Self Killed—Clucky
Adminned at 15 Mar 2021 15:12:09 UTC
If the proposal here: https://blognomic.com/archive/timing_clarification_part_1, has been enacted, then this proposal does nothing.
In the rule “The Masquerade” after “evaluate if the cost for Nominating the Elector” add ” (as calculated at the time this action is being performed)”
@Josh def votes don’t do any good on this one. voting FOR is the neutral move because:
1 passes, 2 passes, its fine. 1 wins.
1 fails, 2 passes, its fine, 2 wins.
but while if 1 passes, 2 fails, its fine and 1 wins; if 1 fails, 2 fails… we don’t resolve the ambiguity in the rules. So technically, even people who want interpretation #1 should still vote for this because its a nice failsafe.
Sure but as you will have observed it’s not consistently the case that every player reads every proposal, and often follows whichever vote they see above them in the thread; therefore for the time being I’m signalling neutrality. Might change my mind later.
Since if the majority prefer 1 to 2 and Clucky prefers 2 to 1, Clucky can self-kill 1 to enact 2 instead.
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. Have a look around the wiki for more information and history. New players are always welcome and can join in the game at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
Josh: he/they