Friday, February 22, 2013

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.

Comments

nqeron:

02-22-2013 17:42:01 UTC

against Still disagree with this formulation.  I think it should be ok, if this dynasty dies down, to end it quickly with a clause, like, “The Hon. member with the greatest Credibility achieves victory”.  Effectively, this could have been any Hon. Member—but it just so happnes that (ftm) Spitemaster would be the one to fulfill this.

RaichuKFM:

02-22-2013 17:47:35 UTC

imperial Whatever formulation works. I defer to popular judgement.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-22-2013 17:48:53 UTC

against Blocking individual scams is important work, but disallowing a whole category of scam seems self-defeating - this is a Nomic, ruleset scams are a valid tool in the arsenal. It’s specifically contrary to the stated aims of this dynasty, and also runs counter to the last week or so of the game, which has frankly been as much fun as I’ve had with BlogNomic in a long while.

nqeron:

02-22-2013 17:53:43 UTC

Josh:

I agree it was fun - for a bit, until it was overused.  Now we need something else, though I’m not sure what.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-22-2013 17:56:54 UTC

nqeron - sure, patch the individual loopholes, but blocking off a whole section of play seems like a nose / face situation.

nqeron:

02-22-2013 18:01:49 UTC

Josh - hence my opposition to this rule.  Plus, there are other possible scams, even if this passes.

Josh: HE/HIM

02-22-2013 18:04:14 UTC

Oh good. Essentially we are in violent agreement :)

Purplebeard:

02-22-2013 18:15:21 UTC

against Apart from the objections noted above, “1 nanosecond after the proposal entitled ‘Suck it, I’m having this sandwich’ was enacted, the Honourable Member called Purplebeard achieves victory.”

MurphEngineer:

02-22-2013 19:23:31 UTC

Purplebeard: You raise an interesting point. That means there is theoretically an uncountably infinite family of proposals that would have exactly this problem. against and Self-Killed because this would not have the intended effect.

However, I’m seeing more and more problems with the idea of Political Capital (which is why, in general, I tend to be opposed to the idea of extra votes). We may need to look into that a little bit, such as a limit on how much PC can be spent on a given Proposal.

RaichuKFM:

02-22-2013 20:20:45 UTC

against So one more vote can kill this quickly.

omd:

02-22-2013 21:45:29 UTC

Am I the only one who thinks someone forcing through a proposal with PC would be an appropriate end to the dynasty?

RaichuKFM:

02-22-2013 21:48:21 UTC

I’d assume, considering there exists an obvious counter- Deliberations aren’t subject to any bribes.

Larrytheturtle:

02-22-2013 22:49:22 UTC

against

Skju:

02-23-2013 04:10:54 UTC

Deliberations can be PC’d: “Whenever an Honourable Member casts a vote on a votable matter other than a CfJ, they may spend any quantity of Political Capital.”

RaichuKFM:

02-23-2013 04:14:30 UTC

They can, but it doesn’t do anything: “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. 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.”

Skju:

02-23-2013 12:41:57 UTC

Ah…