BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

If the proposal “Resources” failed, this proposal does nothing.

Amend the rule “Resources” by appending to the first paragraph:

A Captain can only have as many resources as his ship has Hold.

The Appendix still contains “Honourable Member”.

Now that the proposal “The Final Frontier” has been enacted and the Galaxy Map created, I (unofficially) nominate myself to be “Galactic Cartographer”. Should the map or any data associated with Sectors or Starlanes need to be updated or added, I will take care of updating the graph and the corresponding image. I have the source code which generated the image of the Galaxy Map (and I will make it available should someone else ever need to take over this job) which facilitates making nearly arbitrary changes to the graph.

I am also requesting wiki access in order to maintain the Galaxy Map page and image. Once I have access, as promised I will start by updating the image to a newer version that does not contain any overlapping Starlanes.

Henry has not been here or done anything in the last seven days, and idles out.

In the Proposal “The Final Frontier” replace the phrase “img src=“http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~mtrberzi/galaxymap.png” /” with “Diagram moved; viewable here.”

Is it legal to remove the Galaxy Map image from the Final Frontier Proposal? Or does that have to be done through another Proposal?

In the rule “The Final Frontier”, amend “the initial structure of which is defined by the following diagram:” to read “the structure of which is defined by the diagram on the “Galaxy Map” wiki page.” and remove the image from the rule.

If there exists a rule entitled “Spectroscopy”, amend the text “They or another Captain should then update the Galaxy Map with the new Spectral Type” to read “They or another Captain should then update the Galaxy Map with the new Spectral Type, or add a line of text under the Galaxy Map that explains the change that must be made”, and amend the text “The Galaxy Map shall not” to read “The Galaxy Map image shall not”.

If there exists a rule entitled “Resources”, change all occurrences of “planet” to “Sector”.

If the Proposal titled “Resources” failed, this Proposal does nothing.
Create a subrule to “Spaceships”, entitled “ Purchasing a ship”:

Once per day, a Captain may change the class of their ship by purchasing a new ship. A Captain may purchase any ship of their choosing by paying 1000 gold. A ship purchased in this way replaces the Captain’s current ship. A Captain may only ever have one ship at a time.

Upon the enactment of this proposal, each Captain is awarded 1000 gold for the explicit purpose of purchasing a ship. Any other transactions with this 1000 gold are null and void.

If the Proposal titled “Spectroscopy” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Enact a new rule: “Resources”

Each Captain has access to 5 different resources: Tritanium (T), Dilithium (D), Gold (G), Silver (S), and Aluminum (A). The amount of each of these resources that is possessed by each Captain is tracked in GNDT.

Every planet except for Earth will produce resources in accordance of it’s spectroscopic color in the following fashion:
Red: Tritanium, Green: Dilithium, Silver: Gold, Yellow: Silver, Turquoise: Aluminum, Magenta: Does not produce any resources, Orange: Tritanium and Dilithium, Purple: Gold and Silver, Black: Aluminum

While on a planet that produces resources, a Captain may, at any time, purchase the resources produced by the planet by trading 2 of any of their resources for 1 of any of the resources produced by the planet. A Captain may never gain, for any reason, resources for free.

I just realized that I officially joined BlogNomic a year ago.  I only got more involved recently, and I’ve really been enjoying it so far.  Thanks for helping to make this enjoyable.  I anticipate this dynasty will be quite interesting and fun (and perhaps a bit more laid back than the last one).

Rewrite the rule entitled “Spaceships” to the following (or if it doesn’t exist, create it with this text):

Each Captain has a Ship Class, tracked in the GNDT under the column “Class” and defaulting to “-”. The valid values of Ship Classes are “Scout”, “Fighter”, “Freighter” and “-”. If a Captain has a Ship Class of “-” they may, as a weekly action, change it to any other valid value.

Create a subrule to “Spaceships”, entitled “Specifications”:

Each Captain has a number of Specifications (Specs) that describe the capabilities of their Ship. The Specs are tracked separately in the GNDT. When a Captain’s Ship Class changes, their Specifications are set to the default values for their new Ship Class. If a Captain ever has an undefined Spec, it is set to the default value for that Captain’s Ship Class.

The Specs and their default values are:

* Speed: Scout 3, Fighter 2, Freighter 1
* Firepower: Scout 3, Fighter 8, Freighter 5
* Hold: Scout 5, Fighter 10, Freighter 30

The Ship Class of “-” has a default value of 0 for all Specs.

The enacting admin may turn the list of default Specs into a table (without changing its meaning).

If the proposal entitled “The Final Frontier” passed, change

As a daily action, a Captain may Travel to another sector by changing their Position to the name of a Sector in the Galaxy Map that is joined by a Starlane to the Sector named by their current Position. A Captain whose Ship Class is “-” cannot Travel.

to:

To Jump is to alter one’s Position to another Sector that is joined to one’s current Position by a Starlane. As a Daily Action, A Captain may Jump a number of times no greater than their Speed and may not perform any other actions before completing this action.

Set each Captain’s Ship Class to “-”.

Having newly acquired a ship, I would like to join the game as a Captain.

