Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Nomic» Forums » Play By Forum

Subject: Turn 1 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cross-post from Almafeta:

Almafeta wrote:
Wasn't expecting to go first - was expecting to go in join order! So...

Proposed Rule Addition #1:

If a vote passes, the player gets a number of bonus points equal to the number of successful votes they have called for.

(So do I add a poll for this, and if so, now or after discussion?)
Last edited on 2009-12-27 12:44:48 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
If a vote passes, the player gets a number of bonus points equal to the number of successful votes they have called for.


The idea of "calling for a vote" is a bit unclear to me. I'm assuming you are talking about rule-changing, and not overruling a Judge's Judgement (which requires a vote as well).

Also, this rule favors slightly those going earlier in the turn order. I will vote for it if you adjust for that in any way. One way would be to simply give later players a few points...something like "Players after the first five will be given 10 points each if this rule-change passes."

At any rate, and with all due respect, I propose to you the minor rewording:

Quote:
If a rule-change passes, the player who proposed it gets a number of bonus points equal to the number of successful rule-changes they have proposed. Players after the first five will be given 10 points each if this rule-change passes.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Lanctot
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I also think that the wording needs some clarification.

I am interpreting the rule differently than you Kieron; what I interpret the rule to mean is that if a proposed rule passes then the bonus points earned as a result of it passing is equal to the number of votes "for" the rule cast when voting for the proposed rule only. My interpretation attributes nothing to the past number of votes won.

Is that what you meant, Almafeta? If so, I propose the following rewording:

"If a vote passes, the player gets a number of bonus points equal to the number of votes that were cast in favor of the rule change."

If not, can you clarify by following up on Kieron's post?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I agree -- it definitely needs clarification, or it will have to be a NO vote.

sharky6000 wrote:
Is that what you meant, Almafeta? If so, I propose the following rewording:

"If a vote passes, the player gets a number of bonus points equal to the number of votes that were cast in favor of the rule change."


If this is what was intended, I would also argue that it is unnecessary. Rule 202 already provides points for getting a rule passed, and the points are based on the number of YES votes.

Personally, I think 202 is oddly worded (seems to be providing points to the "first player" instead of the active player, among other things), and it would be a good idea to change it.

The current proposal would therefore be acceptable as an amendment of Rule 202, instead of a completely new rule. Perhaps replace everything after the (2) in Rule 202 with "gaining points equal to the number of YES votes." (The distinction in 202 for mail/computer games is unnecessary also.)

For reference:

Amended Rule 202 wrote:
202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) gaining points equal to the number of YES votes throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score.
In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.
)



kieron wrote:
Proposed Rule Addition #1:


If I'm not mistaken, this should be identified as Proposed Rule 301. (See 108). That also means that if it passes as an amendment, then the new rule will be 301, and the original 202 will be gone. This may have some unintended side-effects in terms of rules taking precedence over each other.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Lanctot
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You're right.. I just read the "mail and computer games" part of 202. It's weird.. the original rule (for non-computer and non-mail base games) states that the current player rolls a die to get points regardless of whether the proposed rule passes and has nothing to do with the number of YES votes -- why would this be different in computer and mail games?

Anyway, in that case, I agree that it'd be unnecessary given 202. So.. I guess maybe Kieron's interpretation is more accurate.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shanya Almafeta
United States
Kansas City
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Now that I can see the wording problems; I will work on it and perhaps propose it in better form later.

I'm calling on a vote as the wording stands: "If a vote passes, the player gets a number of bonus points equal to the number of successful votes they have called for."

I'm not expecting it to pass.

Poll
Proposal #1
Yes
No
      9 answers
Poll created by Almafeta
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I vote "no", even though I liked your basic idea!

Since it has to be unanimous, we could probably move on?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shanya Almafeta
United States
Kansas City
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kieron wrote:
Well, I vote "no", even though I liked your basic idea!

Since it has to be unanimous, we could probably move on?


12 players; 7 no votes means that no matter who else votes, it's decided.

So #301 fails: no points awarded.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Almafeta wrote:
kieron wrote:
Well, I vote "no", even though I liked your basic idea!

Since it has to be unanimous, we could probably move on?


12 players; 7 no votes means that no matter who else votes, it's decided.

So #301 fails: no points awarded.


Well, it failed because of keiron's vote. I dont' think the poll is reliable, since any BGG user who happens by could vote.

However, your points are not dependent on the proposal passing. Assuming you vote yes yourself, that gives you 1/12 of 10 points, which rounds up to 1 point.

