Monday, July 25, 2016

Proposal: Quorum Failures

Add a new subrule to the rule “Offenses”.  Call it “Apathy” and give it the following text:

Whenever a proposal fails, if it had three or fewer valid votes on it and was neither self-killed nor vetoed, each Scribe has their Offenses incremented by one unless they authored or cast a vote on that proposal, or unidled or joined the game while it was pending.

We’ve had several 1-2 failures and are close to having a 1-0 failure.  Being unable to scrap together half a quorum of votes is unacceptable.

Note that the “cast a vote” language protects unresolved DEFs.

Story Post: [Map Guess] Continuing down the line

Clucky
Ruleset Theft [?]

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Proposal: Brevity is the soul of wit

Reaches quorum and passes 5-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 25 Jul 2016 11:54:04 UTC

Repeal the rule “Sesquipedalophilia (Orange)”.

It’s funny, but dumb.

Proof: When Notes Fail

Times out and passes 4-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 25 Jul 2016 11:43:11 UTC

Change the text of the Proposal “Proxy Puppetry”, if it is pending, to read the following:

Add a subrule to the rule “Derelicts”.  Call it “Remote Control” and give it the following text:

A Scribe in the same location as a Derelict may spend 10 Energy to Relay it.  On doing so, they cause the Proxy to make any one comment on a blog post of their choice.

A Scribe that has just left a Derelict’s location may spend 30 Energy to Tow it.  This causes the Derelict to Rest if it can, then attempt to move to their location.

Also, change the text “as if” in the rule Sesquipedalophilia (Orange) to “as though”.

Not really necessary but what else can we do?

Friday, July 22, 2016

Proposal: Proxy Puppetry

Times out and passes, 2-0-1. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 25 Jul 2016 11:49:40 UTC

Add a subrule to the rule “Derelicts”.  Call it “Remote Control” and give it the following text:

A Scribe in the same location as a Derelict may spend 10 Energy to Relay it.  On doing so, they cause the Proxy to make any one comment on a blog post of their choice.

A Scribe that has just left a Derelict’s location may spend 30 Energy to Tow it.  This causes the Derelict to Rest if it can, then attempt to move to their location.

Also, change the text “as if” in the rule Sesquipedalophilia (Orange) to “as though”.

Proposal: Popularity Contested

Times out and passes 4-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 25 Jul 2016 11:46:33 UTC

Remove the first sentence of the Provisional Rule called “Leaders’ Debates.” Replace all references to “Popularity” in that rule with “Looks.” Replace all references to “Debaters” in that rule with “Demagogues.”

That last part is just to keep the rule from becoming Brief.

The Deliberations Will Continue Until Morale Improves

Through a haze of substances, your humble Editor has gleaned that another—perhaps purer—fragment of the True Ruleset was hidden in rule 2.7 of Ruleset 76, “Leaders’ Debates.”

Friday, July 22, 2016

Proposal: Stronger rule modification safeguards

Times out and passes 4-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 24 Jul 2016 17:20:07 UTC

In the rule “Provisional Rules”, change the text

* Alter other Rules, or permit a person to alter those rules.

to

* Create, alter or remove any Rules, or permit a person to create, alter or remove any rules.

Among other applications, this also keeps a rule from removing its own provisional mark.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Proposal: Galactic Elections

Reaches quorum and passes 5-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 22 Jul 2016 19:43:37 UTC

In the Rule “HHGTTG”, replace the phrase “If the President of the Galaxy isn’t mostly harmless, remove their Official Position as President of the Galaxy.” with “If the President of the Galaxy isn’t Harmless, any Scribe may remove their Official Position as the President of the Galaxy.”

Reword the rule “Elections (red)” to the following:

As a weekly communal action, a Scribe may open an election by making a sticky post to the blog, in the Story Post category, with the title “Election”. As a comment to such a post, any Scribe may vote for a Harmless Scribe to become the President of the Galaxy. No Scribe may cast a vote for themselves, if no other Scribe has already voted for them. Any Scribe may change their vote any number of times until voting closes, only their latest such vote shall count.

