Strict Standards: Declaration of action_plugin_importoldchangelog::register() should be compatible with DokuWiki_Action_Plugin::register($controller) in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/lib/plugins/importoldchangelog/action.php on line 8

Strict Standards: Declaration of action_plugin_blog::register() should be compatible with DokuWiki_Action_Plugin::register($controller) in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/lib/plugins/blog/action.php on line 154

Strict Standards: Declaration of action_plugin_include::register() should be compatible with DokuWiki_Action_Plugin::register($controller) in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/lib/plugins/include/action.php on line 140

Strict Standards: Declaration of action_plugin_importoldindex::register() should be compatible with DokuWiki_Action_Plugin::register($controller) in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/lib/plugins/importoldindex/action.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Declaration of action_plugin_discussion::register() should be compatible with DokuWiki_Action_Plugin::register($controller) in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/lib/plugins/discussion/action.php on line 955

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/inc/parserutils.php on line 205

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/inc/parserutils.php on line 208

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/inc/parserutils.php on line 389

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/inc/parserutils.php on line 530

Strict Standards: Declaration of cache_instructions::retrieveCache() should be compatible with cache::retrieveCache($clean = true) in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/inc/cache.php on line 291

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/inc/auth.php on line 154

Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/doku.php on line 71
nex thoughts:nomic:archive
 

Discussion Archive

This page contains an archive of all the discussion posts for the nomic game:

Discussions

Discussions for new rules take place below before being passed (or perhaps on an instant messaging system). If using this area, remember to end your comment with a signature.


The proposition for rule 301 is so that a further amendment might be made later to impose a time limit on the discussion and voting procedure. That way a single player cannot indefinitely hold up the game by taking forever to vote.

Nexami Engeo 2007/07/30 20:56


The Amendment to rule 301 seems fairly sensible though risks undermining the game by the possible exclusion of players altogether. Having said that without change there can be no progress, so I would be happy with this amendment.

John 2007/07/31 09:28


I acknowledge John's point as valid, but would suggest that it would be unlikely that such a further amendment that excluded players altogether would be passed by the playing members of the game. Also, the full exclusion of players depends on other rules as well, such as rule 201 which points out that players must take their turn and cannot skip or pass it.

Nexami Engeo 2007/07/31 10:58


I also agree this could lead to “issues” but hey why not frankly, and it also ensures we all check the game, but it should be made clear how long we have to make a vote etc, but that can be the domain of another rule maker. I vote Yes!

Token Engineer 2007/08/03 12:27


Just a little announcement that Jaime has opted to leave the game as he is a little too busy with his new job. All the best to you Jaime.

Nexami Engeo 2007/08/05 17:49


It seems sensible… those of us busy holding you up can hardly complain! But, just so everyone knows where I am, I won't be playing on Sundays - thats an outside-the-game rule… how do they 'fit', or don't they?! Will that just complicate matters too much?

Anyways, I guess that summarises to: I'm voting yes, but can't vote yes to any timeline constraints that would mean I can't disappear for a pre-specified day.

dk_in_c 2007/08/05 10:00


Well, everyone has had their say. Unless you wish to further comment, then we are just waiting on final votes. I vote yes, which means we just need John to actually say “I vote …” whatever.

Nexami Engeo 2007/08/07 16:37


Ha Ha I guess I just proved why the amendment may be necessary :) I vote yes. :)

John 2007/08/13 23:53


Rule 301 is passed. Nex receives 10 points [(301 - 291) * (4/4) = 10]. The next turn belongs to Token Engineer as his last name proceeds Nex's alphabetically before all other players.

Nexami Engeo 2007/08/14 10:17


The Amendment to rule 301 (numbered 302 above) is so a maximum time limit of 1 week will pass before all votes are considered and those who have not voted in that time frame will be excluded from any decision made outside of discussion on that proposed rule / rule change.

Token Engineer 2007/08/17 10:59


I have done some editing of numbers in Scott Heron's last edit to reflect that I incorrectly labelled the passed rule, “301” (a transmuted rule should take the number of the proposal as stated in rule 108). This is entirely my fault and I apologise for it. I hope Scott will forgive me for editing his posts.

Nexami Engeo 2007/08/17 14:01


Although I agree with the rule that Token Engineer proposes, I would suggest that it should be made more explicit concerning time zones. As it stands, a member could claim that a week had not yet passed from the published date of the rule as seen from a different time zone. Also, the time for rule proposals is not currently shown. Thus, I would suggest changing the wording to:

“Every player is an eligible voter. All eligible voters must use their vote within one week of a rule being proposed or their vote will be forfeit. “One week” shall be quantified as 168 hours. The date and time of a rule being proposed shall be listed along with the proposal in Greenwich Mean Time or British Summer Time depending on the appropriate time of year as quantified by the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If a rule is passed, the time of proposal shall not be listed with the rule.”