If the rule “The Final Frontier” exists, amend the line

“Each Captain has a Position, tracked in the GNDT under the column “Position” and defaulting to “Earth”. “

to read:

Each Captain has a Position, tracked in the GNDT under the column “Position” and defaulting to a random Sector on the Galaxy Map not occupied by another Captain.

If the proposal “Interstellar Override” is failed, then this proposal does nothing.

Add a section to the wiki entitled “Ship Specifications”.  This section starts out with three sub-sections, entitled “Light”, “Medium” and “Heavy”.  Each of these sections will be further divided into ‘parameters’, or a list of keywords that map to a single value.  Each will start out with the parameters Fuel Capacity and Speed, with null values to start.

Enact a new rule “Ship Specifications”:

All possible ship types are listed in the section “Ship Specifications”.  In addition, each ship will have a set of parameters that apply to the ship.  When a rule, then, is created that refers to any paramater that a ship has, it means those mapped to the ship that the Commander has specified.  For example, if a Commander has a Light ship, any ship parameters referred to in a rule mean the values that the Light ship has for those parameters.  Whenever a new parameter is created, it is created for all ships and, unless otherwise stated defaults to a null value.  If a rule ever access a parameter that has a null value, unless otherwise specified, it does nothing regarding that parameter.

If there is a rule entitled “The Final Frontier”, enact a subrule of it entitled “Spectroscopy”:

Every Sector has a Spectral Type, which is indicated by its color on the Galaxy Map and is one of the following: White, Red, Green, Silver, Yellow, Turquoise, Magenta, Orange, Purple, Black. A Sector with Spectral Type White has not yet been visited, meaning its actual Spectral Type is currently unknown. Earth’s Spectral Type is Green.

When a Captain Travels to a Sector with Spectral Type White, they shall use the GNDT random COLOR generator to Measure its actual Spectral Type, retrying if they get the result of White. No later than 6 hours after they Traveled to the Sector, they shall submit a Story Post with a Subject beginning with “SPECTRO:” that reports the Sector’s name and Measured Spectral Type. If they do not do so, their Position shall be changed to “Earth” by themself or any Admin. They or another Captain should then update the Galaxy Map with the new Spectral Type. The Galaxy Map shall not be updated less than once every week to reflect all new Measurements, or else every Captain’s Position shall be changed to “Earth”.

If a majority of EVCs on this Proposal include the text “Impound Punishment”, and if there exists a Rule entitled “Spaceships”, then in the Rule “Spectroscopy” change all occurrences of the text “Position shall be changed to “Earth”” to “Ship Class shall be changed to “-”“.

Enact a new rule, “The Final Frontier”, containing the following text:

The wiki page ‘Galaxy Map’ contains the Galaxy Map. The Galaxy Map is an undirected graph, the initial structure of which is defined by the following diagram:

< Diagram moved; viewable

here. >

Vertices in this graph are called Sectors and may be referred to by the names given in the diagram. Edges in this graph are called Starlanes.

Each Captain has a Position, tracked in the GNDT under the column “Position” and defaulting to “Earth”. A value for Position that does not correspond to the name of a Sector in the Galaxy Map is not a legal value. As a daily action, a Captain may Travel to another sector by changing their Position to the name of a Sector in the Galaxy Map that is joined by a Starlane to the Sector named by their current Position. A Captain whose Ship Class is “-” cannot Travel.

I have a banner made and uploaded to the Wiki, but I don’t know how to put it in the banner slot on the main page. Could another Admin be so kind, assuming it’s suitable? Picture is here.

I wish to be unidled.

Enact a new rule, “Spaceships”, containing the following:

Each Captain has a Ship Class, tracked in the GNDT under the column “Class” and defaulting to “-”. The valid values of Ship Classes are “Light”, “Medium”, “Heavy” and “-”. If a Captain has a Ship Class of “-” they may, as a daily action, change it to any other valid value.

It has been a troubling past year for the entire local interstellar community. Barely a month in, the previous dominant power collapsed, and tensions finally snapped. A massive power struggle ensued, and while no nations were fully conquered, it left their resources depleted and all boundaries disputed. It eventually ended when the previous power was reformed, although now lacking much of its bite. With the end being as relatively sudden as it was, further stability is uncertain. Another effect of the struggle was an increase in military power, especially the number of available ships. And with these new ships came new captains, namely, you all. Hopefully, you will all live up to your new positions.

Rename “Honourable Member” to “Captain” and “Speaker” to “Potentate”.

My Coup had more Supports than Oppositions when it was resolved. As such, I have achieved victory.

Amend rule 1.5 by replacing:

Whenever an Admin resolves a Votable Matter, they must also mark their name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).

with

Whenever an Admin Resolves a Votable Matter, they must mark their name and the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed) in the Admin field of the post. If it was not self-killed or vetoed, the Admin must also mark whether it was Enacted or Failed. If the Admin fails to do so, or includes incorrect information, then the resolution is invalid.

Amend rule 1.7 by adding before the final paragraph the following:

During the period between an enacted DoV and the Ascension Address, then players may submit Proposals, notwithstanding the Hiatus, whose proposed effects are limited to amending the Core Rules and/or the Glossary, or appointing Admins. No Proposal may be resolved during the first 12 hours after an Ascension Address, unless it has been Self-Killed or Vetoed.

