Funky Voting Thread

Surely under rule 19, you should allow CF003 and CF-005 since differentiating between jaded/bitter and mean-spirited/sarcastic is being pedantic?

Re CF-004, Pfft.

You can't vote twice.

And ok, i'll change my reasoning to being I simply don't like the proposals, and I don't like rule 13.

CF, let me explain something to you.
I dont know how your political system works but here laws can be voted in general and in particular.

So if someone proposes an anti-frugeling law, it may be that all parties agree that yes, indeed, frugeling is a horrible thing and must be kept under control, but disagree on the exact measures to take against it. So it's approved in general and then the finer points are discussed and voted upon.

Thus, I feel it's perfectly fine to have vague proposals which explicitly leave something undefined, and advantageous to split proposals into several independent points.
I'm not a nomic expert so I'm asking your opinion on this.

Whoops, I'll change that now

Re CF-004, something specfi about it you dont like that I can amend?

AM-001 Get 50 points, win the game.
No

ST-803 I propose that on alternate Fridays, all PONGs should wear black vinyl corsets and thongs, fishnets and heels.
Yes


ST-804 This proposal intentionally left blank..
This vote intentionally left blank

Well PONG no longer means anything, as the game is now titled "Funky Voting Thread." I didn't like the acronyms to begin with because they were too confusing. Labelling someone as someone else's Alt doesn't sit well with me because it is now assuming that they only vote according to who has posted and don't take the content of the proposal into consideration. And sex slaves are pointless in here since we can't do anything with them, there is no direct transfer of powers from the Funky Voting Thread to Second Life.

Eggy,

Hmm, I cant claim to be an expert, but I dont think thats how its supposed to work at the start. Admittedly, I've only played two other games, and one of them was naff. In those, players were very pedantic about the wording of their proposals, Think Danny Degroots and Nogard Codesmith posts.

A lot of play in matured games is around finding holes in the rules and exploiting them (Or claiming that others have not followed the rules). One of Danny's proposals mentioned the preemptive use of the word "never." Thats to stop a later rule redefining "never" to mean "always".

I think we may be the first nomic to have a rule saying dont be pedantic.

I dont see anything wrong with putting a large section proposal out in different proposals, I must admit I just assumed you meant it as one proposal because you used 008 for all. I'll change it later into separate proposals. But wording and timing is important, what if all but 008.4 is rejected?

Some Nomics have very specific rules about what a proposal must "look like", to stop just this problem. You might have seen some proposals with "AND let the Adminstrator do ...", some Nomics specify that a proposal can consist of the proposal proper and an adminstrative exercise.

Anyone other PONG or PIF like to comment?

I need to do chores now, I'll make the changes later.

The thread may have changed names, but we are still Players Of the Nomic Game, and its still a rule in the game. Plus stupid names for things is traditional in Nomic.
I'll agree that it doesnt take into account the content, however I expected most of the declarations to be totaly false.

Re Sex Slaves, I agree there is no transfer of powers from SL. However, that doesnt mean that we cannot define powers within the game.


Thoughts on this proposal:
My objective with the proposal was to setup a couple of empty game objects with an SL flavour that could then be expanded on. For instance, collecting ALTs could end up being whats needed to win the game. The PONG-Sex slave relationship could end up being how you declare an alliance with someone.

Very often in Nomic the game definition of a thing can be very different from real, or second, life. If it isnt defined in a rule in the game, your just assuming what it is.

Take a look at this game. CHeck out the rules and the proposals.

B Nonic

Errr... Sorry I've rambled. Hmm, Eggy, this relates to your question. How I would expect a rules section to be built up would be for one person to create a rule giving a framework, and others then to put their proposals up to add to it.

So I put up something saying we have ALTs, someone else says that if an ALT votes FOR a proposal of his "maiN" the main has to give the ALT two points.

Sorry, Im rambling again. I must go eat

I propose we restart the forum nomic game from scratch. Somebody page Catfart, this was the most fun I ever had in the forums.