Page 1 of 6

Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 21:10
by Pagane
Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

I) In Nomic 5, Things may have the property of being Collectible.

II) Collectible Things must always belong to a defined Collection.
--A) If the Collection that a proposed Thing belongs to does not exist at the time of the Thing’s proposal, then the Collection’s properties must be defined.
----1) The definition of a new Collection must be included as an addendum to the Thing proposal.
----2) A Collection must always have the property of Theme, to which all Things in the Collection must adhere. Whether a Thing adheres to the defined Theme or not is left to the discretion of the players.
----3) A Collection must have the property of Completion defining one or more abilities or benefits that are granted to the owner of the Complete Collection.
--B) The proposed creation of the Collection passes or fails with the creation of the proposed Thing.
--C) A list of Collections and their properties is to be maintained with the list of Things.

III) Collections may qualify as Complete.
--A) A Complete Collection must have a minimum of three Things defined as a part of that Collection.
--B) A Complete Collection must be entirely owned by the same player; that is, every Thing defined as a part of that Collection must be in the possession of the same player.
--C) The possessor of a Complete Collection receives (an) additional ability(ies) or benefit(s), as defined by the Collection’s property of Completion.
----1) The possessor retains all abilities or benefits granted by the individual Things belonging to the Collection.
----2) If an ability or benefit granted by ownership of the Complete Collection conflicts with an ability or benefit granted by a Thing in that Collection, then the terms specified by the Collection take precedence.
--D) If the possessor of the Complete Collection loses possession of one of the Things in the Collection, or a new Thing in the Collection is created and placed in the possession of another player, then the Collection is no longer Complete.






Pagane wrote:Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

I) In Nomic 5, Things may have the property of being Collectible.

II) Collectible Things must always belong to a defined Collection.
--A) If the Collection that a proposed Thing belongs to does not exist at the time of the Thing’s proposal, then the Collection’s properties must be defined.
----1) A Collection must always have the property of Theme, to which all Things in the Collection must adhere. Whether a Thing adheres to the defined Theme or not is left to the common sense of the players.
----2) A Collection must have the property of Completion defining one or more abilities or benefits that are granted to the owner of the Complete Collection.
--B) The proposed creation of the Collection passes or fails with the creation of the proposed Thing.
--C) A list of Collections and their properties is to be maintained with the list of Things.

III) Collections may qualify as Complete.
--A) A Complete Collection must have at least three Things defined as a part of that Collection.
--B) A Complete Collection must be entirely owned by the same player; that is, every Thing defined as a part of that Collection must be in the possession of the same player.
--C) The possessor of a Complete Collection receives (an) additional ability(ies) or benefit(s), as defined by the Collection’s property of Completion.
----1) The possessor retains all abilities or benefits granted by the individual Things belonging to the Collection.
----2) If an ability or benefit granted by ownership of the Complete Collection conflicts with an ability or benefit granted by a Thing in that Collection, then the terms specified by the Collection take precedence.

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 21:15
by Pagane
Draco's Law

Possession: Draco’s Law comes into play initially in the possession of the newest active player to join the game, provided that player joins during Proposal 309. If no new player joins during Proposal 309, then Draco’s Law begins in the possession of Pagane.
Flow: Draco’s Law may be given to another player at any time so long as the Owner posts “I bestow Draconian Rule upon X,” with X being the recipient.
* If the Possessor attempts to use Draco's Law and is denied by vote, then Draco’s Law passes into the possession of the player during whose proposal that occurred.
Legacy: Should the Possessor of Draco’s Law go inactive, then possession passes to the active player with the fewest Things. In the event of a tie, the player who entered the game most recently takes precedence.
Draconian Legislation: During any other player’s turn, the Possessor may create a new Thing.
* The Possessor may not use Draco's Law during his own proposal.
*The Possessor must first post the Thing that he desires to create during the proposal phase of the turn.
*The Possessor must request the ability to use Draco's Law by posting in size 125 font or larger: "I seek Draconian Rule."
* During the voting phase of that same turn, all players who do NOT possess Draco's Law may vote on whether the Possessor may use it during the current turn. Voting is to be done in Green, in size 125 font or greater, and using the following format:
Draco: AYE
Draco: NAY
* Green is defined as #008000
*Should he be given approval to use Draco's Law, the possessor must ONLY use it to create the Thing he had defined prior to the voting phase. He may not add or remove any properties to those already publicly defined in that Thing.
Collectible: Draco’s Law belongs in the Ancient Greece Collection.

Ancient Greece:
Theme: All Things in this Collection must 1) be named after something originating in Ancient Greece, and 2) pertain to the creation of new Rules and Things.
Completion: The Owner of the Complete Collection of Ancient Greece may, when proposing a rule, propose an entirely new Complete Collection in place of his Thing proposal. (That is, he may propose a new Collection and at least three Things belonging to that Collection.) All Things proposed this way pass or fail as a whole.

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 21:19
by Pagane
The Force Push/Pull of Rule 308 will make it harder for anyone to gather and hold onto a Complete Collection, but I like that added challenge.

If anyone would like to see what other Collections and Things I have in mind, please PM me.


Let me know what you think should be tweaked or re-worded. Thanks in advance!

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 22:55
by Crunkus
Initial Notes:

When (in terms of phases) during any other player's turn may the possessor (introduction of the word owner seems unnecessary if they mean the same thing) propose the creation of a Thing? Can the voting be stipulated to be in at least large font? Otherwise I find it very easy to miss votes.