Additionally, replace “all other active DoVs” with “all other Pending DoVs” in the same rule.

I went on a trip and had much less access to the Internet than expected, so I wasn’t able to do any blognomicking over the weekend. I know that there were points of order pending, too. I’m going to get right on soring everything out, and hopefully things weren’t too badly damaged by my delay.

Enact a new sub-rule of “Credibility” entitled “Enthusiasm”:

For the purposes of this rule, an Aye on a Proposal is an EVC on it including the phrase “Wholehearted Aye”. Similarly, a Nay on a Proposal is an EVC on it including the phrase “Disdainful Nay”. If a comment on a Proposal includes both of the phrases “Wholehearted Aye” and “Disdainful Nay”, or is written by the Proposal Author, it is ignored.

If a Proposal passes with more than one fourth of the EVCs Ayes and with less than one fourth of the EVCs Nays, then the Proposal Author gains 2 Credibility. If a Proposal fails with more than one fourth of the EVCs Nays and with less than one fourth of the EVCs Ayes, then the Proposal Author loses 2 Credibility.

May every even integer greater than 2 be expressed as the sum of two primes?

By the passage of this proposal the entries POINT OF ORDER and POINT OF ORDER: Correction are found to be Not Well Taken and can be marked as such by any admin.

Enact a new rule entitled “Statements”:

As a weekly action, an Honourable Member may make a story post, with the subject beginning “Statement:”.  The body of the post may include any statement that the Member wishes to make.  If, within 24 hours of the statement being posted, a quorum of Hon. Members from the same party comment on the post affirmatively (in words or by using the FOR voting icon), then the Hon. Member who posted will gain 4 Credibility.  If, however, within 72 hours of the statement being posted a quorum of Hon. Members from the same party comment negatively (in words or by using the AGAINST voting icon), then the poster will lose 4 Credibility.  In any other case, no Credibility is lost or gained.  If an Hon. Member comments multiple times on the same statement, then their FIRST comment will count, and not the rest.  An Hon. Member’s comment to their own Statement does not count to the tally of the quorum.

Enact a new rule entitled “Processing Fee”:

When an Admin resolves a Proposal as Enacted, then its author gains 1 Credibility. When an Admin resolves a Proposal as Failed, then its author loses 2 Credibility.

Append to the rule “2.3 Credibility”:

Once per day on Mondays and Thursdays, each Honourable Member loses 2 Credibility

Enact a new rule “Meta-proposals”:

  No Proposal may propose to change the method of proposing rules that affect Members achieving victory

Enact a new rule entitled “The ‘No Free Lunch’ Clause” with the following text:

No Proposal may propose to change the Ruleset in such a way as to make it possible for one or more Honourable Members to achieve victory at the instant the Proposal is enacted. Such a Proposal may be marked as illegal at any time by an Admin.

This may not be so relevant anymore, but how can we accurately phrase this?

∀x (x ∈ {hon. members} ↔ x ∈ {possible winners})

Something like “No rule can make the set of possible winners unequal to the set of the Honourable Members.” But that must be removed from time; for example, we should allow a rule that defines victory as having 50 Credibility even though some Hon. Members couldn’t reach that because they’re Corrupt. Would a “in terms of the current Gamestate” help at all for name changes?

Should our party come together to resolve our differences and forgive the corruption of our dear Raichu and Larry?

I argue that my Coup was not Supported 5 times, it was supported 25 times. The Rule states: “Any Honourable Member other than the Speaker may Support or Oppose this attempt by spending 1 Political Capital and posting a FOR or AGAINST voting icon, respectively, in a comment to the Coup” which implies a comment can contain multiple Supports or Oppositions. Josh disagrees, and resolved my Coup as if this was untrue. I ask our Speaker for Judgement.

May every even integer greater than 2 be expressed as the sum of two primes?

Mr. Speaker and Honourable Members:

Over the last several days I have been watching the proceedings of this Dynasty with great interest. It surprised me somewhat that anyone still knew about these rules, much less followed them actively. But seeing that this is the case gave me hope that there may be a bright future for all of us yet.

As such, I feel it is time for me to participate directly. I hereby declare my desire to become an Honourable Member. I look forward to working with you all.

Do you think that the Raichuist faction poses an existential threat to our democracy?

Would you like two extra points of Credibility?

I am.

Add a new rule as a subrule to “Political Capital”, entitled “Smear Campaign”:

An Honourable Member may spend 1 Political Capital to reduce the Credibility of any Honourable Member, apart from the Speaker, by 8 or, if it is already 7 or lower, set it to 0.

In “Corruption” change

If at any point, all but one Honourable Members are Corrupt

to

If at any point, only one Honourable Member, excluding the Speaker, is not Corrupt

As most have probably noticed there is a notable disagreement in the way the line “voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule” within the rule “La Revolución”. One party feels that it reads that the “for which no political capital was spent” refers to the phrase “comments to coups”. If this is true then you most only spend 1 political capital on a post and you can vote as many times as you feel like clicking. The other party feels that “voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule” refers back to “voting icons”  as “in comments to coups” was just clarifies the subject which is “voting icons”. This means you must spend 1 Political Capital for each voting Icon. I am personally of the second part but I await your decision.

