Friday, March 01, 2013

Proposal: Running out of Space

Quorums 12-0. — Quirck

Adminned at 01 Mar 2013 10:10:12 UTC

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.

Ruleset error

The Appendix still contains “Honourable Member”.

Galactic Cartographer

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.

He’s Gone Plaid

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

Proposal: Yes, Yes It Is

Reaches Quorum and Passes 13-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 01 Mar 2013 08:27:52 UTC

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

This is legal, right? To anyone confused, this will change the code that projects the image with a link to the image’s location, as displaying it is cumbersome. (Just in case Engine Repairs fails for some reason; if it passes I’ll put the kibosh on this.)

IT’S JUST TOO BIG

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

Proposal: Engine Repairs

Reaches quorum 12-0 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 01 Mar 2013 08:14:11 UTC

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”.

The huge Galaxy Map needn’t stretch out the Ruleset page. If a Captain doesn’t have time to update the Galaxy Map for Spectroscopy, they can just update the text on the page for somebody else to do. And Resources will work.

Proposal: Finding Serenity

Self-killed. -scshunt

Adminned at 01 Mar 2013 08:12:15 UTC

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.

I realize that this inhibits the ability to create fleets of ships, but I think that, at least in the beginning, it is easier and better to limit the number of ships one is able to own.

Proposal: Resources

Reaches quorum 13-0 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 01 Mar 2013 08:10:37 UTC

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.

Right now, this is just a set up of a mechanic to allow resources. Due to the fact that Capitain’s, as of the moment, have no resources, it will be impossible to acquire resources. I’m hoping that, if this rule is accepted, that further mechanics that will allow Captains to store resources and to take commissions from planets that allows them to transport resources for the inhabitants of these planets in exchange for a fee.

The cake is a lie

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).

Space ....

Proposal: Spaceships With Ship Space Ship Spaceships Through Space

Reaches Quorum at 13-0. -RaichuKFM (Missed a vote)

Adminned at 28 Feb 2013 19:26:39 UTC

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 “-”.

Putting together some ideas from earlier proposals with more flavourful Classes.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

You Can’t Take the Sky From Me

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

Proposal: Random Distribution

Can’t be enacted and fails at 1-11. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 28 Feb 2013 19:24:05 UTC

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.

Small proposal, just making it a bit more interesting, by spreading us out.  The random method I’ll leave up to Admins/Potentate.

Proposal: Need for speed

Self-Killed. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 28 Feb 2013 19:17:13 UTC

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.

Proposing a mechanism for ships to have properties - starting out with fuel and speed, can be extended to others.  Note, this is to create a baseline - individual ships may still be ‘customized’ by using GNDT.  Feel free to give me feedback, or suggest improvements.

Proposal: Spectroscopy

Reaches Quorum and passes, 8-6. Of the 14 EVC’s, 10 contain the phrase “Impound Punishment” so it has a majority. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 28 Feb 2013 18:59:50 UTC

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 “-”“.

More setup.

Proposal: The Final Frontier

Reaches Quorum and passes 11-1.

Adminned at 01 Mar 2013 08:30:46 UTC

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 apologize for overlapping Starlanes in the image. I’ll correct that later—it’s enough to tell the structure for now, and I wanted to get this up here quickly. Should any changes need to be made to the galaxy map, I offer to maintain it as I created the source that generated this image.
Altered by a later Proposal; Check the first revision for what was used.

Something’s Afoot And Its My Job This Time

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.

Forget it! No more beaming! This time, I’m going to walk!

I wish to be unidled.

Proposal: Interstellar Overdrive

Reached Quorum and passes 12-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 28 Feb 2013 14:23:59 UTC

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.

Classes don’t do anything upon the enactment of this, but it should be a nice baseline. Lets see what we come up with.

Ascension Address: Divided Space

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”.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Declaration of Victory: Raichuvolution

Passes 9-1 with the Speaker’s blessing. Congratulations to RaichuKFM! -scshunt

Adminned at 26 Feb 2013 05:50:03 UTC

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

My Coup has succeeded. To my supporters, rejoice. To my opposition, do not despair; A madman does not stand before you. I will reinstate a Democracy, but we must have some restructuring first. I would like to thank our Speaker and you all. If you have any complaints or disputes, speak them here. A new dawn is upon us.

Proposal: Admin Protection

Self-Killed. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 27 Feb 2013 14:51:37 UTC

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.

