+- Goonstation Forums (https://forum.ss13.co)
+-- Forum: Discussion (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Nomic (/showthread.php?tid=9782)
RE: Nomic - Tarhalindur - 01-19-2018
a) All players have an indicator in the OP indicating whether or not they have taken their turn. It can take the form of True or False.
b) At the time this rule comes into effect, all indicators display False.
c) Players may take their turn in any order they would like, not necessarily in definite order, but only if their turn indicator shows False. A player cannot take a turn if someone else already is.
d) After a player's turn is concluded, their turn indicator switches to True.
e) When all turn indicators show True or there have been no active proposals for 48 hours, whichever comes first, all turn indicators will change to False.
f) All clauses included in this rule except this one do not affect the game until awfulWorldKid's next turn concludes, after which this clause is automatically removed. (The automatic removal is considered a proposal but cannot be voted on and does not take up a turn. If needed, the change can be attributed to AUTO.)
RE: Nomic - popecrunch - 01-19-2018
My vote is yea but i would suggest that if multiple people take their turns at the same time / within a couple seconds of each other, the first unresolved proposal has to be voted on before any after it, just to make it clear what's being voted on
like
AGNES: i propose that we have some cookies
BILL: i propose that we eat some shit
CYNTHIA: i vote yea
with your proposal as written, it's hard to tell whether cynthia is down with some cookies or is a coprophile. i mean you do you, cynthia, buuuut
RE: Nomic - warcrimes - 01-19-2018
oOOOOoooOOH i like this chaotic mix
I would like to suggest an amendment to e) to read "When all turn indicators show True or if there have been no active proposals for 48 hours, all turn indicators will change to False."
I feel like a week is a very long time and functionally would be no different than the current Please-take-your-turn-opoly game.
Whether or not my amendment is adopted, I vote YES
As for Pope's comment, I assume the game still proceeds one turn at a time, and if someone accidentally initiates a simultaneous turn, timestamp order should prevail.
Also, in general, i guess we should be voting "Yea/Nay on Prop ###" specifically from that point on.
RE: Nomic - cyberTripping - 01-19-2018
I need to suggest an amendment to f: even though awfulworldkid is listed as first, i was the first person to take a turn so youd need to include awfulworldkid as well for it to be "balanced" like you intended
RE: Nomic - Tarhalindur - 01-19-2018
Great ideas, guys! I'm adding them.
RE: Nomic - Superlagg - 01-19-2018
yes vv
RE: Nomic - Tarhalindur - 01-20-2018
Time.
RE: Nomic - warcrimes - 01-20-2018
Well done Senator Nunavut.
Proposal 313 :
Rule 203 as amended by the Rt Hon. Popecrunch will be henceforth immutable.
Quest proposal 313:
The object of the quest is to come to a unanimous decision on a proposal.
Criterion: Unanimous approval of a proposal.
Reward: one point to each voting player.
Losing Criterion: Unanimous rejection of a proposal
Penalty: one negative point to each voting player.
RE: Nomic - Tarhalindur - 01-21-2018
The penalty has been invalidated as there is no provision for it in the rules.
Vote yes to Proposal 313, vote no to quest proposal 313 (this quest won't last very wrong, we usually come to a unanimous agreement anyway, plus it isn't very clear).
RE: Nomic - cyberTripping - 01-21-2018
I vote yea to both Rule Proposal 313 and Quest Proposal 313. While it's not particularly exciting and the penalty may not actually be enforceable, the proposal itself seems plenty clear.
RE: Nomic - warcrimes - 01-21-2018
(01-21-2018, 05:14 AM)Tarhalindur Wrote: The penalty has been invalidated as there is no provision for it in the rules.
Vote yes to Proposal 313, vote no to quest proposal 313 (this quest won't last very wrong, we usually come to a unanimous agreement anyway, plus it isn't very clear).
I would argue that while the term "penalty" is not defined, functionally it is a second set of criteria with an alternative reward for those who do not complete that criterion.
RE: Nomic - popecrunch - 01-21-2018
i vote yea
RE: Nomic - Superlagg - 01-21-2018
Vote yes; didn't read.
RE: Nomic - Tarhalindur - 01-22-2018
While this is true, John Warcrimes, the quest rule states that a quest consists of a criterion, a reward, and optionally, a losing criterion. It does not say it can contain a penalty.
RE: Nomic - Tarhalindur - 01-27-2018
It's been five days, and no discussion has taken place. I'm very disappointed in all of you. I'll be having a word with the Nunavut Department of Diplomacy.
--Tarhalindur