In Rule 2.15 replace

has more FOR icons in its comments than AGAINST icons

with

was Supported more times than it was Opposed

.

Reword the Proposal “How did that happen?” to the following: “This Proposal does nothing.”

Reword the last paragraph of Rule 2.15 “La Revolución” from

A Coup may be resolved once by any Honourable Member other than the Speaker if 48 hours have passed since it was posted and at least 6 hours have passed since it was last Supported or Opposed. If, at that time, the Coup has more FOR icons in its comments than AGAINST icons, it succeeds and the Usurper has achieved victory.

to the following:

A Coup may be resolved once by any Honourable Member other than the Speaker if 48 hours have passed since it was posted and at least 6 hours have passed since it was last Supported or Opposed, or if it has been Pending for at least 72 hours. If, at that time, the Coup has more FOR icons in its comments than AGAINST icons, it succeeds and the Usurper has achieved victory.

Reword the last paragraph of Rule 2.15 “La Revolución” from

A Coup may be resolved once by any Honourable Member other than the Speaker if 48 hours have passed since it was posted and at least 6 hours have passed since it was last Supported or Opposed. If, at that time, the Coup has more FOR icons in its comments than AGAINST icons, it succeeds and the Usurper has achieved victory.

to the following:

A Coup may be resolved once by any Honourable Member other than the Speaker if 48 hours have passed since it was posted and at least 6 hours have passed since it was last Supported or Opposed, or if it has been Pending for at least 72 hours. If, at that time, the Coup has more FOR icons in its comments than AGAINST icons, it succeeds and the Usurper has achieved victory.

Repeal the rule “La Revolución”.

Raichu’s coup (unambiguously) succeeds today at 5.30pm GMT. In order to stall it, either 23 against votes are needed, or a single against vote every six hours until someone else wins or we legislate it into illegality.

If we’re going for the every-six-hours plan then it’s someone else’s go.

If there exists a rule entitled “Complications”, change its text to read:

No rule may specify a victory condition that cannot possibly ever be achieved by any Honourable Member; any proposal that seeks to enact such a rule may be marked as illegal at any time by an admin.

If there does not exist a rule entitled “Complications”, enact a new rule entitled “Complications” with the above text.

If there exists a rule entitled “Complications”, change its text to read:

No rule may specify a victory condition that cannot possibly ever be achieved by any Honourable Member; any proposal that seeks to enact such a rule may be marked as illegal at any time by an admin.

If there does not exist a rule entitled “Complications”, enact a new rule entitled “Complications” with the above text.

In Over 9000, Purplebeard said:

I pointed this out to nqeron after I had asked them to vote AGAINST on Right Field, so that I could enact it before anyone could respond. They declined, thus denying me my boyhood dream of enacting a failing proposal. :(

Does he think that the voters are mere rubes? Does he think that they have forgotten that, in Reforming Politics, he said:

Everyone knows you can’t reach a solution without dissolving something.

You made a commitment, Purplebeard, to the country and your constituents, to solve every problem that beset you during your term in office by dousing it with acid. You may think that we have short memories, sir, but we do not. When nqeron denied you your dream of enacting a failing proposal, one might have expected that you would reach for the H2SO4 and burned some of those troublesome AGAINST votes away, but as is so often the case with these Communists, their fancy pledges stand for nothing when exposed to the tough action of real government.

Change this proposal to read:

No rule may specify an Honourable Member by name or characteristics pertaining to the name to achieve victory; any proposal that seeks to do so may be marked as illegal at any time by an admin.

Enact a new rule entitled, “Complications”:

No rule may specify that a specific Honourable Member has achieved victory; any proposal that seeks to do so may be marked as illegal at any time by an admin.

Amend Rule 1.4.2 on line “It has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been Vetoed or Self-Killed.”

to read:

“It has a number of FOR Votes that is greater than the number of AGAINST votes and exceeds or equals Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been Vetoed or Self-Killed.

Josh and I manipulated our votes such that both Stalking Horse and Right Field could be enacted. They both had enough votes against to be resolved as per rule 1.4.2, but after Political Capital was factored in both had a quorum of votes in support.

nqeron has achieved victory and may now post a Declaration of Victory.

In the rule “Deliberations”, add at the end of the first paragraph:

Deliberations shall not alter the overall purpose of any Proposal or Deliberation; they shall only correct errors and clarify effects.

Reword the following phrase in the Deliberation Short Stop from:

Add a new rule entitled “Slaver of the Worldly Leaders”:

The Honourable Member called Spitemaster has achieved victory in the current dynasty.

to the following:

In Rule 2.13, reword the phrase

Whenever an Honourable Member casts a vote on a votable matter other than a CfJ,

to

Whenever an Honourable Member casts a vote on a votable matter other than a CfJ or DoV,

Change the text of this proposal to the following:

Add a new rule entitled “Slaver of the Worldly Leaders”:

The Honourable Member called Spitemaster has achieved victory in the current dynasty.

Change the text of Proposal: Left Field to read:

Add a rule to the ruleset, entitled Michael Portillo:

No rule may specify that a specific Honourable Member has achieved victory; any proposal that seeks to do so may be marked as illegal at any time by an admin.

