Print

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

[Person]

I'm not quite sure. Its especially a problem since your invalid proposal was a variant proposal, and wouldn't have counted towards your total normally. In the case of invalid variant proposals, I guess I'll just say they don't count as your proposal for that turn. That seems logically sound. However, improperly numbered proposals are still a real proposal, regardless of their number making them invalid. I guess that's my ruling. So both of your proposals are invalid for different reasons, and you can't make any more proposals, because they'll also be invalid. I guess you could have spent $1000 for a proposal if you wanted, but you don't have enough money for that anymore.

For future reference, the next valid proposal number is 32 now. This is a damn shame too, because i really liked proposals 33 and 34.

Luckily for everyone involved in this trainwreck, voting on an invalid proposal has no penalty.

And now I know for certain how quickly games of Nomic can get out of hand. A single violation of the rules can rapidly spiral into many more.

[FallacyofUrist]

Because players can only propose one proposal per turn unless they spend a 1000$(which I no longer have) to do otherwise.
...
could someone please define income in a proposal?
Could someone also please make editing of posts containing proposals illegal in a proposal? Because I don't want someone to do edit terrorism.

Edit(... there's no proposal or support/oppose in this post, so there shouldn't be any risk): I just realized "Lord Uln "Proposes Uselessness" the eighteenth" could just collapse the game if he felt like it by editing that post with the proposal for Crazyabe(the capitalized) to be called something.

[Person]

Proposals technically cease to exist after they're passed/failed, so edit terrorism probably wouldn't work, the way I see it. The presence of past proposals in the first post is basically just for record keeping's sake. 

Anyway, I'll define income for you, since that's pretty important.

Proposal 32: Income is henceforth defined as "an amount of money earned at the start of a turn".

[FallacyofUrist]

I support Proposal 32.

What about the numbering system, though? If a proposal near the start of the game is removed, all the numbering since then will be invalid...

[Person]

Oh right. One could easily do what ElephantParade did (but on purpose this time) and edit their proposal, making all others after them invalid. Hoo boy. Right, if someone could propose a rule similar to the one below, I'd upvote it to high heaven.

If any proposal is deemed invalid, the judge is to correct the numbers of any proposals that follow it, so as to avoid those proposals being deemed invalid as a result. In addition, if a post containing a proposal is edited after the turn in which it is passed/not passed, this explicitly has no effect on that proposal's validity. This also applies to edited proposals that contain votes. Those votes remain valid.

The second part is just in case, because honestly it fits in one rule anyway.

Technically speaking, proposal number 1 (made by Iiteum) exists in a post that has already been edited long before this conversation. Given my previous argument on edit terrorism (that of it not being a thing), I'm just going to repeat myself and state that this has no effect on the validity of any proposal that follows it (which is all of them.) This is on account of the fact that we'd be straight back to square one as a result. The second part of the above rule would just make that explicit, and not only ruling from a judge.

[FallacyofUrist]

Oh right. One could easily do what ElephantParade did (but on purpose this time) and edit their proposal, making all others after them invalid. Hoo boy.

FallacyofUrist has gained a level in Rules Lawyer!
Hah.

I call it edit terrorism.
Unlike real terrorism, anyone can do it with extreme effectiveness. I could knock out over half the game' proposals from existence. Same for the other earlier joining players. The later a player joins, the less damage they can do with an edit terrorism attack...
but "Lord Uln "Proposes Uselessness" the eighteenth", could basically nuke us with edit terrorism. Not as badly as some of the players, but badly enough...

I'm starting to believe we should give the judge a vetoable reality warp power just to deal with rules exploits like edit terrorism or worse.

[Person]

As the current judge, I'd remain neutral on that vote simply out of principle, but appreciate it greatly if such a thing passes. You know, I think I subconsciously anticipated this being a problem on the first or second turn, but I was very iffy about making a proposal that bans edits entirely. That's why I was so cautious when I make proposal 10. Hindsight is 20/20.

[FallacyofUrist]

...
well, it could have been much worse- imagine if Proposal 10 wasn't passed.
People could edit already passed proposals that they proposed at will. People could make a proposal previous passed or not passed flip between the possibilities...

Proposal 10 at least prevents most edit time manipulation shenanigans.

[crazyabe]

Proposal 33: On any given turn A player can use 10000$ to "Bribe" the judge and either; make one rule Not effect them, Gain ten "Fake" Holy Imperial Elector Vote All of which become Void two rounds after they are gained, Causing a Recount on the election, or Gain three "Rigged" points of support for their Proposals that round. This action can't be used more then once per round by each player, can't Disable any Rule needed for this action to function, And Can't permanently Change the Status of any player other then the Holy Emperor, Removing him from power.

I Buy 6 pieces of land.

[TopHat]

I will Spend my $1000 to make an additional proposal
Proposal 34:
All Proposals which have Passed or Failed are to be designated as Inactive Proposals and all other Proposals as Active Proposals. Where an Active Proposal is rendered invalid, the Judge is required to re-number all valid Active Proposals following it such that these Proposals are not deemed invalid as a result.
valid Inactive Proposals cannot be rendered invalid by any means; any rule which could make a Proposal invalid does not apply to valid Inactive Proposals, this rule takes precedence over any such rule.

Proposal 35:
Amend Rule 27 to include the following sentences to the end of the rule:
"Variants count as Proposals in all respects except where stated otherwise in the Rules. Any Variant of an invalid Proposal is also deemed invalid. You cannot make a Variant of a Variant.

(that should take care of the edit terrorism risk. If anyone has any minor additions to Rule 27 feel free to make a Variant of Proposal 35 including them)

Support Proposal 22,
Oppose Proposal 23

[Person]

Fyi TopHat Proposal 22 and 23 can't really be voted on anymore. You probably wanted to vote for 32 and 33 but I can't just assume that.

I oppose proposal 33. I support proposals 34 and 35.

[TopHat]

Yup, Support Proposal 32 & Oppose Proposal 33. Thanks for noticing that.

[Elephant Parade]

Buy a plot of land. It'll take ten turns to pay for itself—too long, in my opinion—but I don't have anything else to spend money on, really.

[Person]

Actually plots of land take 5 turns to pay for themselves. You could also spend money on the lottery too. Anyway I changed how some stuff is laid out in the first post.

[MonkeyMarkMario]

Buy 5 plots of land. and spend $50 on lottery.

Proposal 36: The Player with the role of Judge cannot vote but can propose proposals. This is to insure their neutrality.

Support: Proposals 32, 33, 34, 35