Make it clear that if an admin resolves a Votable Matter incorrectly, it doesn’t accidentally resolve the other way without anyone noticing.

Proposal: Interim Period

Times Out and Fails 1-3-1. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 27 Feb 2013 14:50:57 UTC

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.

There is often a waiting period between dynasties where nothing gets done as the new Speaker sorts out the new Dynasty. It seems like a good time to propose core rule changes, but we get the difficulty that they can’t be proposed. If submitted early in the Hiatus, they will hopefully not stall the incoming dynasty. The 12-hour resolution rule ensures that players can still safely leave after the DoV is enacted and not pay attention again until the AA is posted, and it won’t slow the dynasty down since the initial proposal can’t be resolved for 12 hours anyway.

My apologies

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.

Proposal: Enthusiasm

Vetoed. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 27 Feb 2013 14:49:11 UTC

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.

Controlled proposal awards. I found the interesting mechanic of Cheese/Blessings/Shiny while wandering through the wiki and thought it would could be adapted quite favorably for us. This would be the first efficient, fast, and integrated method for changing Credibility that we have.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Story Post: URGENT QUESTION: scshunt (now with more Story Post)

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

It would be nice if Story Posts were clearly marked as such (like they used to be?) - as a non-admin it’s impossible for me to tell whether various recent posts that were required to be Story Posts are.

Proposal: Clearing the decks

Vetoed. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 27 Feb 2013 14:48:35 UTC

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.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Proposal: Make for yourself a name

Vetoed. -RaichuKFM

Resolution reverted - cannot be resolved during hiatus. Josh

Adminned at 27 Feb 2013 14:48:02 UTC

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.

More part dynamics, with mechanism to gain Credibility?  The Credibility gain is the most so far, but balanced in being 1/2 needed to convert to PC.

Proposal: Flashback

Self-killed. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 25 Feb 2013 00:03:30 UTC

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.

Much simpler than Party Line.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Proposal: Ticking time-bomb

Times out and fails, 4-4. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 24 Feb 2013 13:53:35 UTC

Append to the rule “2.3 Credibility”:

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

Credibility is something that must be maintained, and when left alone will decline, slowly.

Meta-Proposal

Enact a new rule “Meta-proposals”:

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

Purposely not making this into an actual proposal, since it’s absurd - just a polemic against all of these ‘proposals’

Proposal: The ‘No Free Lunch’ Clause

Times out and fails 0-6. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 24 Feb 2013 13:52:12 UTC

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.

A key part of following the rules is being able to determine whether a given Honourable Member has achieved victory given the Ruleset and Gamestate. So it seems reasonable to be able to ask “If Proposal X were enacted, could any Honourable Member immediately achieve victory?”

I think this is an important step in the right direction because it will eliminate large classes of undesirable rules, e.g. “Honourable Member Y achieves victory”, “All Honourable Members belonging to Party Z have achieved victory”, etc.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Off the Field

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?

Just thinking out loud. Might be useful for core rules.

URGENT QUESTION: nqeron, Josh

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

Story Post: POINT OF ORDER: Correction

I think that the comment thread makes it rather clear that this Point of Order is Well Taken.

The heart of this issue is whether or not it is possible to Support or Oppose a coup more than once in a single comment. The rules are silent on this matter, which leaves considerable room for interpretation.

The reasoning submitted to argue that it is not hinges on the notion that the Support or Opposition requires the posting of a comment, and it is impossible to post multiple comments simultaneously. The Honourable Member submitting these arguments draws a parallel to Tabloid Headlines, arguing that one could not make a single post accusing multiple members of contradictory Commitments. The member appears to implicitly submit, as an alternate hypothesis, that the components of the action underlying a Support or Opposition must be taken sequentially.

However, there is a critical distinction between these two situations. In the case of a Tabloid Headline, the action required is the making a *post* (the rules are in fact silent on whether or not multiple headlines must be in distinct posts, but the chair will not rule on this matter unless it arises). In the case of a Support or Oppose attempt, the action required is the posting of a *voting icon*. As such, even if we subscribe to the interpretation that multiple Tabloid Headlines require different posts, the corresponding interpretation for Support or Oppose comments is that multiple Support or Oppose attempts require different *voting icons*, not different comments. One can liken the situation to a municipality required by law to circulate notices of public hearings in a newspaper. The municipality will often do so by publishing multiple notices in a single edition of the newspaper, rather than requiring that each notice occur in a separate newspaper. This is accomplished because the requirement is not that the municipality publish the newspaper, but merely the notice.

