Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[quinnr]

a1s: rather than just saying "there's something wrong here" explain your thinking, or some of it; perhaps you could convince me to pay 1 money to edit my post and change my vote ...

Until someone finds some technicality that makes it unacceptable, it is fine if you post again and change your vote, no need to edit!

[Person]

For 321 penalties for crimes should exist, however it should be noted that general breaking of the rules is not a crime, just actions that should be ignored (re: attempts to propose things in violation of rule 201)

actually, as per  209, "A violation of any rule is defined as a Crime", so it seems you have to actually violate a rule (accidentaly?) to come under the effect of this.

The way I look at it, simply attempting an action that would violate rules, if such a thing was possible (which it isn't, since those actions are normally ignored and don't happen at all), is what would be defined as a crime.

As a side note, I had a few reasons in mind when I added the +1 the my proposal, but I seem to have forgotten most of them. I now notice that you could technically spend 0 to activate that rule and cost someone 1 money. Heh. Remember though, the player who proposes a rule is not the only one who can propose an amendment to that rule. Amendments can also happen before things pass at all.

[a1s]

For 321 penalties for crimes should exist, however it should be noted that general breaking of the rules is not a crime, just actions that should be ignored (re: attempts to propose things in violation of rule 201)

actually, as per  209, "A violation of any rule is defined as a Crime", so it seems you have to actually violate a rule (accidentaly?) to come under the effect of this.

Remember though, the player who proposes a rule is not the only one who can propose an amendment to that rule. Amendments can also happen before things pass at all.

we can "suggest". As in: to the player who wrote it, so they would change it to a more reasonable form.( I'm assuming that you are referring to 111 here.)

[Person]

I might be reading 111 wrong, but if I'm not, yes I refer to 111. By the way, I just found something amusing. The way I look at it, you can technically spend negative amounts of money. Someone should probably make a rule that says you can only spend positive amounts of money, before that gets exploited too badly. In other words, with the money transfer rule, which has actually been passed by the way, someone could currently spend -5 money(increasing their total by 5) to cost someone -5, and then spend 1 on shipping, meaning the rule is even more broken than the one I proposed. Heheheh. I don't plan to exploit this though. Yet.

[andy_t_roo]

i agree with a1s, and change my vote to Against 325
(i was unable to easly re-word it so the concerns were correctly addressed)

furthermore proposal 323 might be better worded as

Proposal: Any player may "give" money to another player in the following format: give [AMOUNT] to [PLAYER]. The word "give" must be bolded. The effects of this action are as follows:
(1) the giving player loses [AMOUNT] money,
(2) [PLAYER] gains [AMOUNT] money.
Only positive amounts of money may be transferred, given, spent, or manipulated in any way except to add money to a negative bank balance. No player may initiate any action which ends with the initiating player having negative money (specifically including enacting rule 211).
Additionally, for convenience, the amount of money a player has will be reflected in the opening post of the thread. This is purely for informational purposes, and having the incorrect amount of money listed in the OP does not allow you to give more money than you have.

--
this modification resolves what happens when someone

[RAM]

we should be providing incentives to gain money, not lose it - i don't believe there should be an advantage to being broke, given that there is passive income of 3 per 2 days.

Giving someone who is going broke a chance to stage a comeback, or dig themselves in deeper, can only make things more entertaining... This is only proposals, they couldn't do anything without support...

[quinnr]

All players lose 2 money!
Person, Sensei, a1s, andy_t_roo, henrib, all gain 5 money for participating in the government!

it is a "light" "crime" to propose rules aimed at benefiting specific people,  such as proposal 312 (even if they are not explicitly named, but are still self-evident, like in proposal 303). Unless otherwise specified by "light crime" legislation, doing so carries a penalty of only 1 money. Unless otherwise specified by criminal legislation, guiltiness of this crime is decided by the judge defined by rule 117.

327.

Nothing reaches a full quorum, so nobody gets the Money from that rule for voting (207). Duplicate money transfer rule is interesting, not sure why, but here goes the new rules from 24 hour expiration:

All crimes carry a Standard Penalty of three (3) Money. Crimes which specify their own penalty override the standard penalty.

Proposed by Sensei. Passes.

322 fails.

Proposal: Any player may "give" money to another player in the following format: give [AMOUNT] to [PLAYER]. The word "give" must be bolded. The effects of this action are as follows:
(1) the giving player loses [AMOUNT] money,
(2) [PLAYER] gains [AMOUNT] money.
It is a "crime" to give more money than you have, and the money thus given must immediately be returned, in addition to any other penalties that "crimes" incur.
Additionally, for convenience, the amount of money a player has will be reflected in the opening post of the thread. This is purely for informational purposes, and having the incorrect amount of money listed in the OP does not allow you to give more money than you have.

Proposed by a1s. Passes

New players can not vote on rules proposed before they are "In".

Proposed by andy_t_roo. Passes.

325 fails after expiration. So does 326.

[quinnr]

Proposal: Let this rule be known as the "Buffer Overflow Rule". If the mutable rules pass rule number 230, new mutable rules numbers will be set back at 201, overwriting previous rules held there.


This is an interesting way to keep things from getting _too too_ complicated, and will also encourage cornerstone rules to be transmuted into immutable rules.

Added as 328. For 328.
And Against 327. If we go to the trouble to make a rule calling something a crime, let's just add the fee in that rule calling it a crime. It will look silly if this rule is ever removed because the game will be littered with "BLAH BLAH is a CRIME" rules that mean nothing.

[timferius]

Against 327 - just doesn't seem to be worth bringning in to legislature. Much rather have the punishment be set by crime, instead of having to define what category it falls under.

For 328 - I like this because it gives us a time limit to bicker over the wording of laws before we either have to scrap them, or make them permenant.

[Scelly9]

Against 327
For 328

[Sensei]

For 328
Against 327, we should probably just -ake light cri-es one rule, and a-end the standard penalty rule to include -inor and -ajor cri-es.

Proposal: It is cri-e to include the letter M in any post which contains a proposal.

[timferius]

Proposal I propose rules 201, 202, and 203 be made in to Immutable Rules.


This is primairly to avoid they're being removed, which would probably end the game and affect many other rules, since all three are integral to the game now.

[andy_t_roo]

For timferius's, and Sensei's most recent proposals
For 328
Against 327, but would consider voting for a better worded version of it.

[quinnr]

Proposal I propose rules 201, 202, and 203 be made in to Immutable Rules.


This is primairly to avoid they're being removed, which would probably end the game and affect many other rules, since all three are integral to the game now.

I think technically you could only make one immutable at once, due to the way rule 103 is worded only in the singular. I'll let it slide if nobody has any objections, in the interest of fun, however. But note that, according to rule 109, the vote must be unanimous to change rules mutability. I am just pointing this out mostly so I don't forget, really, but it's a nice thing to know while voting if you missed it.

[andy_t_roo]

unanimous as in 0 votes against, or as in every eligible person must vote for it, given that proposals time-out ...