Add a new rule entitled “Enslaver of the Lead World”:

The Honourable Member called nqeron has achieved victory in the current dynasty.

Add a new rule entitled “Leader of the Enslaved World”:

The Honourable Member called Larrytheturtle has achieved victory in the current dynasty.

Now that that scandal was overthrown, I think its proof we need stability. Someone should take charge, and I nominate myself. However, this is a democracy; it is up to all of you whether or not I assume leadership. Thank you for your time.

Who do you expect to win this dynasty?

In the rule “Sessions”, replace the text

The Speaker may not call a Session to order if a Session is already in progress. To call a Session to order the Speaker shall make a post to that effect, indicating which Future Agenda (from the ‘Agendas’ wiki page) the Session shall follow.

with

A Session may not be called to order if a Session is already in progress. To call a Session to order, the Speaker shall make a post to that effect, or an Honourable Member shall submit a Proposal to that effect, indicating which Future Agenda (from the ‘Agendas’ wiki page) the Session shall follow.

Is this just a handout for everyone who had 46 Credibility?

Change the text of this proposal to the following:

This proposal does nothing.

This proposal does nothing.

Who do you think is going to be the next Speaker?

Enact a new rule, “Elections”  (or “Presidency”, if a rule already exists entitled “Elections”):

  As a weekly action, an Hon. Member may post a proposal with a subject “Presidential Nomination”.  If this proposal is enacted, then the Hon. Member achieves victory.  As long as there are no other such proposals from a member of the same party, then for all purposes (resolution and passing) all Hon. Members of the same party are counted as having voted FOR unless they specify otherwise.  However, the proposal may not be resolved unless at least one Hon. Member from each other (non-dissolved) party has voted or 12 hours have passed.  In addition, such a proposal may not be vetoed.

In the proposal “Under New Management”, replace “any Honourable Member” with “any Honourable Member other than the Speaker”.

Patrick and robo1995 both lost their seats in scandals. By-elections for their seats will be held in the coming weeks.

Quorum drops to 6.

Enact a new rule, “Elections”:

  As a weekly action, an Honourable member (the Poster) may post a Proposal beginning with the subject “Election:”, as long as no such proposal is currently pending.  In addition, the subject must include the name of an Honorable Member belonging to the same party as the Poster (the Target).  Resolution of such a proposal is as normal, except it can NOT be vetoed.  If such a proposal is enacted, then the the identity of the Speaker shall change to that of the Target.  At no time may there be more than one Speaker.

Reword the following phrase of Rule 2.6.3 “Encouragement” from:

If an Honourable Member whose most recent unidling or joining of the game occurred no less than 48 hours ago,

to

If an Honourable Member, other than the Speaker, whose most recent unidling or joining of the game occurred no less than 48 hours ago,

The Speaker has reduced their Credibility score by 5 three times, citing rule “Encouragement”. However, that rule may only be enforced by the offender themself. I’ve reverted these actions, but we’ve now missed out on two opportunities to decrease the Speaker’s Credibility which, because of the rule “The Chair”, is kind of an important statistic. Therefore, I feel that we should retroactively apply the punishment that would’ve been handed out if not for scshunt’s mistake.

Reduce scshunt’s Credibility by 10.

The Liberal party has been caught in the foot of an investigation in a plot to overthrow the government.  It is thus being attacked, and dissolved.

Add a new rule entitled “La Revolución”:

As a weekly action, an Honourable Member (the Usurper) may attempt to overthrow the government by spending 2 Political Capital, setting their Credibility to 0 and making a post (a Coup) entitled “Coup d’état”. Any Honourable Member other than the Speaker may Support or Oppose this attempt by spending 1 Political Capital and posting a FOR or AGAINST voting icon, respectively, in a comment to the Coup (voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule). An Honourable Member may Support and/or Oppose a Coup more than once.

A Coup may be resolved once by any Honourable Member other than the Speaker if 48 hours have passed since it was posted and at least 6 hours have passed since it was last Supported or Opposed. If, at that time, the Coup has more FOR icons in its comments than AGAINST icons, it succeeds and the Usurper has achieved victory.

Read through the rule changes, etc. and I’m ready to de-idle—please.

Append to the last paragraph of rule 2.13 “Political Capital”:

No proposal may pass if only one player has an EVC FOR, regardless of the amount of political capital appended to EVCs on that proposal.

If there is a rule called Integrity,change “and the excess Credibility is added to that Honourable Member’s Political Capital” to “and that Honourable Member’s Political Capital is increased by 1”.

If there is a rule called Bribes, add the following to the end of it:

An Honourable Member who spends Political Capital and attaches it to an EVC that self-kills the proposal that it is cast upon may treat that proposal as resolved for the purposes of determining how many available proposal slots they have.

Increase the Political Capital of every Honourable Member by 1.

Add a subrule to Political Capital, entitled “Integrity”:

If an action would cause an Honourable Member’s Credibility to exceed 50, instead it is set to 50 and the excess Credibility is added to that Honourable Member’s Political Capital.

Add a subrule to Political Capital, entitled “Bribes”:

An Honourable Member may spend 8 Credibility to increase their Political Capital by 1.