There is no rule in BlogNomic against the taking of concurrent actions. While it is true that rule 3.2 provides that simultaneous or broken-up actions may be taken in the GNDT, it has certainly never been the position of BlogNomic that this restricts such from being done on other forms of the game state. Actions affecting the wiki, in particular, are often split (across multiple pages or with the GNDT) or merged (multiple actions in a single edit). There is no reason that this should not also apply to comments, within the constraints required of the action—-for instance, that most actions involving comments cannot, due to their nature, be split across multiple comments.

As such, I cannot find any reason that one cannot Support or Oppose a coup more than once in a comment, and hence I rule that it is indeed allowed to Support or Oppose a coup more than once in a comment.

Accordingly, Josh’s commentary when he resolved the coup was incorrect, and the coup in fact had more Supports then Opposes. Since there are no requirements as to how to resolve a coup, the coup was validly resolved, and RaichuKFM has achieved victory.

I invite the Honourable RaichuKFM to take the chair.

Adminned at 25 Feb 2013 06:29:43 UTC

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.

URGENT QUESTION: scshunt

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

Story Post: Request to Join

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.

URGENT QUESTION: Purplebeard, omd and Skju

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

URGENT QUESTION: omd, Josh, Skju

Would you like two extra points of Credibility?

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Requesting unidle

I am.

Proposal: Intern Affairs

Fails at 2-6. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 22 Feb 2013 07:09:47 UTC

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

Story Post: POINT OF ORDER

I will begin by ruling this Point of Order to be Well Taken, as this is indeed a significant matter of controversy.

Now, I shall examine the situation at hand. As I’m sure many Honourable Members are aware, the center of the dispute is the interpretation of rule 2.15; in particular the parenthetical “voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule”. The rule also 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”.

The first issue that is in need of resolution is whether or not a Coup is, in fact, a Votable Matter. According to the rules, “A Votable Matter is a post which Honourable Members may cast Votes on, such as a Proposal, a Call for Judgement or a Declaration of Victory.” In conjunction with the definition of a Vote as “a Vote that is cast in accordance with Rule “Votable Matters””, this indicates that Votable Matters are the only things which can be voted on. Thus the definition indicates that, roughly, “Some posts are Votable Matters; these posts can be voted on,” rather than, “Some posts can be voted on; we call these Votable Matters.” Given that there is no indication that a Coup is a Votable Matter, I thus conclude that it is not, and accordingly that the rules relating to Votes and EVCs do not apply. The use of Voting Comments in the rules relating to Coups are incidental.

Now we must turn to the issue of the original statement. It seems clear from 2.15 that the spending of PC is linked to the posting of a single Voting Icon, and not to making a comment containing one or more Voting Icons. Fortunately, the exact Voting Icon used is irrelevant, so we may assume that it is always the first available Voting Icon in a post. Thus we turn to the heart of the issue: how do we interpret “voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule”?

In particular, the question is whether the prepositional phrase “for which no Political Capital was spent” applies only to the premodified noun head “icons” or the noun head “comments” in the prepositional phrase “in comments”. Grammatically, the sentence is ambiguous; it could be either. However, given that the earlier sentence of the rule—-which should be highly persuasive, given that the disputed parenthetical applies to that sentence—-refers to individual Voting Icons, it seems rather absurd not to evaluate Voting Icons on an individual basis. One spends Political Capital on a single voting icon, not on the comment containing it.

I will confess that my initial reading of the rule suggested the interpretation that multiple voting icons in a single comment could count as long as one was paid for. However, upon close reflection, I believe that the alternate suggested interpretation is much more closely in keeping with the intent of the rule.

Thus I rule that the prepositional phrase “for which no Political Capital was spent” modifies the premodified noun head “voting icons”, rather than the noun head “comments”. Accordingly, Voting Icons for which no Political Capital is spent are ignored.

Adminned at 25 Feb 2013 06:29:40 UTC

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.

Proposal: Minor Fix

Reaches quorum, 8-1, and passed with unanimous consent. Josh

Adminned at 21 Feb 2013 03:43:52 UTC

In Rule 2.15 replace

has more FOR icons in its comments than AGAINST icons

with

was Supported more times than it was Opposed

.