I'm also a bit unsure of how rule 207 will fit in. It implies that a player cannot have their vote taken from them. So for the passing of this rule to be usable, I think rule 207 will have to later be changed as well.

Nexami Engeo 2007/08/17 14:29


I agree with the re-wording Nex proposed above to make the terms of the rule more exact. If you note rule 211 a rule can declare it gives way to another rule or overrides a rule. in this case i have also updated the proposed rule to override rule 207 where the time limit has elapsed.

Token Engineer 2007/08/18 19:22


I agree with both the proposal and the re-wording however a date of proposal for any proposed rules could still be useful for any persons unable to participart for a period of time more than a week. Whilst the discussion section partially provides this, the discussion section will quickly become unrulely and unmanageble if a full record is maintained here. Of proposal or at least a date of agreement for a given rule should be contained if this ammend is to move forward.

John 2007/08/22 16:22


John, for what purpose do you propose maintaining the date of proposal/agreement? I'm afraid I do not quite see the point in keeping the dates beyond the point of agreement.

Nexami Engeo 2007/08/22 19:44


I can see a benefit of maintaining a date for a proposal. (Tho' I amen't sure if I've understood John right, I took it to mean a pre-arranged date on which a proposal is decided on.) After a decision has been taken, I agree the date serves no further purpose, but e.g. planning holidays two weeks in advance could be taken account of by submitting a request that no votes be decided within the specific “black out” period.

Having been on holiday for a whole 5 days solid with no possible internet access, and somewhat limited internet access in the days prior to that, I'd appreciate being able to specify beforehand when I will be offline and for how long.

I can understand how annoying it is not knowing when progress will be made, etc. But if someone states beforehand when they'll be unavailable, and so what date gives them time to update it, at least this removes the element of uncertainty.

Other than that, the week seems reasonable for the majority of cases when no prior request has been made for being offline.

On the topic of all parties being allowed to vote, I'm not sure I agree with the previous comments. Despite the allowance for one rule to override another, I do think for consistency we can't deliberately make conflicting rules just as a “shortcut” to avoid duely voting/discussing each rule as it arises. I suppose the difficulty arises when the rules are mutually coupled whereby changing one automatically affects the other. We could consider adding a section saying we forfeit the right to our vote if there has been no prior warning of a reason of inability to vote within the agreed timeframe?

The one sortof sticky-area in my logic is that for practical reasons, a request for future voting deadlines is of neccessity outwith the timeframe of those deadlines (unless you happen to go on holiday just after a vote, or something) which does start making it more awkward to keep track of valid deadline dates.

Ps: my nomic “voice” seems different from you all ;-) You seem to manage the whole sounding-official thing… I think I just sound silly! Sorry, :-P Must try harder… but without havering so much…

dk_in_c 2007/08/22 22:48


I do not believe that John was meaning that, dk_in_c. I believe he is proposing that we maintain the dates of proposal in the final rule listing so that people who have missed the passing of a rule entirely can see what has changed in their absence. Although I understand this reasoning, I do not think it is worthwhile in the long run and might be confusing for when amendments are made to existing rules as to give the impression that they are brand new instead of amendments.

I do agree with dk_in_c that if a player knows they cannot vote, then they should inform the other players. However, I see that as more of a courtesy as the current rule in proposition (rule 302) will take care of any administration issues of someone being unable to play for a period of time.

Nexami Engeo 2007/08/23 10:45


From what 'dk_in_c' expressed concern about regarding “deliberately making conflicting rules”, yes i also agree that this should as far as possible be avoided in favour of changing an established rule over generating a new one whose sole point is to override that of another. However, i also feel that where a rule is proposed (as 302 has been) that generates procedural changes over and above a rule conflict and where that conflict only occurs when certain conditions are met (the original rule can still apply outwith said conditions) then that proposed rule is acceptable in furthering the game play.

Token Engineer 2007/08/23 16:54


Ok guys, i call for a vote please. I obviously vote Yes ;p

Token Engineer 2007/08/28 19:46


I vote yes.

Nexami Engeo 2007/08/29 13:26


I also vote yes, man I'm steping down easy :-P

John 2007/08/29 18:42


Uh, looks like I'll be voting yes, too. For practical reasons, really, rather than having fully understood all the theoretical implications of the responses to my concerns :-)

dk_in_c 2007/08/22 22:48


Rule 302 is passed. Scott receives 11 points [(302 - 291) * (4/4) = 11]. The next turn belongs to John Nicholson as his last name proceeds Scott's alphabetically before all other players.