After 48 hours, the current election shall become closed to voting, and the votes may be tallied at any time thereafter by any admin. The Scribe receiving the most votes, shall become The President of the Galaxy, deposing any previous Presidents of the Galaxy.

After an election becomes closed to voting, any admin may render the post no longer a sticky post.

At the enactment of this Proposal, Brendan becomes the Editor, if they were not already, and any other Scribes cease to be the Editor.

Unless we really want Emperor hopping to be a thing in this Dynasty, I suggest we take this new mechanic for electing things, and couple it with that thing you can be elected to, that lacks an actual election mechanic.

Removing the line about Points weighing votes because it was clunky and, as written, probably didn’t do what it meant to do, if anything at all. It can always be added back in separately, by Proposal or Deliberation.

About Ruleset Theft

I’m sure I’m not the first to notice, but the link we’re to steal rules from seems a bit broken. As, in fact, does the whole /~nomicwiki section of nomic.net. Now, unless that’s just a bug, or the wiki is up elsewhere, we need to pick a new list.

We could use the Wayback Machine; this seems to be the most recent cache of the page that isn’t broken. There is also a page of dead nomics, here.

I haven’t bothered to check how many of the links in either actually work, though.

I know protosals are considered bad form, but I would rather point this out faster than try to decide which of these methods I’d prefer and make a Proposal based on that, especially in case someone has a third method. By all means, if someone wants to propose a fix, either with one of those links or something else, don’t imagine I’ve put a moratorium on it.

Proposal: Caucus

Reaches quorum and passes 6-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 22 Jul 2016 00:12:51 UTC

In the rule “Elections (red)”, remove the phrase “The current Leader is Kevan.”, if it exists.

In the rule “Elections (red)”, remove the phrase “The current Editor is Kevan.”, if it exists.

In the rule “Elections (red)”, remove the phrase “This rule shall be updated to reflect the new Leader.”, if it exists.

In the rule “Elections (red)”, remove the phrase “This rule shall be updated to reflect the new Editor.”, if it exists.

Append to the end of the rule “Elections (red)” the phrase “After an election becomes closed to voting, any admin may render the post no longer a sticky post.”

In the rule “Elections (red)”, replace the phrase “making a sticky post to the blog with the title “Election”.” with “making a sticky post to the blog, in the Story Post category, with the title “Election”.”

If Brendan is not the Editor, Brendan becomes the Editor, and any Scribe other than Brendan ceases to be the Editor.

Call for Judgment: Recount

Passes 5-0. Does nothing as illegal action was already reverted—Clucky

Adminned at 21 Jul 2016 04:44:55 UTC

Revert the enactment of the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard”.

The proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” was enacted while the votes for it were 4-2.

To be clear, the following scribes posted comments on the proposal:

Larrytheturtle: Did not vote.

Bucky: Voted imperial, changed to against.

Clucky: Voted imperial, changed to against, changed to for.

GenericPerson: Voted imperial.

RaichuKFM: Voted against.

Brendan: Voted for. As the Editor, imperial votes are treated as for.

Adding in my vote as the author of the proposal, that leaves us at 4 for and 2 against. As Quorum is 5 and the proposal is less than 48 hours old, unless I missed something, the proposal should not have been enacted.

Call for Judgment: A Leader We Can Trust

Times out and enacts 3-2. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 22 Jul 2016 22:46:54 UTC

Replace all instances of “Leader” in the rule “Ruleset Theft” and all of its subrules (if they exist) with “Editor”

The rule “Apocrypha” clearly states: Upon selecting such a rule, they may copy its text and add it as a new Dynastic Rule to the current Ruleset, replacing the terms for Emperor-analog and Player-analog with “Editor” and “Scribe” as appropriate.

