308 (Michael) (passed)

[michaelenstone]

Proposal:

In order to keep the players entertained all proposals shall be accompanied by something interesting, fun or entertaining in the form of a link, photo, quote etc.

In order to be considered interesting, fun or entertaining the item should be new to at least one of the other players

[Neil]

That's good advice, but doesn't constitute a proposal. In any case, you didn't include anything interesting.

Robin's Razor: your proposal is worth less than the benefit to me of the points you lose from my rejection.

[Robin_C]

That really is dire mike; i mean that in the nicest way possible - but we are competing here, not just being amusing

We could set up a different forum where we take it in turns to post things... 4Chan? Facebook?

[Robin_C]

you could propose a rule that repeatedly takes all Neil's points off him. And you'd get immunity if this passes as well.

It's not very playful, but it is effcetive

[Robin_C]

In response to your first idea, StumbleUpon is the answer you're looking for

[Neil]

In terms of improving 'interest', I'm still drawn to the idea of developing positive incentives for game-altering rules > game playability improvements > clarifications.
I stand by the observation that 302 added nothing beyond clarification of what is already in 111.

You killed it when I proposed it before, but perhaps the concept just needs some improvement?

[Robin_C]

yes - we now need to start altering the game; as we get further in, we get more points. This puts a limit of turns on the game, and so this will encourage us to be more aggressive with it. Nonetheless, heightening this feeling would be a good idea.

[michaelenstone]

How about:

The number of rules a player is allowed to introduce in their turn shall be decided by rolling the nomic dice roller for a single D6. This represents the maximum number of rules a player can introduce. Where a player introduces more than one rule in a turn this shall be known as a bill.

Rules in a bill must be related by a theme declared at the time of proposal.

Individual rules in a bill are numbered and scored in the normal manner.

Bills can only be passed by unanimous vote.

Where a bill is defeated the player loses each as if each rule were proposed individually with the associated 10 point penalty.

[Neil]

I like this a lot more. These amends suggested to improve how this works:
Introduce --> propose
"normal manner" --> "in accordance with the rules for individual proposals"
Suggest you don't refer to the ten point penalty (it might change), but instead "...defeated each proposed rule in the bill fails and is scored in accordance with the rules for individual proposals"?

Beyond 'improvement within proposal':
Don't see why you'd make bills unanimous, seems unnecessarily limiting
I laid out some rules for doing dice rolls, you've barely addressed it. I'm ok with leaving it loose, then adding (a) rule(s) soon to legislate the use of the roller wherever specified. If we do that, it's better not to get too detailed here.

[michaelenstone]

Updated as suggested with modification regarding the validity of proposals where a dice isn't rolled:

The number of rules a player is allowed to propose in their turn shall be decided by consulting a fair and transparent dice roller in accordance with the rules. The result of the dice roll shall limit the maximum number of rules a player can introduce. Where a player introduces more than one rule in a turn this shall be known as a bill.

Each player must consult and post the results of the dice roll before making any proposals in order for a proposal to be considered valid.

Rules in a bill must be related by a theme declared at the time of proposal.

Individual rules in a bill are numbered and scored in accordance with the rules for individual proposals.

Bills require majority vote to pass.

Where a bill is defeated the player loses as if each rule in the bill fails and is scored in accordance with the rules for individual proposals.

[Robin_C]

It seems that this allows people to have more than one turn at once. This speeds up the game, but I'm not sure it fundamentally changes anything - am i missing something?

[michaelenstone]

This allows for larger changes in the game at once. At this stage I don't think it is easy to introduce a single rule that fundamentally changes things.

It also adds greater jeopardy in that proposing more than one rule gives greater likelihood of loosing more points. It would be legitimate to vote against a bill because you do not like a single rule but would have the effect of imposing a far greater loss on the proposer.

At the moment there are a couple of rules that I would like to tidy up, amend or repeal but I feel it would be a wasted go. If you have a bill you can propose a mixture of alterations, amendments and new rules to improve the game.

[Neil]

Yes, it allows multiple rule change proposals in one go (your point).
It also packages them for approval - the collection of rules is 'all or nothing' - which could be disastrous or very beneficial to score.
It also encourages development of proposals which work together (how hard it would be to enforce I don't know, but given the way it's written, people would probably vote down a bill with an inconsistent theme). For me, this might mean a high roll could facilitate introduction of a whole new area of gameplay:
"everyone gets 30 wonder points"
"it costs 12 wonder points to make a proposal"
"if you run out of wonder points you can buy 30 more at a cost of 10 regular points or forfeit your go"
(I'm not saying these are great proposals)
Obviously, in a set like this, the first proposal is pointless and would get squashed (not to mention it would take ages); well-though out collections could really enhance the game.

I would first use this rule to develop a useful (dull) set of rules for using dice rolls, which can be applied repeatably in the game.

[Neil]

I will vote for this if proposed as is, but would prefer inclusion of the below...

The only thing which might enhance it is an amendment of proposal debate time. If someone rolls a 6 but only has 2 days to think up, propose and amend all 6 proposals they'd be pretty well doomed to failure.

Something like: the proposer's permitted proposal debate time as specified in rule 303 is increased by 24 hours for each proposed rule change within a bill after the first two proposed rule changes.

[Neil]

Or perhaps something less generous? +12 hours for each change after the first 2?

[Robin_C]

hmm - fair enough

[michaelenstone]

Final version of the proposal:

The number of rules a player is allowed to propose in their turn shall be decided by consulting a fair and transparent dice roller in accordance with the rules. The result of the dice roll shall limit the maximum number of rules a player can introduce. Where a player introduces more than one rule in a turn this shall be known as a bill.

Each player must consult and post the results of the dice roll before making any proposals in order for a proposal to be considered valid.

Rules in a bill must be related by a theme declared at the time of proposal.

Individual rules in a bill are numbered and scored in accordance with the rules for individual proposals. Each rule proposed over and above the first two shall grant the bill an additional 24 hours of debate before the vote is automatically called.

Bills require majority vote to pass.

Where a bill is defeated the player loses as if each rule in the bill fails and is scored in accordance with the rules for individual proposals.

I call the vote on this rule as described above.

I vote for

[Neil]

Robin, are you voting?

[Robin_C]

Yes; after you

You're next in alphabetical order...

[michaelenstone]

Bored now...

[Robin_C]

fine - i vote for

[Neil]

Sorry, I'm in Marrakech. I vote against. I love the proposal... but it's already passed, so I have no incentive to give Mike more points and not take ten myself. If only someone had thought to adjust the mechanics to reduce gamesmanship...

[Neil]

Score yourself...

[Sponsored content]