As a weekly action, a Corrupt Honourable Member may increase their Political Capital by 4.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled “The Filibuster”:

An Honourable Member may Filibuster any proposal by expending 1 Political Capital and making a comment to that proposal that includes the word “Filibuster” somewhere in its text. No Honourable Member may post a comment to a Filibustered proposal until at least an hour has passed since the Filibuster was executed, except the Speaker and Honourable Members of the same Party as the Honourable Member who initially posted it.

If a proposal has been filibustered at any point then it may not be resolved unless it has been open for voting for at least 24 hours.

If there is a rule called “Political Capital”, remove “can be any positive integer,” from it.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Political Capital:

Each Honourable Member has an amount of Political Capital, which can be any positive integer, is tracked in the GNDT, and defaults to zero.

Whenever an Honourable Member casts a vote on a votable matter other than a CfJ, they my spend any quantity of Political Capital. If they do so then they may append the words “Political Capital: x” to their EVC, where x is the amount of Political Capital thus spent. In an Honourable Member who has spent Political Capital on a vote changes that vote then the Political Capital is lost; it is neither returned to them nor is it transferred to the new vote.

When a proposal is resolved, its eligibility for resolution (i.e. whether or not the number of votes cast equal or exceed quorum) is calculated ignoring Political Capital. However, any Political Capital attached to an EVC is added to the counts FOR and AGAINST for the purposes of determining whether or not the proposal has passed or failed,

In light of recent events, I would like to try my hand at being an Admin. Recently, many Proposals have gone pending for inordinate amounts of time, and I would like to at least attempt to help with that. If this Call for Judgement passes I, RaichuKFM, will become an Admin. If anyone has any opposition to this, please state why.

I have a question about the rule, 2.2 “Unanimous” Consent

Does this rule mean that a proposal can be resolved before it becomes the last pending proposal?

Replace the last sentence of the second paragraph of the rule “Agendas” with:

When an Activity passes, its author is awarded 2 Credibility.

Is this just blatant nepotism for a fellow Party member?

In the subrule “Encouragement” of Rule 2.6 “Parties”, change the phrase

If an Honourable Member has belonged to no Party for at least 48 consecutive hours,

to

If an Honourable Member whose most recent unidling or joining of the game occurred no less than 48 hours ago, currently belongs to no Party and hasn’t for at least the previous 48 hours,

In the subrule “Encouragement” of Rule 2.6 “Parties”, change the phrase

If an Honourable Member has belonged to no Party for at least 48 consecutive hours,

to

If an Honourable Member whose most recent unidling or joining of the game occurred no less than 48 hours ago, currently belongs to no Party and hasn’t for at least the previous 48 hours,

Enact a new rule entitled “A New Speaker” reading as follows:

Once this Rule is enacted, a new Speaker shall be selected. On or before DATE, an Honourable Member (other than the Speaker) may send the Speaker, in a private message, the name of a Party or an Honourable Member, the Endorsee, and an amount of Credibility, the Strength. Such a message is termed an Endorsement.

Each Party has a Support value, which is untracked and defaults to 0.

As soon as possible after DATE, the Speaker shall post a listing of all Endorsements. Each Honourable Member shall lose Credibility equal to the sum of the Strength of the Endorsements they submitted. Then, for each Endorsement submitted by an Honourable Member who is not Corrupt, the Endorsee shall gain Support (if a Party) or Credibility (if an Honourable Member) equal to the Support of the Endorsement.

Then, among all Honourable Members who are members of the Party or Parties with the most Support, the Honourable Member with the greatest Credibility achieves victory. In the event of a tie, the tied Honourable Member Endorsed by the most other Honourable Members shall be victorious; in the event of a further tie, the tied Honourable Member who had the most Credibility before this process begins will be victorious; in the event of a further tie, the Speaker shall select one of the tied Honourable Members to achieve victory.

Multiple Endorsements may be submitted in the same private message.

replacing DATE by the day one week after this Proposal is enacted.

Enact a rule entitled “Incentivization” reading as follows:

When a Proposal is resolved, its author gains 1 Credibility.

May I be unidled? This time I will actually be unidling, unlike last time.

In the pending proposal entitled “Disincentivising Intransigent Non-Membership”, change

If an Honourable Member has belonged to no Party for at least 48 consecutive hours,

to

If an Honourable Member who joined the game, or was last unidled, no less than 48 hours ago belongs to no Party,

I’m going to go idle for a bit - I have a bit of a busy schedule, and not sure when I’ll resume

Append to rule 2.6 “Parties” a subrule entitled “Party Reformation”:

An Honourable Member in a Party with only 1 member may Dissolve that Party by making a story post with a title including the words “REFORMATION: DISSOLVE”.  If a Party Dissolves, no Honourable Member may join that Party, and any Honourable Members in that Party loses 2 Credibility instead of the Credibility loss in rule 2.6 “Parties” and is no longer part of any Party.

If there are 4 or less Parties that are not Dissolved, no Party may be Dissolved.