Looking at ruleset https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset_69, “Leader” was the Emperor-analog for that dynasty.

As such, Brendan should’ve replaced Leader with Editor when they added Ruleset Theft to the rules

Call for Judgment: 7-10 Split

Times out and passes 3-2. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 22 Jul 2016 19:48:01 UTC

If the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” failed, this does nothing.

If the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” was enacted, remove the following text from the rule “[OFF] Official Positions”:

If a Scribe ever has 2 or more Official Positions at the same time, that Scribe Scores.

Then, rename the rule “[OFF] Official Positions” to “Official Positions”.

If the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” is pending, modify the the text of the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” by removing everything in it before this text:

Rename the rule “Vanity”

Let’s actually make “Split Concerns” work.

Archive Revisited

Rule 2.2 of Dynasty 69 (including all subrules except 2.2.1), “Ruleset Theft,” is part of the True Ruleset after all. Good luck!

Proposal: Dud Deliberation

Reaches quorum and passes 7-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 21 Jul 2016 18:49:42 UTC

Add the following text to the rule “Deliberations” before the paragraph containing “CRUCIAL”:

When a Deliberation enacts, the enacting Admin shall update its target Votable Matter (if it’s still pending) to reflect the changes specified in that Deliberation.

Idling Post

Izzoboetam and ryagami idle out after eleven and nine days of inactivity, respectively.

Quorum falls to five.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Proof: Split Concerns

Enacts 5-0 (Quorum 5) resulting in no change to Gamestate. -Bucky

Adminned at 20 Jul 2016 14:26:08 UTC

If the proposal “Light up the Scoreboard” is pending, remove everything in it before this text

Rename the rule “Vanity”

Removes the 2-simultaneous-offices scoring condition and keeps the rest.

Proposal: Discressionary subrules

Times out and passes, 4-2. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 21 Jul 2016 18:44:48 UTC

In the rule “Apocrypha”, change the text

Selecting a rule (and any number of its subrules) as specified by a Map

to

Selecting a rule as specified by a Map (and any number of its specified subrules)

A recently objected map attempted to get a 3-for-1 special by specifying a rule with subrules that had the complexity of full rules.  We should give the Editor the discretion to say how many subrules are too many.

Story Post: Objection: Ruleset Theft

Overturned 2-3 after 24 hours. The Map is not used.

Adminned at 20 Jul 2016 16:53:49 UTC

I have received a map to ruleset 69, rule 2.2 (including all subrules except 2.2.1), “Ruleset Theft.” While this would be thematic and highly entertaining from the perspective of a disinterested observer, your humble Editor finds it unacceptable on the grounds that he does not actively hate all of you.

The Weekly Report

Bucky, Larrytheturtle, Sci_Guy12, Qwertyu63, RaichuKFM, and GenericPerson submitted proposals last week, and have each been awarded 1 Paper.

In addition, for authoring a dynastic proposal of high quality enacted in the previous week, Qwertyu63 is hereby named Scribe of the Week.

Bucky has won the weekly raffle, and has been awarded 3 Paper and the position of Cellarmaster.

Proposal: Light up the Scoreboard

Times out and passes 4-2. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 21 Jul 2016 17:54:36 UTC

Rename the rule “Official Positions” to “[OFF] Official Positions”.

Append the following as a new paragraph at the end of the rule now named “[OFF] Official Positions”:

If a Scribe ever has 2 or more Official Positions at the same time, that Scribe Scores.

Rename the rule “Vanity” to “[VAN] Vanity”.

Append the following as a new paragraph at the end of the rule now named “[VAN] Vanity”:

When the Editor makes a weekly report, they must declare which Scribe has the highest Looks. If the same Scribe is named this way in 2 consecutive weekly reports, that Scribe Scores.

To be clear, each of these should only be scoreable once. If I’m reading it right, the following text, quoted from the rule Grading, should enforce that: “has a code for which no rule having that code has caused that Scribe to Score earlier in the current dynasty”.