307 (Robin) (passed)

[Robin_C]

"307: it is forbidden to introduce a rule that removes or reduces points belonging to Robin or Neil"

Discuss.

[michaelenstone]

I think it would be fair to say such a rule is destructive to play in that it would have the effect of making this a two player game.

[Neil]

I like this, but be more playful.
I find it very uncomfortable when people raise proposals whose proposal number, when divided by 3, has a remainder of 2. Yuck.
We should legislate against such unsportsmanly conduct. I suggest immediately resetting the offenders' score to 0. Every time.

[Robin_C]

1) is being destructive to play illegal?
2) what would constitute being 'more playful'?

[Robin_C]

It seems that 'destructive of play' is not illegal, but does allow us to debate. Which we are.

Which leaves question 2 to Neil - what constitutes 'playful'?

[Neil]

What I said was more playful. It still screws Mike, but less directly, and is more likely to change in nature if the game evolves.

[Robin_C]

oh. i see. so:

"307: if a proposal whose number, when divided by 3 leaves a remainder of 2, passes, all positive points belonging to the proposer (including those awarded for the proposal) are immediately re-distributed to the other players"

This still takes Mike out of the game. Not sure how this is any more 'playful'.

[Robin_C]

I don't like that one anyway. So:

"307: once a proposal is accepted (including this one), the player who proposed it gains immunity from points being removed / reduced by any rules with a higher number than 307. Any such rules can still be proposed, accepted, and carried out - any individual protected by this rule is simply held neutral to any points reduction"

[Robin_C]

i like that one

[Neil]

For

[Robin_C]

Any thoughts Mike?

[Robin_C]

Strictly, I don't need mike's input as it's majority vote now. I'll wait nonetheless, as I value his opinion

Vote will be called automatically at 15:57 tomorrow if nothing from Mike

[michaelenstone]

As I see the rule this means that in effect once someone has a new rule accepted they gain immunity for the rest of the game.

This rule effectively removes the possibility of future rules to punish negative behaviour with negative points. Rules would then be written such that rather than player x losing points players y and z gain points.

I would prefer the rule if it was immunity from all negative point scoring but included a limit to the length of immunity, say for the following round.

[Robin_C]

Immunity for the rest of the game is not the case - only from rules with a higher number. Also, you can repeal the new rule.

Agreed about removing ability to punish - but as you point out, this isn't a problem as you can benefit others for rubbish behaviour instead.

Immunity for one round is pretty pointless: it just delays introduction of attacking rules, and incentivices constant proposals of rules that get accepted, such that one person is not caught without immunity.

In effect, my rule encourages you each to come up with something that we can agree on, and gives us all a nice benefit, which also keeps the game from being pejorative (at least in an uncreative way).

I stand by it

[Neil]

pejorative is not the write word.

[Robin_C]

whatever

[Neil]

I'm bored of this proposal. I might vote against it. It doesn't do enough.

[Robin_C]

Oh dear. What more would you like it to do?

[Neil]

Well it just means, in three proposals' time, no-one gets negative points from any new proposals. You may as well have "you can't make proposals which remove points". Which is dull.

[Robin_C]

I'm not sure that's right - it means that people are encouraged to come up with something that passes, and it gets us away from the punitive (that's the word i was looking for) approach which you and I were both bemoaning.

If we're happy to play the punitive game, then I guess that's an option.

Anyway, time's up so i call the vote!

[Neil]

Only for three proposals.

307: once a proposal is accepted (including this one), the player who proposed it gains immunity from points being removed / reduced by any rules with a higher number than 307. Any such rules can still be proposed, accepted, and carried out - any individual protected by this rule is simply held neutral to any points reduction

after three accepted proposals, this rule just means:

No-one gets any points removed as a result of a rule numbered more than 307

.

Against.

[Robin_C]

For - mike?

[michaelenstone]

I vote for

[Neil]

Score yourself.

[Sponsored content]