A Game of Nomic's Journal|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
A Game of Nomic's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Wednesday, March 19th, 2003|
|Saturday, February 15th, 2003|
If, before the week is up, all five of us vote 'nay' then each of us gets ten points for voting against a passing proposal, and we go to a simple majority rule 1.8 turns early.
|Thursday, February 13th, 2003|
Call to Vote
Oh fucking fucking hell. I'd completely forgotten that I had forgotten to post this on Monday god damn it.
So. Rule 301, if approved, would change the wording of Rule 203 from:A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority.
to:A rule change is adopted if and only if the final vote is a simple majority of 'yes' or affirmative among the eligible voters.
(Note the addition of the requirement that the votes be in favor of the new rule, and the change from unanimous to simple majority.)
|Wednesday, February 5th, 2003|
Inital proposal of a rule
Proposal to amend rule 203
This proposal, if unanimously favored, would rescind the requirement that rule changes only be adopted on unanimous approval, and would instead be enacted on a majority approval.
It looks like we have unanimous approval to go with the pre-game amendments and to begin the game.
So let the game begin!
The first turn goes to cyranocyrano
|Sunday, January 19th, 2003|
Well, shall we put it to a vote?
First, a quick summary of the changes (which can be found here):
Rule 105: The requirement that all voters participate in votes on rule-changes is removed. A time limit of one week is set for voters to cast their votes, after which time they are considered to have abstained.
Rule 201: Sets turn-taking order by order that players are listed on the "nomic" community info page.
Rules 202 and 208: Not changed substantively; only parts that don't apply to a computer game are removed.
Rule 210: Removed entirely, since it has no effect in a computer game.
Do you approve of the rule changes proposed by l2g?
Do you have any pre-game rule changes to propose?
No, I think the game is ready to begin.
Yes, I have at least one more rule change to propose.
|Friday, January 17th, 2003|
There is a proverb in Esperanto:
Silento estas konsento
. (Silence is consent.)
Is that the case here? Is everyone withholding comment on my changes because they're okay with them?
Please don't tell me y'all have lost interest already. :-)
|Tuesday, January 14th, 2003|
So I said the other day that I'd be making another post, and then I neglected to do it. Oops.
Well, have a look at the rules page
. I've made some changes, but these are just proposed changes; I've tried to make it clear what I want to take out and what to add.
Most of the changes are the same as last time, but there is an important new one, the rule defining eligible voters (105). I've removed the requirement that eligible voters cast votes on rule changes (my thinking being that no vote is as good as a "no" vote). I've also added a requirement that voters cast votes within a week after the call of the vote, or they forfeit voting on that issue. I think this will head off problems with people holding up the game indefinitely.
If you have any comments, please reply here. Please also feel free to make your own proposals for pre-game changes if you can think of any other onerous loopholes.
|Sunday, January 12th, 2003|
Now to business. Pre-game business. :-)
Mine will be in my next post.
|Friday, January 3rd, 2003|
Shall we get the ball rolling again?
I would not be surprised if many of you have forgotten that this community was still around. :-)
Well, I've got a bug in my ear to get the ball rolling again. To that end, I've set up a couple of pages on my PhpWiki that we can use to keep track of info that's too cumbersome to keep updated on LiveJournal (for instance, the rules!). This is the "top" page.
You'll see that I put up a copy of Peter Suber's initial rule set. As discussed before, I don't want to use this as-is. I do, however, want to stay as close as we can to that rule set, closing enough loopholes to be playable but keeping things open enough to be interesting.
I think the first thing we should do is confirm who all wants to play the game. If there's no objection, I'd like to see everyone who wants to play respond to this post within one week; everyone who does so within that time frame will be considered a player. (I still have this community on open membership, so feel free to invite a friend.)
|Monday, June 10th, 2002|
I am working on a concept for a Nomic designed principally for play through a custom-designed web site. Some notes on this may be found in my journal
|Thursday, June 6th, 2002|
i own it.
if anyone wants to host it for me until i get my own box up we could use it for the game... (well, stuff not on lj)
official player lists
secure anonymous voting at some point?
a friend and former co-worker of mine who happens to be in 2 other nomic games i'm playing has prepared a simplistic set of xml templates and stylesheets we could use as well... Current Mood: curious
Alright. We've got eight players.
Let's debate opening rules. Both ravenblack
have suggested modifications. Read about them here
and comment below. We're gonna get this thing up and running by Monday afternoon.
|Sunday, June 2nd, 2002|
Sorry, but it's the wee hours, and I'm feeling frisky. The starting Ruleset I'd really
like to see would be something relatively sparse, but covering game-halting contingencies, something like...( This.Collapse )
Not wanting to take over or anything, but since I was making vague unsettled noises about the starting ruleset (its rather unpleasant loopholes, and its unnecessary parts), I thought I'd toss out an opening ruleset as I imagine it should be. I've removed much of Suber's that I find unwieldy (what's with the integers?), but left in more than I would by choice (why start with winning and scoring conditions when you can easily add them later?) out of deference to the assumption that you were starting with the ruleset you had for a reason.
I'm not so much suggesting that this should be
the ruleset, as using it as an example of what I would prefer. Suggestions, modifications, stealing parts into the ruleset you have, or outright rejection are all perfectly fine responses.
Without further ado... ( The Rules As I Imagine ThemCollapse )
|Saturday, June 1st, 2002|
Who's here, watching, and playing? We're going to start determining our pre-game agreements this week, and we're going to start playing next Monday.
My proposal, to avoid the languishing between turns from last game:
(1) When input is required from a single player (as opposed to a group, such as a call to vote) if there is a delay of seven days without the input, the requirement for that input is waived. (ie: If the input required is a new rule suggestion, turn moves to the next player who then suggests a new rule.)
(2) When a New Rule Suggestion has been under discussion for seven days without posted input, it shall be considered open to a vote.
(3) When a New Rule Suggestion has been Open to a Vote for fourteen days and still failed to collect the complete complement of votes, all silent votes shall be considered abstentions and counted as negative votes.
(4) Any player using pictures of coyotes as 'userpics' shall receive a bonus 2 points every round because coyotes are so cool.
There. Is that hopelessly naive of me? Have I left any glaring loopholes or obviously neglected facets?
Hi, everyone. I heard about this game last night, and I'd like to play, if nobody minds. Current Mood: rules-nazi-esque
|Friday, May 24th, 2002|
when do we begin
it's been a couple weeks. ETA on game start? agreed ruleset? Current Mood: curious
|Tuesday, May 7th, 2002|
New game; open membership begins
We have declared a revolution and decided to start the game over. :-)
We are now in an open membership period. All who are interested in playing the next game are welcome to join.