Print

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

[a1s]

Against: 320. I see no need to add a charge to money transfers.

My thoughts exactly. I nominate the proposal for discussion, and amendment.
(just to be sure, that includes 320 Against)

315 against
What is this, Soviet Australia?
316 for
317  against
we already have a mechanism that rewards player activity of that exact kind.
318 for
319 for

[Sensei]

Since there is currently no rule AGAINST money transfers, they are considered to be possible already.

There's also no rule against me being able to assassinate players removing them from the game.

I assassinate all other players, removing them from the game.

See? Doesn't work like that.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

I would consider rule 116 to allow money transfers. Very technically, since there isn't a rule covering it simply saying that other players lose the game... actually what you did would be acceptable. Honestly when I read through I was surprised there wasn't an immutable which said "No rule or action shall directly remove players from the game." 'Tis the Nomic way that anything within the letter of the law goes. However, as much as common sense is anathema to Nomic, we had ought to apply common sense and deny that particular scenario. I believe Quinnr reserved to right to change rules as necessary to ensure the game ran smoothly, he could throw that in as an immutable right now and I wouldn't complain.

[RAM]

against315
against316
against317
against318
against319
against320

Proposal: Amend rule 201 to additionally include rule amendment 201b: Any player with less than or equal to five money may propose one additional rule-change per two days by posting their proposal in this thread.

[Sensei]

against315
against316
against317
against318
against319
against320

Psh, well look who's running for a republican senate seat.

[RAM]

Those are mostly proposals to deregulate the economy...

[a1s]

I assassinate all other players, removing them from the game.

Sure, we're all "out of the game" now. We're still eligible to vote, as per 105, so good luck with your empty victory.

[a1s]

(it's been 49 hours since my last proposal, I checked)
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.

[a1s]

Before anyone votes, I'd like to amend that to:

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.
It is forbidden to lose or gain money in any way not explicitly allowed by the rules

Also, tripleposts are a horrible byproduct of not allowing people to edit their posts.

[andy_t_roo]

I'm in.

I believe i have to vote on all proposals placed before i joined (rule 206, listing those in proposal area + rule 105)?
For 315, the vote probably won't matter, but thats just a counterbalance to the gaining of money in 317
For 316, needed for the base definitions for a crime system.


For 317, but i feel the income is a bit high -- we have passive income of +5 for participating  and -2 for existing, per 2 days. (net +3)
For 318, For 319, money sinks are good, otherwise we just gain.
- incentives to keep the game moving are good, although i may propose something related to that soon.


For 320. Having rules in place concerning money transfer could be useful.


erm, i guess thats a clean sweep to counteract the "Republican" vote above ...


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


This is to prevent ballot stuffing, confusion about who is eligible for specific votes and to encourage observing players to join, as they can't retrospectively decide to join and vote after an interesting rule is proposed.

[a1s]

Having rules in place concerning money transfer could be useful.

There is (well be) a different, better system for money transfer, and I'd like to urge you to vote for that instead (not that voting for 320 will in any way prevent your from doing that).

[Scelly9]

I assassinate all other players, removing them from the game.

Sure, we're all "out of the game" now. We're still eligible to vote, as per 105, so good luck with your empty victory.

I assassinate all players, removing them as players and banning them from signing up again.

[Sensei]

In a flagrant violation of the ban, because it's not a rule, I rejoin.

I would say we should write out a rule that defines what happens when players "lost", "die" or are "kicked out". Probably something along the lines of:

"Players who have left the game or who are forced to leave may not rejoin for at least a week, and join as a new player with the starting amount of Money, votes, and accreditation or position."

On the other hand, we had really ought to get that "No rule or action shall directly force a player to leave the game, strip them of a position, or damage their resources" thing going first.

[Scelly9]

In a flagrant violation of the ban, because it's not a rule, I rejoin.

I would say we should write out a rule that defines what happens when players "lost", "die" or are "kicked out". Probably something along the lines of:

"Players who have left the game or who are forced to leave may not rejoin for at least a week, and join as a new player with the starting amount of Money, votes, and accreditation or position."

On the other hand, we had really ought to get that "No rule or action shall directly force a player to leave the game, strip them of a position, or damage their resources" thing going first.

105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes. Any user may become a player by posting "I'm in."
You did it wrong.

Anyway, my point is we need to do some overhauling. Starting with the "if its not disallowed, it's allowed" rule.

[a1s]

Anyway, my point is we need to do some overhauling. Starting with the "if its not disallowed, it's allowed" rule.

propose it for transmutation, and you'll have my vote.

[Scelly9]

I can't only 1 per 48 hours, remember?