Any Honourable Member in a Party may attempt to Reform a Dissolved Party by making a story post that is also a votable matter with a title including the words “REFORMATION: REFORM” and the name of the Party.  Once 48 hours have passed, the story post should be resolved.  If there are 3 or more valid votes FOR, the Party is Reformed and all Honourable Members who voted FOR join that Party without losing Credibility due to rule 2.6 “Parties”.  Any Honourable Member who voted anything other than FOR after voting FOR loses 4 Credibility.

A Reformed Party is no longer Dissolved.

Append to the Rule “Agendas”:

If an Activity is not adequately relevant to its corresponding Item, Honourable Members can and should indicate this by including with their vote the phrase “Insufficient Contribution”. If a Quorum of the votes on the Activity include the phrase “Insufficient Contribution”, then the Activity cannot resolve its corresponding Item, and the Activity’s author looses 1 Credibility instead of any Credibility possibly gained from the Proposal being resolved. The Subject of a subsequent Proposal that seeks to resolve the Item should start with “RETRY:”.

In the text of the Propsal “Entrance restrictions”, remove the words “minus 3”.

Add a subrule entitled “Encouragement” to Rule 2.6, containing the following text:

If an Honourable Member has belonged to no Party for at least 48 consecutive hours, and it has been at least 48 hours from the resolution of the Proposal “Disincentivising Intransigent Non-Membership”, any other Honourable Member may once reduce the Credibility of that Honourable Member by 5. If it has been at least 24 hours since the last moment that Honourable Member lost Credibility due to this Subrule, and they still belong to no Party, any other Honourable Member may once reduce the Credibility of that Honourable Member by 5.

Create a new rule entitled “I wrote this rule and all I got was 2 lousy Credibility”:

The Members of each Party should develop internal practices for that Party.

Set the Party of each Honourable Member who does not yet belong to a Party to the Communist Party.

Amend the rule ‘Credibility’ by replacing “defaults to 50” with “defaults to the average Credibility among (other) Honourable Members, rounded down, minus 3”.

It seems that the formation of political parties, a vital component of any functioning democracy, is to be the order of the day. Please submit proposals now!

Modify the rule “Party Consensus” to read:

A Debater of a Proposal is an Honourable Member other than its author.

A Party is Eligible to Hold Consensus over a given Pending Proposal if it is the Party of the Proposal Author or if it is In Power, and if at least one Debater in that Party has voted on that Proposal, and if the total number of votes FOR from Debaters in the Party is different than the total number of AGAINST votes from Debaters in the Party. Among all the Parties Eligible to Hold Consensus over a given Pending Proposal, the Party with the largest absolute value of T*(F - A) Holds Consensus over that Proposal, where T is the total number of votes from Debaters in that Party, F is the total number of votes FOR from Debaters of that Party, and A is the total number of votes AGAINST from Debaters in that Party. Votes of DEFERENTIAL do not count in this calculation. In the event of a tie, then the Party of the Proposal’s Author Holds Consensus over the Proposal if it is Eligible to do so, otherwise no Party Holds Consensus over the Proposal.

If a Party Holds Consensus over a Pending Proposal, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL cast on that Proposal are instead considered to be valid votes FOR or AGAINST the Proposal, whichever is more common among the valid votes of Debaters from the Party Holding Consensus. This effect overrides the Speaker’s vote unless the Speaker’s vote is VETO.

In this post, Purblebeard claims that Josh’s statements about gaining and losing credibility are contradictory, and this is clearly a matter of controversy as indicated by the fact that a CFJ was made about them. I believe that the statements are not contradictory since they refer to different points in time, and accordingly I ask that the Speaker rule the Tabloid Headline to have been illegal.

In this post, Purblebeard claims that Josh’s statements about gaining and losing credibility are contradictory, and this is clearly a matter of controversy as indicated by the fact that a CFJ was made about them. I believe that the statements are not contradictory since they refer to different points in time, and accordingly I ask that the Speaker rule the Tabloid Headline to have been illegal.

Thanks a bunch.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled The Party Line:

The Honourable Member in each Party with the highest Credibility is that party’s Leader.

If at any time more than one Honourable Member in a Party is tied for the highest Credibility, then each of those Honourable Members is a Leadership Candidate. Leadership Candidates within a Party may, as a daily action, reduce the Credibility of a single other Leadership Candidate by 1. If any Leadership Candidate ever has more than 2 Credibility less than every other Leadership Candidate, they are no longer a Leadership Candidate. A Party cannot have a Leader if it has more than one Leadership Candidate. If an Honourable Member in a Party ever has more than two more Credibility than any Leadership Candidate, then all Leadership Candidates cease to be Leadership Candidates.

A Leader may, when Voting, include the words “Three Line Whip” with their EVC. If they do so, their vote has a weight equal to the number of Honourable Members in that Leader’s Party. This does not effect quorum.

If an Honourable Member votes on a proposal that their Party Leader had previously made subject to a Three Line Whip, and votes in a different way to the Leader, then both that Honourable Member and the Party Leader lose 5 Credibility.

Clucky, Murphy and robo1995 have been redistricted out of their seats. Quorum drops to 6.

Repeal rule 2.9, The Party Line.

In this TABLOID HEADLINE, Purplebeard asserts that Josh’s statements are contradictory:

... the Commitments don’t need to be false or even mutually exclusive, just contradictory.

