Nomic 5 Proposal 304 - Stalin's Stamp (closed)

[super_dipsy]

didn't have much time last night. OK, responses and changes.

Does this implementation of Narfability fit the model of Rule 302? I had thought that affecting Items changed the Rule itself, rather than superceded the language. But this is one interpretation.

I read the key phrase as
[/quote]Narfable is defined as a rule or a clause of a rule that can be overruled by the effect of a Thing.[/quote]
In my case, the Thing has the effect (when used) of overruling 204 and thereby changing the 'adoption' conditions.

How does giving one player the ability to approve or disprove legislation help the game? Wouldn't it make it easier for lousy proposals to get passed and great ones to get shot down? How does a minority rule improve the game?
Part of this is addressed by changing the score adjustment for using the stamp; it is now a 5 point deduction, which means Stalin gets a penalty for using the stamp. How is the game helped? If you are working with other member(s) to try to execute a plan, you might want to try to control the Stamp to ensure your aims are achieved. Yes, this may result in legislation that the majority do not want, but in that case other parties need to do something about it. Remember laws can be repealed as well as changed , And of course Stalin my simply threaten to use the Stamp unless someone else buys it...

How does the proposer whose proposal is targeted by the Stamp get his proposal scored, whether it is passed or failed?
Scored as normal. Since it is a Thing, Stalin's stamp cannot affect a rule that is not narfable and the scoring rule is not marked currently as narfable.

If the current proposer owns the Stamp, can he use it on his own proposal? If so, you're giving someone in that position the ability to insta-win.
Good point. Changed to say Stalin cannot use the Stamp on his own proposal.

C4, I think preventing self-use fixes your concern? As for the 75%, that is not changing other than when the stamp is used. But as for the 75% encouraging better legislation, I am not totally sure I agree that the aim of the game is good legislation. I think the aim of the game is to win. As a veteran, you remember that it is often not the good legislation that gets the win, it is the bad legislation that often provides a route to a victory in the end . I don't think we have had a game where someone has one simply by providing the best legislation

[Ugluk]

I think on the whole this is an obvious game-ender waiting to happen. I for one am not taking the bait.

[super_dipsy]

I think on the whole this is an obvious game-ender waiting to happen. I for one am not taking the bait.

Definitely not what was intended, but I confess I did not think this through very well. I had completely missed the fact that it could be used to approve a rule change that could end up finishing the game straight off. Even though I have made it not usable on your own proposal, I can see that it could be used in a team to achieve the desired result.

There does not seem to be a way to withdraw the Thing Creation proposal, so I can't withdraw it.

Also, I don;t want to hold the game up while we start the discussion process all over again. So this is what I am going to do:
1. I am going to leave my proposal as making 204 narfable, but ALSO remove the drop to 50% approval after two rounds (but see point 3). Since this is narfable though, another thing (or anyone else) can put it back if they want
2. I am going to alter the definition of Stalin's Stamp so that its only property is that it can override the 75% approval required segment of 204 and make it 50%. The effect of this would be that if it is used, the proposal would approve with a simple majority and the user will lose 5 points. I will make it available to the last proposer, passing each turn.
3. I have no idea if people will be interested in this idea, but there is no real time to discuss. This has held us up long enough . So I am going to change the wording in the Thing definition and then call the start of voting. If people don't want it, that's fine. I just quite like the idea that someone controls when the 50% mark comes in rather than it coning in permanently. As C4 said, the 75% encourages better legislation, but the 50% combined with the +10 for voting against a passing proposal can be fun sometimes.

[super_dipsy]

OK. Changes made. As a summary

-The Stamp makes the current proposal adoptable on a simple majority, but costs the user 5 points
- At the start of each turn, the stamp passes to the active player who made the most recent proposal prior to the new one
- The stamp can be sold to another player, including the current proposer

Also, 204 is changed so that the simple majority requirement does not immediately come in permanently after 2 rounds. Instead it is controlled by the stamp.

[super_dipsy]

Voting is now open.

AYE

I am not allowed to vote on the Thing creation, but remember your votes should be in Blue.

[Ugluk]

SHA
NAY
NAY

[Crunkus_old]

Does this implementation of Narfability fit the model of Rule 302? I had thought that affecting Items changed the Rule itself, rather than superceded the language. But this is one interpretation.

