is a) watertight and b) adds a lot of value. I am going to read through the preceding posts. Also, welcome pjkon, I hope you choose to join the game and vote! As I said in PM to you, my feeling is that as we mentioned when this came up a turn or two ago, to make any sense of the game we have to make some assumptions that are not currently explicit in the rules, and that is that points and any other defined allocations have to be executed only as defined by the rules. (For everyone else's benefit, I communicated with pjkon in PM because I could not do so in thread for the above reason).
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12068
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 931
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby connect4 » 19 Mar 2014, 17:55

Dipsy is correct on timing. By my count, there is ~26 hours and 24 minutes for voting from the time of this post.
User avatar
connect4
 
Posts: 3610
Joined: 15 Nov 2008, 23:56
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1042)
All-game rating: (1012)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby pjkon » 19 Mar 2014, 18:37

NAY
NAY

My reason for voting NAY on these two proposals is as follows: The Draco's Law would actually bring about a 213 ending, assuming that the possessor of Draco's Law actually tried to use it, which he would since I would get Draco's Law by virtue of being the most recent player, since the number of votes to allow for thing creation is unspecified, so the creation of a thing would be equally legal and illegal. Since it would be my turn next turn when this occurred I would win, but this would be an incredibly boring end to the game. I also doubt that you all will miss this long enough for me to win with it, so resistance is futile.

As to the rule, without Draco's law we will never get to the point where we can actually use the rule, due to lack of sufficient things, so there is no point in voting aye.

Yay, I'm active.
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

Postby Ugluk » 19 Mar 2014, 19:19

AYE
AYE
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

PreviousNext

Return to Nomic 5 (finished)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest