305 (Michael) (passed)

[michaelenstone]

Proposal:

"Where it is beneficial to game play the wording to any rule (mutable or otherwise) may be amended to clarify the meaning of the rule. Any player may suggest that a rule is reworded and this rewording must be accepted unanimously in order for the rewording to be accepted.

Rewording may not fundamentally change the rule only clarify it

Rewording a rule does not score points"

This rule is designed to reduce the amount of turns devoted to clarifying rules.

[Neil]

OK principle. Should include 'at any time' or 'not in sequence'.

[michaelenstone]

Like so?

"Where it is beneficial to game play the wording to any rule (mutable or otherwise) may be amended to clarify the meaning of the rule. Any player may at any time suggest that a rule is reworded and this rewording must be accepted unanimously in order for the rewording to be accepted.

Rewording may not fundamentally change the rule only clarify it

Rewording a rule does not score points"

[Robin_C]

When have we needed this so far? To plagarise Neil, I want to move away from collective rule tinkering...

[michaelenstone]

I think the need for unanimity in the early stages will have this effect.

Just because we haven't needed this rule in three rounds of play doesn't mean that it isn't a valid suggestion. It's a little harsh to criticize someone's second go for being rule tinkering when you have only suggested rule tinkering thus far. If you want to move away from rule tinkering and make a more creative suggestion then wait for your go and suggest it!

[Neil]

A little harsh? Mike, are you on your period?

Anyway, you're both right. It's not very exciting but it is sort of practical. Only 'sort of' because it relies significantly on adherence to spirit of rules, one could suggest a 'clarification' of a rule out of sequence and materially change it. There is no definition of clarification to work from... not that I'm saying we should start defining materiality or otherwise of rule changes, your rule (deliberately or not) introduces the opportunity to be much more playful.

Incidentally, Cooprinol, a rule to force votes within 24 hours hasn't been needed so far.

[Robin_C]

More thoughts: I think the Judge rule effectively does what you're proposing above. If there's any question, anyone can Invoke Judgement. Moreover, his judgement can be overturned by unanimous vote. This is slightly different to your proposal, which requires unanimity to pass rather than be rejected, but the function is already there.

In short, I don't favour this rule more than i favour your loss of points.

RE: 24hrs, the rule needn't be invoked for it to be of use - like nuclear deterrent - its presence can force behaviours nonetheless

[michaelenstone]

My aim is to get a game that flows better. While having the judge allows rules to be clarified there is no way in which previous judgements can affect future judgements.

Further, using the normal voting mechanism in order to clarify rules gives people points for house keeping and will make for a less interesting game i.e. any clarification that is agreed by all is more likely to be proposed because it is a straight forward way to gain points.

If you would prefer to use the judges as a way to achieve this end then perhaps we could establish that judges rulings create precedent.

Apologies for being cranky.

[Neil]

Listening to both of you and thinking...

Why not introduce a scoring mechanism which awards more points for more material changes? i.e. incentivise the right behaviours, rather than codify a pointless (i.e. no points are awarded) bureaucratic sub-game.

Like... by non-unanimous vote including the proposer, the score awarded for a play will be multiplied by:
0.1 for changes which improve clarity without changing anything
(example: Mike's first proposal could be argued as explicitly outlining something already within the rules)
0.5 for changes which facilitate gameplay but don't enhance the game beyond facilitation
(example: every change so far)
1 for changes which change how the game works
(this would count)
2 ... changes involving innuendo and / or bigotry

[michaelenstone]

Sounds good in theory but how would you decide which proposal is which. I can foresee the judge would effectively decide for almost every proposal.

Also would it not be possible to reword rules for improved clarity while introducing inuendo and/or bigotry...? Would this compound the score i.e. x0.1 for improving clarity and x2 for bigotry give a total multiplier of 0.2...?

[Robin_C]

I agree with the issues you identify, but I don't think this solution is required.

To my mind, the Judge mechanism will work fine; precedent in the current system can be imposed by unamimous opposition, or ignored if we feel like it.

I also don't want to reward people for house-keeping, and thus would vote against their proposals - including this one, which seems like second-order housekeeping to me.

No worries about cranky

[michaelenstone]

As such I am going to amend my proposal as follows:

Where all players of the game are present, the winner of any other games (referred to as un-nomic games for clarity) shall score 10 points within this game.

Un-nomic games with participants other than the players of this nomic are still eligible for scoring

[Neil]

Yeah, OK.

[Neil]

In fact, preemptively. I vote for this if you propose it as it stands. Efficiency paradigm.

[michaelenstone]

48 hours has elapsed therefore a vote has been called automatically on my last rule proposal:

Where all players of the game are present, the winner of any other games (referred to as un-nomic games for clarity) shall score 10 points within this game.

Un-nomic games with participants other than the players of this nomic are still eligible for scoring

I vote for and Neil has voted for.

Robin what's your vote?

[Robin_C]

Vote for

Motion passes

[Sponsored content]