As much as I don't want to point this out, it seems relevant: This Thing seems to contradict 302.K which is not a narfable clause as written. That seems like a big problem as it takes critical functionality from the Thing.

I don't understand how one would "propose an entirely new Complete Collection" or what that specifically means. I wish there was more clarity on how collections become defined, under what conditions, and how that is tracked. You offer an example with Draco's Law...but I can't help wishing it was clearer that that last subsection represented the creation a new collection. I also find the proposal of a creation in place of a Thing specified in the Ancient Greece collection to be undefined and possibly a contradictory concept to how collections are stipulated to be created in 309.

then the Collection’s properties must be defined.
how?

common sense of the players.
Is something left up to the common sense of the players subject to appeal for a judge decision? When is common sense achieved or not achieved?

What happens when you are no longer in possession of all of the items associated with the collection?

If a collection is considered complete....can someone else complete the same collection? A collection seems to define an association between a few Things which means that if they are all gathered an ability is granted. If the association is complete...where does that leave other people working on the same collection...perhaps with other Things with similar properties? Does the complete collection no longer function as a collection did earlier? I get that you're making a distinction for someone possessing all the things in the collection, but this seems the wrong way to do it. It's the player who is becoming distinguished as a result of the collection's definitions and the Thing they possess...not the collection itself from what I can see.

The flow of Draco's Law introduces something akin to command content into the game which doesn't qualify under the previous definition on command content. It's also easy to miss with all the other events that might go on during the round. I'd really like to see the command content for the flow on this Thing brought in line with other such command contents.

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 22:58
by Crunkus
Now that the turn has started SD becomes the House. That should probably be updated. Don't forget SD. Man that flow is awkward from keeping track of things.

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 01:29
by connect4
Sorry about the awkwardness. Made it easier to guarantee the proposer/bookie weren't the same.

I will fix bookie owner in official list when I get to a real computer (and that will happen tonight, as I have to set up my NCAA bracket. Are we going to revisit the NCAA rule from nomic 3? ;)

More real content later when on a computer.

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 16:02
by Pagane
Crunkus wrote:Initial Notes:

When (in terms of phases) during any other player's turn may the possessor (introduction of the word owner seems unnecessary if they mean the same thing) propose the creation of a Thing? Can the voting be stipulated to be in at least large font? Otherwise I find it very easy to miss votes.


Pagane wrote:*All standard rules for Thing proposal apply, with the following exception:


"All standard rules" includes the font size of the vote, separate line, when it is to be proposed and voted on, etc. And you're right about the word 'owner'- it was reflex on my part, and I'll run back through and switch that to 'possessor.'

Crunkus wrote:As much as I don't want to point this out, it seems relevant: This Thing seems to contradict 302.K which is not a narfable clause as written. That seems like a big problem as it takes critical functionality from the Thing.
How does it contradict?

I don't understand how one would "propose an entirely new Complete Collection" or what that specifically means. I wish there was more clarity on how collections become defined, under what conditions, and how that is tracked. You offer an example with Draco's Law...but I can't help wishing it was clearer that that last subsection represented the creation a new collection. I also find the proposal of a creation in place of a Thing specified in the Ancient Greece collection to be undefined and possibly a contradictory concept to how collections are stipulated to be created in 309.
Complete Collections must have at least 3 Things. One must propose 3 or more Things in a newly defined Collection.

then the Collection’s properties must be defined.
how?

I'll add a clause describing this.

common sense of the players.
Is something left up to the common sense of the players subject to appeal for a judge decision? When is common sense achieved or not achieved?
It's left to the players' discretion. I intentionally left whether something complies with a Collection's Theme rather vague.

What happens when you are no longer in possession of all of the items associated with the collection?
The Collection is no longer Complete. I'll add a clause stating as much.

If a collection is considered complete....can someone else complete the same collection? A collection seems to define an association between a few Things which means that if they are all gathered an ability is granted. If the association is complete...where does that leave other people working on the same collection...perhaps with other Things with similar properties? Does the complete collection no longer function as a collection did earlier? I get that you're making a distinction for someone possessing all the things in the collection, but this seems the wrong way to do it. It's the player who is becoming distinguished as a result of the collection's definitions and the Thing they possess...not the collection itself from what I can see.
For a Collection to be Complete, the possessor must possess ALL Things in that Collection, not just 3. 3 is the minimum. So only one player can complete it at a time. If the possessor loses possession of one of the Things, he's lost the ability granted by the Complete Collection.



The flow of Draco's Law introduces something akin to command content into the game which doesn't qualify under the previous definition on command content. It's also easy to miss with all the other events that might go on during the round. I'd really like to see the command content for the flow on this Thing brought in line with other such command contents.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you re-explain?

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 16:40
by Crunkus
So if I argue that another thing could arguably be a part of the collection you have, where does that leave whether it is complete or not?

How do I argue this? When is it settled?

If I create another thing that can be argued to be a part of a "complete" collection, is that collection incomplete again?

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 16:41
by Crunkus
"all standard rules"

Those rules have not been defined, and are therefore not standard.

Re: Proposal 309 - Collector’s Edition

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 16:42
by Crunkus
Pagane wrote:
Crunkus wrote:As much as I don't want to point this out, it seems relevant: This Thing seems to contradict 302.K which is not a narfable clause as written. That seems like a big problem as it takes critical functionality from the Thing.
How does it contradict?

You're stating that a procedure outlined in the rule works a different way. A thing can't do that to a clause that isn't narfable.