BUT in a comment on this CFJ Purplebeard agrees that they are perfectly compatable:

The statements themselves are in direct opposition, even though their contextual meanings and in-game interpretations are perfectly compatible.

WHICH IS IT?

Create a new rule entitled “Committees”:

Every Honourable Member belongs to one or more Committees. Every Committee, along with its purpose, members, and Records, shall be tracked in a section of the wiki page “Committees”. Committees may be created via Proposal. Committees are Open by default. Any Honourable Member may join any Open Committee at any time by adding their name to its member list and announcing the action with a Story Post. At any moment, if a Committee has more than one member, all members of a Committee cannot be members of the same Party. Committee members may discuss Committee Matters in private, but must publish in their Records a detailed description of every matter they resolve along with which Committee Members voted FOR, which AGAINST, and which DEFERENTIAL.

Create a wiki page “Committees” in accordance with the above.

Form a new Committee “Committee of the Whole”
with Purpose “To bring Order to the Hallowed Land of Nomic”
and Members “All Honourable Members” (with the understanding that this is a reference, not a name).

Enact a new subrule of “Committees” entitled “Sponsorship”:

Committees may, if they agree through Committee Matter, Sponsor an Agenda or Votable Matter. More than one Committee may Sponsor any one Agenda or Votable Matter.

In this tabloid headline, which I understand to be leaked from a Special Advisor in Purplebeard’s office, I am made the target of mockery for two statements which purport to contradict one another. However, they do not - they simply have contextual meanings that are both true in their own situations. “Contradiction” requires there to be a logical incomparability between the two statements, but the ruleset allows that credibility can go up as well as down.

The passage of this CfJ will cause Josh’s Credibility to be restored to its value before Purplebeard’s false allegation, and Purplebeard’s credibility to be reduced by 2 as his dirty tricks are exposed. Additionally, the following line is added to the end of tthe rule entitled Commitments:

If the effects of a specific Tabloid Headlined are overturned by a later proposal or CfJ, the author of the Tabloid Headline loses 2 Credibility.

In the admin box of this proposal, Josh asserts that,

Josh loses 2 Credibility;

then, five minutes later, he says the exact opposite while adminning this proposal:

Josh gains 2 Credibility.

WHICH IS IT?

I believe the current lack of activity to be the result of some fiendish Tory plot to maintain the status quo.

What is the conservative party’s stance on the current situation?

that was a hell of a weekend, took a lot out of me, don’t think I’m going to catch up on anything until tomorrow.

Add the following to the end of the rule called The Party Line:

For the purposes of this rule, the first moment at which a proposal could have been resolved is always calculated as if it were the oldest unresolved proposal.

I will be busy this weekend and won’t be around to admin things. Since I think I’ve been the only one adminning recently, can someone else please step up to the plate to make sure things don’t slow down too much? Thanks.

In Rule 2.12 (“Deliberations”), change the text “(unless the Honourable Member already has a Deliberation pending, or has already submitted 3 Votable Matters that day)” to “(unless the Honourable Member already has a Deliberation pending or has already submitted 3 Votable Matters that day, or the target Proposal or Deliberation has already been targeted by a Deliberation pending in the last 12 hours)”

In the same rule, add to the beginning of the first list:

• It has been open for voting for at least 6 hours, has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and has no AGAINST votes.

Append to the end of the same rule:

If a Deliberation includes the word “CRUCIAL” (all caps), then its target Proposal or Deliberation cannot be failed until it has been pending for at least 48+F-A hours, where F is the number of FOR votes on the Deliberation and A is the number of AGAINST votes on the Deliberation, if F-A > 0.

Deliberation Timing submitted twice. Is it legal for me to do this to the second copy?

In Rule 2.12 (“Deliberations”), change the text “(unless the Honourable Member already has a Deliberation pending, or has already submitted 3 Votable Matters that day)” to “(unless the Honourable Member already has a Deliberation pending or has already submitted 3 Votable Matters that day, or the target Proposal or Deliberation has already been targeted by a Deliberation pending in the last 12 hours)”

In the same rule, add to the beginning of the first list:

• It has been open for voting for at least 6 hours, has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and has no AGAINST votes.

Append to the end of the same rule:

If a Deliberation includes the word “CRUCIAL” (all caps), then its target Proposal or Deliberation cannot be failed until it has been pending for at least 48+F-A hours, where F is the number of FOR votes on the Deliberation and A is the number of AGAINST votes on the Deliberation, if F-A > 0.

Replace any and all instances of “[total Party EVCs / (Party EVCs FOR - Party EVCs AGAINST)]” throughout the Ruleset with “[total Party EVCs * (Party EVCs FOR - Party EVCs AGAINST)]”, and replace any and all instances of “(F - A)/T” throughout the Ruleset with “T * (F - A)”.

Create a new sub-rule of Credibility, “Corruption”.  Move the last two lines of Credibility (as it is now) into “Corruption”.

Add another line in Corruption to read:

If at any point, all but one Honourable Members are Corrupt,then that one Honourable member who is not corrupt achieves victory.  This applies even if that Honourable Member later becomes Corrupt or another Honourable Member who was Corrupt reverts to not being Corrupt.