The real problem here is Rule 105, which says every eligible voter MUST participate in every vote. I hope I'm not being too technical here, but I don't really think we can move on yet. In fact, I think will invoke a judge on this issue (in a separate post, to come shortly).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Lanctot
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree. We need everyone to vote so that we know how many points Almafeta earns... besides, 105 requires it. Maybe the poll isn't the way to go.. we can just count yes/no votes on the forum.

I wonder if we can put something up on the wiki that counts our votes (only if we're logged in) and keeps track of who voted yes and no and the time of the vote.

Another thing the rules don't really say much about: are votes always public? So far it looks like we've been treating our votes as public (other voters get to see what our votes are). I always though they were private. This might have a big impact on the game.. I can easily vote "no" once I know that majority is reached to earn 10 points through 204. Which in turn means that it's better to see what other voters say before voting (voting order matters).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As of right now, 8 votes cast. All are "No".

((301 - 291) * 0) = 0 points awarded by rule 202.
-10 points awarded by rule 206.

Total = -10 points.

Anyone disagree? Almafeta would be the judge if you do, since the next player is already on the move ;-).

Are you guys trying to give her more points?? ;-)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Horsepool
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sharky6000 wrote:
I agree. We need everyone to vote so that we know how many points Almafeta earns... besides, 105 requires it. Maybe the poll isn't the way to go.. we can just count yes/no votes on the forum.

I wonder if we can put something up on the wiki that counts our votes (only if we're logged in) and keeps track of who voted yes and no and the time of the vote.

Another thing the rules don't really say much about: are votes always public? So far it looks like we've been treating our votes as public (other voters get to see what our votes are). I always though they were private. This might have a big impact on the game.. I can easily vote "no" once I know that majority is reached to earn 10 points through 204. Which in turn means that it's better to see what other voters say before voting (voting order matters).


All these problems are going to be solved by the addition of more rules I suspect the first dozen turns will just be rules to help the game flow more smoothly, then some odd stuff, then some off stuff clean up, followed by some really wacky shit. As it is, I vote no.

I also apologize for my lateness, I've been sick and I completely forgot to subscribe to this thread. Oopsies.blush
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MrThou wrote:
[snip]

All these problems are going to be solved by the addition of more rules I suspect the first dozen turns will just be rules to help the game flow more smoothly, then some odd stuff, then some off stuff clean up, followed by some really wacky shit. As it is, I vote no.

I also apologize for my lateness, I've been sick and I completely forgot to subscribe to this thread. Oopsies.blush


That's pretty much the way I see it going! ;-)

Sorry you were sick...my next task is to help encourage subscriptions or some other method for calling for votes, etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Hmm, I was just poking around in the rules to see if I could find anything else breakable.

If you count the implied NO votes based on the recent judgment, the Turn One vote was unanimous, wasn't it?

Rule 203....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://m-w.com/dictionary/unanimous
unanimous
Function: adjective
1 : being of one mind : agreeing
2 : formed with or indicating unanimity : having the agreement and consent of all
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Lanctot
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes.. but the whole point is that we shouldn't be implying votes But anyway, this was a learning experience, which might have inspired 302. In later turns, waiting for everyone's vote before moving on might be critical.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/unanimous
unanimous
Function: adjective
1 : being of one mind : agreeing
2 : formed with or indicating unanimity : having the agreement and consent of all


Yep, that's what it means. Since we were all "of one mind" and "agreed" that the proposal should fail, we ended making a unanimous vote. Under Rule 203, a unanimous vote causes the proposal to be adopted.

So, alma should not have -10 points, and we should now have a Rule 301.

sharky6000 wrote:
Yes.. but the whole point is that we shouldn't be implying votes But anyway, this was a learning experience, which might have inspired 302. In later turns, waiting for everyone's vote before moving on might be critical.


I kind of agree, but it's too late now. Also, I'm not sure how we will be able to write a "time limit" rule without some type of implied actions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rubric wrote:
Malachi wrote:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/unanimous
unanimous
Function: adjective
1 : being of one mind : agreeing
2 : formed with or indicating unanimity : having the agreement and consent of all


Yep, that's what it means. Since we were all "of one mind" and "agreed" that the proposal should fail, we ended making a unanimous vote. Under Rule 203, a unanimous vote causes the proposal to be adopted.

So, alma should not have -10 points, and we should now have a Rule 301.

[snip]


Very funny!

If, of course, you are not trying to be funny, but are serious, *and you want Alma's new rule*, then you should invoke judgment and we can get a ruling (which I am sure will make clear that you are wrong, but has the potential to go in your favor).

