Game-direction

From Nomicapolis

Page by sinblox

Nomicopolis is off to a pretty good start right now. It'll be a bit bumpy while we get used to the rules and form a real game but I'm enjoying it already. I created this discussion page so we can discuss the game direction over all. Feel free to add sections and comment on anything.

Contents 1 Players 2 Governor General? 3 Rule 301 4 What's a Quorum? 4.1 310 5 203 6 Turns

Players

There's three of us active right now and two on the census that haven't posted in at least a few days. I'm going to attempt to contact them. It will give the chance of unanimous consent on 309 which requires it. I think we may need to make a proposal that declares players inactive after a certain amount of inactivity.

If anyone knows of any people who may be interested, this game could easily take on a few more players.

That's the reason 301 was introduced so soon in the game, it defines unaminous consent as all votes being positive. For example, if there are 100 players and only 2 votes (quorum achieved per 304) in favor, while no one votes against then it has unaminous consent. Simulacrum 15:56, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

Governor General?

I haven't yet proposed this, I'd just like to get some feedback on it.

Governor General:

1. There shall always be a player designated "Governor General". This player's authority is activated when a player has the won the game or the game is unplayable or when there is unanimous consent for their powers to be activated.
2. The Governor General is elected by a simple majority. The Governor General may be recalled from their position at any time by a simple majority.
3. The Governor General may resign at any time without consequence.
4. When the Governor General's powers are activated their role is to make the game playable again. To do so, they have the authority to repeal rules, amend rules and to reset any attributes such as point counts of all players to an equal amount. The Governor General should make the minimum amount of changes possible to make the game workable again and should make all players equal in status.
5. Any changes the Governor General makes when their powers are activated is completely up to their discrestion, but may be over ridden by unanimous consent (excluding the Governor General in this vote.)
6. Once the Governor General's powers have been activated and they have finished making the game playable and equalizing players, they shall no longer be Governor General and a new election for this title shall be called. This does not preclude this player from becoming Governor General again.

In theory I'm in favor of player differentiation such as unique roles for players. I had been toying with the idea of proposing the position of Supreme Grammarian whose job is to summarily correct grammar and spelling errors in the rules. I have an English degree and am certified to teach English (though I'm teaching science - go figure) and minor errors occasionally glare out at me. This game is the ultimate rules-lawyer game and these errors could potentially be abused. Another idea would be the Metanomic General. This position would rotate through the players - once its power is used, the position would automatically rotate to the next player on the census. The power is this: The Metanomic General would devise a meta-rule which provides some stylish limit or outline which rule change proposals must follow in order to be considered proper. A meta-rule would last a month, at which time the next MG would implement his meta-rule. Examples might be: Rule proposals must be in verse; Rule proposals may not use the letter "e"; Rule proposals must consist of a single sentence; etc.

Anyway, the Governer General is a good idea. I think that, if winning simply resets the game, then there should be some in-game benefit for previous game winners - that way there's some built-in incentive to win. Applejuicefool 22:06, 15 April 2006 (PDT)

I like those suggestions, especially the Supreme Grammarian. My nomic experience is pretty limited but I have seen well-meaning rules exploited by very minor loop holes, so someone who can copy edit would be good in keeping our rules tight. sinblox 19:18, 16 April 2006 (PDT)

I agree that the idea of a Governer General is a good one, I also think that the Supreme Grammarian would definately be worthwhile. I would prefer that the Metanomic General be contained into a sub-game with some sort of award for active participation. This is only because I am not good at that sort of thing but I am willing to try it out. Simulacrum 22:54, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

Rule 301

I want to bring to attention a potential flaw in rule 301. Rule 301 states:

In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute a number greater than 50% of total votes. A supermajority shall constitute at least 66% of total votes. Unaminous consent shall constitute all votes being positive.

In reality, a simple majority is whatever recieves the biggest chunk of the vote, whether or not it's 50% or more.

Now, at this point it doesn't matter, we only have "for" and "against" things we vote for. Consider, however, if in the future we were electing someone to a title such as the Governor General suggestion I made.

Player A recieves 35% of the vote Player B recieves 40% of the vote Player C recieves 25% of the vote

In this case, since our simply majority constitutes 50% of the vote, none of these players are electable. Is it agreed that we need to change the definition of simple majority to just mean the majority of the votes against all else, and create a new definition of "absolute majority" which is 50% or more of the vote?

Actually, in "real life" a simple majority IS 50% or more. The largest chunk of the votes as in your ABC example is called a plurality. We may need to amend this rule to include pluralities. Applejuicefool 21:47, 15 April 2006 (PDT)

Ooops. You're right. How does this sound?

In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute a number greater than 50% of total votes. A supermajority shall constitute at least 66% of total votes. Unaminous consent shall constitute all votes being positive. In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of votes will win. sinblox 19:18, 16 April 2006 (PDT)

I like it. Simulacrum 21:13, 16 April 2006 (PDT)

Sounds good. Applejuicefool 07:33, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

What's a Quorum?

What do ya'll think about this amendment?

310

Proposed by Applejuicefool 07:22, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

Rule 304 is hereby amended to read, in entirety:

1. A quorum is defined as either 50%, or 2, of the players allowed to vote under the current ruleset, whichever is greater.

2. In the case a proposed rule change does not receive a quorum of legal votes (whether for, against, or abstention), it may not be enacted.

I like it, keeps it from having to be constantly updated when we get new players. sinblox 21:59, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

I am wary of setting a high percentage for a quorum. If two more players registers and never edits again, then the game would be locked. Lower the percentage to 33% and I might go for it. Simulacrum 22:34, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

203

I would like to assume that the second sentence of rule 203 is now in effect. Anybody disagree? Simulacrum 22:39, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

Turns

As I understand it we are trying to depreciate the use of the word turn in the ruleset. There are 3 other rules that has turn in the wording. These rules are 203, 211, and 212. Any suggestions on how to address this? Simulacrum 23:17, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

I went ahead and made some proposals, just as a starting point. Please allow debate on them before voting. Thank you, Applejuicefool 09:58, 18 April 2006 (PDT)

The 'Governor General' idea on the Game_direction page could be presented in the form of an amendment to 212, removing the term "turn". On another note, I would like to see the winner by "can't play anymore" changed to the first player to point out the problem. Perhaps we could do something like give players an extra 0.1 vote for every time they win the game...just a thought. Applejuicefool 10:07, 18 April 2006 (PDT)