Token Engineer 2007/08/31 11:48


I deleted rule 301 as 302 is the amended version (as specified in rule 108). I also changed the current player to John.

Nexami Engeo 2007/08/31 15:49


The ammendment of rule 203, is inline with the alterations that have already come into place I believe it would be prudent, as this may prove to encourage further debate by introducing further means of scoring.

John Nicholson 2007/10/02 10:51


I am in full support of John's suggestion as should speed things up a bit (if three out of four have voted we don't need to wait on the fourth if the current votes are unanimous).

Nexami Engeo 2007/10/05 12:56


I am in support of John's rule but i think it could be a waste of a turn, as this change will occur in one turn anyway. Also, rule 302 means thats John F's suggestion of “if three out of four have voted we don't need to wait on the fourth if the current votes are unanimous” is not possible, unless a dead line passes. It would also change the potential final score, 4 positive votes would produce a higher score than 3 positive votes and a negative vote.

Token Engineer 2007/10/05 14:29


I believe Token Engineer is incorrect on some points. Firstly, although the change proposed by John will eventually come into effect anyway, as stated in rule 203, this will not happen till the end of the second cycle of turns which will not occur until after the next five turns. I also disagree that rule 302 would negate the relevant point in my last comment. As stated, it would only come into effect if the final vote would not change the outcome. Waiting till the end of the week purely because of rule 302 seems pedantic. I feel that waiting is neither necessary nor implied by rule 302, especially as the induction of that rule was to prevent players waiting on others. However, this may be mute as Token Engineer's final point is valid and I would agree that, on the strength of his point, players should vote if possible. The current set of rules already allow for players to prevent higher scoring by simply not voting, even though they want a rule to pass, simply because they see that the vote will go that way already. The point I made in my last comment would give further ammunition for such a mechanism so I suggest that John revises his rule to counteract this effect.

Nexami Engeo 2007/10/06 01:19


I believe you have both missed the point slightly according to 205 it is possible for each person who stands against a rule to score if this is passed the further implication of this being that while 4 positive is better for the person proposing the rule, a single vote against provide an incentive to oppose proposals by providing a score to those who do, whilst still making it easier to get a given rule passed. While this amendment is in-line with the alterations already in force, it also addresses the moment if all 4 players vote. As we continue it is going to become much harder to gain unanimous support which will score against the proposing player, which at this stage is counter productive to game flow. Further a non vote does not count as a negative and therefore does not benefit the non voting player, as according to 302 once the deadline is up the player losses the right to vote.

John 2007/10/06 12:43


That wasn't really the point we were making John. We were saying that the current rule set up allows for tactical voting to take place and we think that may be unfair. To say that not voting is not beneficial is not really true. Although a user could gain more points by voting against a proposal that was already going to win (even though they wanted it to pass), this would incur a certain wrath from the other players. However, pretending to forget to vote would be beneficial to the player as it would not allow the rule proposer to gain as many points, but this would not be as 'unpopular' as tactical voting. Both cases are still tactical voting in reality, it is just that one is more subterfuge than the other.

(P.S. I'm not sure what you're using to edit the page John but it seems to buggering up some of the formatting. The scores section in particular)

Nexami Engeo 2007/10/06 14:26


Firstly my appologies for altering the layout I was editing using ie on my mobile… bad idea I know see.

But back to the point at hand I now see where you are coming from with regard to tactical “non-voting”. This I do this how ever is out side of the scope of the proposed ammendment. Whilst I see the importance of tring to ensure fair above the table play… I sugesst that is ammendment is defined to have precedence over rule 202 and states that if a majority is passed when scoring if during the vote a player has forfeited a valid vote according to rule 302 that player is still counted within the number of votes for thus meaning that if a player refuses to vote they still hand a scoring advantage to the proposing player. I am noting the change here first to gain feed back and better wording.

I have realised that I have been screwed over by a rule that we have stated…. We did not qualify at a vote not a proposal for Rule 302 so as such all are votes are forfeit and my turn is over.

John 2007/10/10 11:44


Well, I see that, sadly, John got little from his turn there. Still, interesting points have come out which will hopefully still have an impact on the game. So, don't worry John, your turn wasn't a waste. Still, the issue of no one voting is also another interesting point that might be addressed.