Narfability allows for the effect of an item to overrule the effect a rule.

1. 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.
   
2. As a short hand, if it is desired for a portion of a rule to be subject to overruling by the effect of a Thing, this will be defined as narfing.
   Narfable is defined as a rule or a clause of a rule that can be overruled by the effect of a Thing.
3. A rule clause that includes the phrase: "This clause can be narfed by the properties of a Thing." is considered narfable.
4. A rule clause that specifically includes phrasing that would allow a Thing-based effect to potentially overrule it is considered narfable.
   
   • example phrasing: This rule is narfable by the effect of the Cowbell of Power or Ugluk's Steely Gaze.

Thus if you have to Things/Rules that are ever in conflict, by default the rule receives priorty over the thing in reference to that effect. If a rule or clause of a rule is narfable, this is no longer the case. The thing/thing priority would go with the elder Thing.

What precisely are you basing this "interpretation" on Ugluk? Being narfable has never been articulated as a replacement for a rule. Narfable simply renders a clause or rule's effect to subject to being overruled by the effect of a Thing. The rule is never changed, it just is applied differently in the cirumstance where the Thing would conflict with the Thing. The next situation may not feature that Thing being used or that Thing existing at all. The rules continues until modified or repealed in the normal fashion.

I had also thought about making the stamp pass on as soon as it is used, and i now remember that because i changed it, that was why i was going to make using it COST the user 5 points, not gain 5. So if you use it twice, you lose 10 pts, etc.. So i think i will also go back to the -5 points if you use the stamp.

The language on the current version seems to prevent was talking about, so I assume I'm just coming late to the party. As written, it can be used by anyone, and it doesn't move as a default except to the preceding player.

I see voting has started.

I'll vote
AYE
Sometimes the wheels of democracy need a bit of grease.
AYE
Though as a minor point, I'd quibble that the stating of the specific rule you would overrule is a bad practice in the long run. You could offer it as an example of how things might.

[Crunkus_old]

Does this implementation of Narfability fit the model of Rule 302? I had thought that affecting Items changed the Rule itself, rather than superceded the language. But this is one interpretation.

Narfability allows for the effect of an item to overrule the effect a rule.

1. 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.
   
2. As a short hand, if it is desired for a portion of a rule to be subject to overruling by the effect of a Thing, this will be defined as narfing.
   Narfable is defined as a rule or a clause of a rule that can be overruled by the effect of a Thing.
3. A rule clause that includes the phrase: "This clause can be narfed by the properties of a Thing." is considered narfable.
4. A rule clause that specifically includes phrasing that would allow a Thing-based effect to potentially overrule it is considered narfable.
   
   • example phrasing: This rule is narfable by the effect of the Cowbell of Power or Ugluk's Steely Gaze.

Thus if you have to Things/Rules that are ever in conflict, by default the rule receives priorty over the thing in reference to that effect. If a rule or clause of a rule is narfable, this is no longer the case. The thing/thing priority would go with the elder Thing.

What precisely are you basing this "interpretation" on Ugluk? Being narfable has never been articulated as a replacement for a rule. Narfable simply renders a clause or rule's effect to subject to being overruled by the effect of a Thing. The rule is never changed, it just is applied differently in the cirumstance where the Thing would conflict with the Thing. The next situation may not feature that Thing being used or that Thing existing at all. The rules continues until modified or repealed in the normal fashion.

I had also thought about making the stamp pass on as soon as it is used, and i now remember that because i changed it, that was why i was going to make using it COST the user 5 points, not gain 5. So if you use it twice, you lose 10 pts, etc.. So i think i will also go back to the -5 points if you use the stamp.

The language on the current version seems to prevent was talking about, so I assume I'm just coming late to the party. As written, it can be used by anyone, and it doesn't move as a default except to the preceding player.

I see voting has started.

I'll vote
AYE
Sometimes the wheels of democracy need a bit of grease.
AYE
Though as a minor point, I'd quibble that the stating of the specific rule you would overrule is a bad practice in the long run. You could offer it as an example of how things might.

[Crunkus_old]

Also SD, could we get an informal title for this proposal and a reference to the stamp in the OP title? Helps me keep track of things. Sometimes I need help.

[super_dipsy]

Will do