But you voted *against* her rule-change, so that can't be the case.

Therefore, I deduce (infer?) that you are being silly.

Silly boy. shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Heh, it is pretty silly. I was mainly just posting a weird flaw in the rules that I noticed. Not really joking or serious.

However, it raises the question of do we follow the wording of the rule, or do we assume the words mean something other than what they say?

And just to take this to the extreme -- what is to prevent the next player (Malachi or someone else) from:
(1) posting a proposal that says "I win",
(2) immediately voting no,
(3) closing the voting based on the recent judgment, and
(4) declaring that a unanimous vote of implied NO's has caused the proposal to be adopted?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1) violates a rule, so I would demand debate time, but whatever
2) ok to do
3) violates a rule
4) violates a rule

I would invoke judgement on 3, and 4. Remember that "New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges.", and anyway the Judge would rule against 4 because it's silly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rubric wrote:

Heh, it is pretty silly. I was mainly just posting a weird flaw in the rules that I noticed. Not really joking or serious.

However, it raises the question of do we follow the wording of the rule, or do we assume the words mean something other than what they say?

It's only a flaw if you try to warp the definition of "unanimous" and then try to warp the definition of "agree". I don't really feel like having a draw out argument, but it might come down to the difference between agreeing with each other, which is what you're talking about, and agreeing with/to the proposed rule, which none of us did.

Quote:
And just to take this to the extreme -- what is to prevent the next player (Malachi or someone else) from:
(1) posting a proposal that says "I win",
(2) immediately voting no,
(3) closing the voting based on the recent judgment, and
(4) declaring that a unanimous vote of implied NO's has caused the proposal to be adopted?

Assuming this is the case, then it would mean this game is over and we could start a new one with a slightly tweaked initial rules set that better spells out to you what unanimous means.

To put it another way, if you were reading Robert's Rules of Order and it said a vote had to be unanimous to pass, would you really try to take the position that everyone voting against something represents unanimity?

Sure, Nomic is a game that encourages rules lawyering, but the flip side of that is the rules are written in a language that is not always unambiguous and perfect. If that's the way you want to try to manipulate the game, then feel free to see what happens when you call for judgment on it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
It's only a flaw if you try to warp the definition of "unanimous" and then try to warp the definition of "agree".


No, that's the whole point. You don't need to come remotely close to "warping" those definitions to reach the conclusion I outlined. Words mean what they mean. It's plain as day.

In order to reach your conclusion, you have to assume that unanimous means not unanimously against.

Quote:
I don't really feel like having a draw out argument,


Neither do I. We can let it drop as far as I'm concerned. I was just chomping at the bit for this game to get moving, so I was rummaging around in the rules looking for problems.

Quote:
but it might come down to the difference between agreeing with each other, which is what you're talking about, and agreeing with/to the proposed rule, which none of us did.


Unanimous means "agree with each other". What you're agreeing about has no bearing on the definition.

Quote:
Assuming this is the case, then it would mean this game is over and we could start a new one with a slightly tweaked initial rules set that better spells out to you what unanimous means.


Well, if we are all trying to win, then we don't want that to happen.

Quote:
To put it another way, if you were reading Robert's Rules of Order and it said a vote had to be unanimous to pass, would you really try to take the position that everyone voting against something represents unanimity?


That is exactly what it represents. I haven't read Robert's Rules, but I will assume that it says a motion doesn't pass unless votes are unanimously in favor, not just unanimous.

Quote:
Sure, Nomic is a game that encourages rules lawyering, but the flip side of that is the rules are written in a language that is not always unambiguous and perfect. If that's the way you want to try to manipulate the game, then feel free to see what happens when you call for judgment on it.


It's a game played entirely with words, and therefore semantics matter. The exact meaning of words matters. Nuance matters.

Anyway, I won't push this any further. It's a bad rule, but a judge should be able to handle any problems that arise out of it (unless we continue to let judges rule on their own proposals).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rubric wrote:
It's a game played entirely with words, and therefore semantics matter. The exact meaning of words matters. Nuance matters.

I never said those weren't important, but I would also argue that intent is also important.

However, I just think the logical extension of your interpretation of rule 203 means that when we get to the point that simple majorities win, all rules that don't have an exact 50/50 vote will pass because the rule doesn't indicate that the simple majority be in agreement with the proposal.

In both cases the rule implies that the votes be a unanimous "yes" and a majority "yes". Since you have so much trouble with that implication, why not propose a modification that fixes it to your liking?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.