While it is not actually required, I might suggest that three courtesy measures be taken people:

  1. I would suggest the if it is a player's turn to propose a rule, then they should do so within a week of the last rule being voted on.
  2. I would suggest that those proposing a rule should email all the other players to let them know that a rule proposal has been made.
  3. I would suggest that it be the responsibility of the player proposing a rule to make the appropriate changes to the page when their turn is over and perhaps remind the next player that it is now their turn.

Just some thoughts for they are worth. Perhaps these might become actual rules at some point.

Rule 303 is rejected (no one having voted). John receives 0 points [(303 - 291) * (0/4) = 0]. The next turn belongs to Rachel Boyd as her last name proceeds John's alphabetically before all other players.

Nexami Engeo 2007/10/10 14:06


Hey Guys, as John was the one proposing the rule and is clearly in favour of it is he not automatically voting for it? if so i would have thought that the rule passes and john gets what ever the points work out to be with 3 non votes (unless he needs to specifically say, i vote yes himself). Also sorry John it was not deliberate on the non vote.

Token Engineer 2007/10/10 14:57


Although I'm sure John would have voted for his own proposition, I don't believe he actually did and that is just the way the cookie crumbles. The current rules say that everyone needs to vote. Nothing is implied. It could equally well be that after discussion, John might not have supported his own proposal and we're not forcing him to vote for it in that scenario, so we can't assume his vote in this one.

Nexami Engeo 2007/10/10 14:58


My aplologises this took so long to comment on I am concerned that we are futher limiting ourselves before refining what is currently set.even if we say there is a week inwhich the proposal should be made and voting take place under the current arrangements an ammendment coudl be made a the final hour and therefore whilst other maybe informed of a vote they may not have time to cast the vote. I would suggest that whilst this limiteation of when a rule should be passed could improve the play it should go further and refine the details of previous rules defining how long should be given for a vote. We are currently still in the unfortunate scoring postion at the moment where if a player does not vote the player proposing the rule wills till lose out, though I am currently making this point simply so that it is on record again.

Edit: please disregard my point about scoring above I have jsut read throught the chapter on scoring and the fraction of favorable vote would remain the same if a player “forgot” to vote hence the point at this stage is somewhat moot.

John 2007/10/24 11:34


I support Nex's rule and will take this opportunity to cast my vote currently as Yes unless i change my mind before the time runs out, this is however unlikely, so officially I vote Yes.

Token Engineer 2007/10/24 21:34


I have to say that I do see John's point, but I am inclined to think that it should be addressed in a different rule proposition. Perhaps the changing of rules after they are published on the website should not be allowed. In any case, I shall take this opportunity to officially vote yes on the current rule proposition being passed.

Nexami Engeo 2007/10/24 22:36


I understand the stance taken and can concur with it as such I also vote yes which means that this rule is passed.

John 2007/10/26 09:40


Rule 304 is passed. Nexami Engeo receives 13 points [(304 - 291) * (3/3) = 13]. The next turn belongs to Token Engineer as his last name proceeds Nexami's alphabetically before all other players.

Nexami Engeo 2007/10/28 14:39


Just a warning but scot would appear to be about to forfeit his turn under current rules…

John 2007/11/01 11:53


Interestingly enough, the rule doesn't actually say what will happen if you don't abide by it. Perhaps I should have though of that… lol

Well, hopefully Scott can propose and amendment that says he would lose his turn if he didn't come up with a rule within the week. :)

Nexami Engeo 2007/11/01 12:50


I have amended John's last rule to reflect the appropriate penalty for not proposing a new rule with acurate date stamp with in the given time frame.

Token Engineer 2007/11/01 16:31


What a super rule. I don't really see anything wrong with it (heck, it's basically my rule with my proposed change anyway) so I'm going to immediately vote yes.

Nexami Engeo 2007/11/01 16:55


I vote yes too.

TokenEngineer 2007/11/03 18:20


I was thinking about being annoying and voting no to this rule, just for the sake of it but… I have to say it patches up a hole very well. So I vote yes too!!! On a side point of presentation would anyone be apposed the creation of a discusion archive as this page is becoming a a little unweildy

John 2007/11/05 10:15


Aye, sounds like a good idea. I suppose that will fall to me as I'm the only one with the website permissions to set it up. I'll make sure everyone can edit the archive though so that after your turn has ended you can move stuff in there. Shall we say that only discussion of the current rule proposal shall stay on this page?

Nexami Engeo 2007/11/05 11:17


Rule 305 is passed. Token Engineer receives 14 points [(305 - 291) * (3/3) = 14]. The next turn belongs to John as his last name proceeds Scott's alphabetically before all other players.

Token Engineer 2007/11/08 17:05


Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /freeola/users/0/0/sr0193000/htdocs/dokuwiki/doku.php on line 79