I’m A Tricky One, Aren’t I?

Target Proposal failed. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 21 Feb 2013 17:43:43 UTC

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

Proposal: RaiCoupKFM

Can’t enact and fails 2-7. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 21 Feb 2013 17:46:22 UTC

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.

Its a Proposal now.

RaiCoupKFM

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.

I won’t just sit idly by when you threaten my plans; this is for your own good, you know.

Proposal: How did that happen?

Can’t pass and fails at 1-8. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 21 Feb 2013 17:42:37 UTC

Repeal the rule “La Revolución”.

Do with this what you please. Note the likelihood of a balance between political capital here and Raichu’s coup.

Reminder

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.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Proposal: Outfield

Times out and fails 2-6. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 21 Feb 2013 17:40:23 UTC

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.

Not just about names. Every Honourable Members should theoretically be able to, at some point, achieve the victory condition.
(Incorrectly Adminned by RaichuKFM and near-immediately fixed. Old admin text: Can’t be enacted and fails 2-7. -RaichuKFM)

Outfield

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.

Not just about names. Every Honourable Members should theoretically be able to, at some point, achieve the victory condition.

TABLOID HEADLINE: Purplebeard’s Acid Tongue

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.

Strawberries forever

Target proposal has failed. Josh

Adminned at 21 Feb 2013 15:44:25 UTC

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.

Proposal: Mid Fields

Timed out and failed, 2-6. Josh

Adminned at 21 Feb 2013 15:43:56 UTC

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.

Another attempt to quell this mechanic in favor of a different victory.

Proposal: Over 9000

Timed out and passes, 7-0, but has no effect due to rule 2.1. Josh

Adminned at 21 Feb 2013 15:43:16 UTC

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.

As Purplebeard points out - there is a truly passable scam that can be a problem in general.  With PC, The number of For votes can exceed quorum, but be less than the number of AGAINST votes.

PC Gone Mad

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.

Update: never mind.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Proposal: Enough already!

Fails at 3-5. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 07:32:59 UTC

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.

The chaos is getting a little too… chaotic.

Jenga

Target Deliberation Failed. -RaichuKFM
Reverted and re-adminned by Purplebeard.

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 07:32:02 UTC

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,

This doesn’t change anything, just clarifies. Rule 1.5’s application to CfJ’s and DoV’s can’t be overridden. This is mostly for novelty anyway.

Short Stop

Target Proposal Failed -RaichuKFM
Reverted and re-adminned by Purplebeard.

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 07:31:52 UTC

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.

Might as well make it useful

Target Proposal Failed -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 03:55:14 UTC

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.

Proposal: Right Field

Improperly adminned by Purplebeard, then reverted and improperly adminned by RaichuKFM, then reverted by Purplebeard who has now self-killed and failed it.

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 07:31:13 UTC

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

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

Proposal: Left Field

Self-killed. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 01:28:23 UTC

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

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

Coup d’état

Reinterpreted by Point of Order. Passed 25-7. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 25 Feb 2013 09:13:13 UTC

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.

Old Adminning: Timed out after 6 hours since the last vote; failed 5-5. Josh

Monday, February 18, 2013

Story Post: URGENT QUESTION: Raichukfm, Henri, Spitemaster

Who do you expect to win this dynasty?

Proposal: Immediate Sessions

Passes at 7-0. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 01:27:07 UTC

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.

They’ll be more useful if more democratic?

URGENT QUESTION: LarryTheTurtle, nqueron, Klisz

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

URGENT: Just In Case

Passes at 6-1 with a quorum of FOR votes and after 12 hours have passed. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 18 Feb 2013 09:33:18 UTC

Change the text of this proposal to the following:

This proposal does nothing.

I want to prevent the timing-based victory scam that may be going on here, if only because I won’t be online at the crucial point(s) when it might be fought. This gives us a bit more time to fight the proposal and increases the amount of Political Capital needed to force it through.

Proposal: Stalking Horse

Is eligible for resolution with 5 AGAINST votes, but Josh’s Political Capital means it passes at 6-5 and does nothing. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 01:26:41 UTC

This proposal does nothing.

Altered by this deliberation. Old text was:

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Sir Anthony Meyer:

The Honourable Member called Josh has achieved victory.

