Rather complicated. And this does give a player with lots of points an unfair advantage, simply because they have more options (stay highest or win auctions); other people don’t even have either of those options.

@ais: You open an auction, you can bid, after it goes stale, it’s closed, highest bidder wins.

If that series of actions is rather complicated for you, I’d recommend you to stop playing this game at once, it might be too much for you to cope with.

Also, your second point says that basically we shouldn’t create benefits for players with points because that could encourage players with low points to do something about it? Because, you know, communism has been so great in the past…

I wonder if the other players voted against because they disliked the mechanic in general, or because they think its not well implemented by the proposal?

too much text for me to read when I’m already drunk

@arth: I voted against because I dislike the mechanic in its current form.  I’d rather have it be, say, an automatic weekly event that picks a random rule with a fee than one directed by the Acting Leader.

@bucky: in any event, someone still has to do that action. I though you where against overloading admin duties?

Make it Acting leader’s job, or ding them a stack of points.  Say, all of them. 

I voted against because I disliked the attitude of your response to ais523.

I’m just confused with it.

@kevan: Ad hominem voting? I would have never expected that from you. I really thought you were above that.

We’re in a metadynasty where points are awarded for proposals. I’m not just voting on whether I think the proposal is a good idea, here, I’m also voting on whether or not you should get ten points, and (one can assume) whether you should stand a better chance of winning the game and running the next Dynasty. Being gratuitously rude to other players will affect this.

You have some trouble with my personality? Yeah, well I notice people dislike the idea of me winning (and are voting accordingly), despite having probed to be an active, fair and fun emperor.

After all, I also guess you vote for the friendly looking politicians IRL, right? Their proposals are not so important as kissing babies and hand waving at the crowds, right?

This is a social game, Arthexis. You’ll find that there are consequences to saying things like “I’d recommend you to stop playing this game at once” or “I also guess you vote for the friendly looking politicians IRL, right?” to other players.

for invoking communism.

@kevan: Oh, I don’t mind the consequences because I’m not interested in winning, only in making fun rules.

Beer pong is also a social game. But, I though a Nomic might be a little more refined and based upon the player’s abilities to rationalize, rather than mere popularity.

Or are you suggesting me being nice and gentle, rather than making interesting proposals? You should have said so earlier, rather than have that contradicting quote in the sidebar that reads:

“The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them”

So much for debating the wisdom of changing rules.

You give yourself an awful lot of credit, arthexis, in saying that the benefit of your great rules-making outweighs the detriment of your general insolence….

@qwaz: That I am insolent or delusional should have no impact on the debate of the rules I create. Or are you somehow implying that my lack of humility somehow impoverishes the mechanics of this proposal?

Said another way: Its a pot, kettle thing.