URGENT QUESTION: RaichuKFM, Skju, Purplebeard

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

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Proposal: Resolving the issue

Times out and fails at 2-4-2. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 19 Feb 2013 01:25:40 UTC

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.

With a lot of people idling, and some of this dying, I am proposing an endgame.  Plus, there’s a strategy that should work very well for this.

Friday, February 15, 2013

CRUCIAL Neutrality of the Speaker

Times out (24h) 4-1 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 16 Feb 2013 13:50:26 UTC

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

By-election

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.

Proposal: Order in the court

Vetoed. Josh

Adminned at 17 Feb 2013 08:25:46 UTC

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.

 

entertaining the idea of changing Speakers

Proposal: No More Attrition.

Timed out and passed, 8-0 with one unresolved DEF. Josh

Adminned at 17 Feb 2013 08:24:21 UTC

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,

Call for Judgment: Credibility Where Credibility’s Due

Timed out and passed, 2-1 with 1 unresolved DEF. Josh

Adminned at 17 Feb 2013 08:58:10 UTC

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.

Story Post: REFORMATION: DISSOLVE

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.

Proposal: Under New Management

Timed out and passed, 5-3. Josh

Adminned at 17 Feb 2013 08:23:14 UTC

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.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Time passes on

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

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Proposal: Not a Dictatorship

Times out and passes 6-2. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 14 Feb 2013 16:15:10 UTC

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.

Only God should be our dictator.  So he informed me that I should work against the possibility of that happening.

Proposal: Buffoonery

Reaches Quorum 7-0. -RaichuKFM.

Adminned at 14 Feb 2013 09:39:59 UTC

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.

 

Proposal: Capitalised Goodwill

Reaches Quorum 7-0. -RaichuKFM.

Adminned at 14 Feb 2013 09:31:57 UTC

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.

Proposal: Cato’s Gambit

Times out and passes 6-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 14 Feb 2013 09:00:25 UTC

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.

 

I liked this idea by Josh.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Proposal: Mo’ Capital

Reaches Quorum 7-0. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 12 Feb 2013 08:58:45 UTC

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

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Proposal: Das Capital

Reaches Quorum 8-0 and passes. Adminned by RaichuKFM.

Adminned at 11 Feb 2013 15:28:55 UTC

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,

Remember that “spend” is defined in the glossary and does not permit players to spend more than they have.

Call for Judgment: Adminship Attempt

Reaches quorum and passes at 9-0. I for one welcome our new admin overlord. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 10 Feb 2013 23:48:27 UTC

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.

Story Post: Question About Ruleset

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?

Proposal: Even more serious

Quorums 7-0 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 11 Feb 2013 15:15:59 UTC

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

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

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Story Post: URGENT QUESTION: LarryTheTurtle

Is this just blatant nepotism for a fellow Party member?

Proposal: Sins of Not Resolving in Time

Reaches quorum 7-0 and is enacted by unanimous consent. My apologies for missing the deliberation with the last one. -scshunt

Adminned at 10 Feb 2013 15:39:31 UTC

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,

Fixing it for real this time.

Sins of Not Resolving in Time

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,

Fixing the fix Purplebeard saw.

Proposal: The Secret Ballot

Reaches majority 1-8 against and fails.

Adminned at 11 Feb 2013 15:03:40 UTC

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.

Saturday, February 09, 2013

Unidling

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

Sins Of The Past

Target proposal is no longer pending. Josh

Adminned at 10 Feb 2013 10:48:40 UTC

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,

Most or all of us have “belonged to no Party for at least 48 consecutive hours” at some point in the past.

Friday, February 08, 2013

Idling Interests

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

Proposal: Reforming Politics

Timed out and passed, 8-0. Josh

Adminned at 10 Feb 2013 10:47:58 UTC

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.

I had a vision.  In that vision, there was a shining city.  Some divine being came out of it, and told me that there should be fewer Parties, or we’ll spend too much time bickering and not enough time getting stuff done.

Proposal: Serious Agendas

Timed out and failed, 4-4. Josh

Adminned at 10 Feb 2013 10:45:55 UTC

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:”.

[http://blognomic.com/archive/developing_party_internal_practices/] is a throwaway Proposal, but it’ll still resolve its corresponding Item.

Gotta’ Leave Some Room to Fail

Target proposal is no longer pending. Josh

Adminned at 10 Feb 2013 10:47:48 UTC

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

Proposal: Disincentivising Intransigent Non-Membership

Reaches quorum 6-0 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 09 Feb 2013 16:31:43 UTC

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.

Proposal: Developing Party Internal Practices

Times out 1-4 and fails. -scshunt

Adminned at 09 Feb 2013 16:31:26 UTC

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.

Proposal: Encouraging Party Membership

Times out 2-5 and fails. -scshunt

Adminned at 09 Feb 2013 16:31:08 UTC

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

Proposal: Entrance restrictions

Reaches quorum 6-2 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 09 Feb 2013 16:30:57 UTC

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

Prevent late joiners from ruining everything.

CALL TO ORDER: Party Formation

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!

Thursday, February 07, 2013

Proposal: Consensus on Consensus?

Reaches quorum 6-0 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 09 Feb 2013 16:30:39 UTC

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.

Scshunt’s logical phrasing + RaichuKFM’s math

Story Post: POINT OF ORDER: Tabloid Mania

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.

POINT OF ORDER: Tabloid Mania

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.

Unidle me please

Thanks a bunch.

Proposal: Neo-Line

Timed out and failed, 1-5-1. Josh

Adminned at 08 Feb 2013 04:03:53 UTC

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.

Boundary review

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

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Proposal: U-turn

Reaches quorum and passes, 8-0. Ding dong the witch is dead. Josh gains 4 Credibility. Josh

Adminned at 06 Feb 2013 00:49:48 UTC

Repeal rule 2.9, The Party Line.

It was worth trying but all it’s resulted in is stifled voting and a proposal queue that none of the admins want to clean up. Let’s find another mechanic.

Story Post: TABLOID HEADLINE: It’s a meta-tabloid!

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?

Proposal: Committees

Reaches quorum and passes. Because it’s not timed out, there are no penalties. Skju gains 4 Credibility. Josh

Adminned at 06 Feb 2013 00:46:35 UTC

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.

Call for Judgment: Gutter journalism harms us all

Timed out and passed, 4-3. Josh

Adminned at 07 Feb 2013 02:00:13 UTC

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.

TABLOID HEADLINE: Josh’s Adminning Blunder

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?

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

URGENT QUESTION: Josh, Murphy, Patrick

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?

Sunday, February 03, 2013

I’m back

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.

Proposal: The Thin Blue Line

Timed out and passed, 8-0. Josh gains 4 Credibility, Koen, Patrick and scshunt all lose 2 for non-voting. Josh

Adminned at 06 Feb 2013 00:43:32 UTC

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.

At the moment, “at the first moment at which it could have been resolved” effectively just means “when it is resolved”.

Saturday, February 02, 2013

Busy this weekend

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.

Proposal: Deliberation Timing

Timed out and passed, 8-0. Skju gains 4 Credibility, Koen, Patrick and scshunt all lose 2 for not voting. Josh

Adminned at 06 Feb 2013 00:40:57 UTC

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.

Proposaled.

I anticipate Proposals having problems getting enough votes soon enough after relevant Deliberations pass, so the timing is a little looser. There’s also some filibuster potential, but with that a little restriction.

Disregard

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

Saturday, February 02, 2013

Deliberation Timing

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.

I anticipate Proposals having problems getting enough votes soon enough after relevant Deliberations pass, so the timing is a little looser. There’s also some filibuster potential, but with that a little restriction.

Proposal: Final Fix

Timed out and passed, 6-1. Raichu gains 4 Credibility, nqeron loses 2 for voting AGAINST, Koen, Patrick, scshunt and Spitemaster all lose 2 for not voting. Josh

Adminned at 06 Feb 2013 00:37:49 UTC

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)”.

Fixes Party consensus, as multiplying size times consensus rewards both. Works whether or not various fixes passes. If anyone finds an issue in this please propose a deliberation or point it out; this has been going on long enough.

Proposal: Last Man Standing

Timed out and passed, 9-0. nqeron gains 4 Credibility; Clucky, Murphy, Purplebeard, robo1995 and scshunt all lose 2 Credibility. Josh

Adminned at 03 Feb 2013 13:35:11 UTC

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.

I know that it might be a bit soon, but this was an interesting idea I had.  It also seemed eventual.  Plus, I like that it’s not really a ‘winner’, but rather a ‘not loser’.  Even with Josh’s changes, this should still take a bit of time to achieve.
It also kind of makes sense.

(Also, the first bit is just to move stuff around)