Register
Email: Password:
Forum » Nomic
  • « previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • » next
    •

    Nomic

    Amarth 16 years ago
    Definitely yes to Idiota's. No to MK's for being unimaginative (hah ) and no to Pete's, unless "important discussion" only includes votes and proposals (but that would need refinement at a later turn as you can't change the proposal now).

    I suggest someone proposes a rule to give me less work on counting the votes. I suppose we could involve NomicBot in the process of voting and proposing rules, I'll have to think about that. I'm a bit averse to it because I'll have to keep him updated if the rule changing procedures change, which is not implausible.
    #
    Murska 16 years ago
    YES to MK's and NO to Pete's. I propose all rules (and, if Amarth ever has time for such things, current proposals) are kept in the first post of this thread.
    #
    E_net4 16 years ago
    Jeesh, I'm becoming confused with all these rules.
    I vote No on Pete's proposal and Yes on MK's. Oh, and Yes on Murska's as well.

    And here's my proposal: The maximum number of proposals for each turn is 5.
    #
    Murska 16 years ago
    I vote NO on that, since everyone in the game should have one proposal per turn, just as it is.
    #
    Grim Reaper 16 years ago
    I vote No on E's proposal.

    I propose that in order to convert a proposal into a rule, at least one third of the total amount of players (rounding upwards) must have voted on it, and of the voters at least two thirds (still rounding upwards) must've vote Yes.
    #
    Amarth 16 years ago
    No on Murska's because the bot will handle that way better than I could. Though I'll probably do it for now anyway.
    No on E's because I fell it'll be more a case of first-come-first-serve then, with hastely-thought of proposals launched at the start of the turn.
    Requestion rationale on Grim's proposal. Why is that better than the current rules?


    About the bot. It is not running fulltime at the moment, and I'm not sure when it will. However, this is no big problem really, because I added Jabber and mail support. Lemme explain.

    First of all, there's NomicBot in the IRC chatroom. Then, there's <!-- e --><a href="mailto:nomicbot@gmail.com">nomicbot@gmail.com</a><!-- e -->, the mailbot. And last, there's <!-- e --><a href="mailto:nomicbot@gmail.com">nomicbot@gmail.com</a><!-- e -->, the Jabber/XMPP/Google Talk bot. Now, the last two can also be accessed while he's "offline", in the sense that messages will be queued and answered when he runs. As for the Jabber bot, I have to add everyone that wants to use it to the contact list manually to allow messages to be sent. Add him to your contact list and drop me a note I have to add you to his list, and I'll do it.

    General usage of the bot is the same in all cases. There are commands to query about the current rules ("rule" or "rule 5" - this can generate much output), current proposals ("proposal" or "proposal Amarth") and a few other things ("roll 2d5", "help help"). In IRC, you have to prepend each command with a '!' to make the bot notice it - this is to prevent the bot from overflowing the channel with loads of info when rules (nomic or chatroom) are being discussed. Since Jabber and mail are always private, there's no need to do that there. In mail, you can do multiple queries in a single mail. Just put every comand on a single line and the bot will execute them all in turn.

    So, what are the (dis)advantages of each incarnation of the bot?
    IRC
    pro: multiple people can see the result, may be useful in discussion, fairly quick reply, knowledge of online/offline, most tested version
    con: slow and annoying for high volumes of data, doesn't work when bot is offline

    Mail
    pro: good for high-volume queries (like all proposals or all rules), or multiple queries in one go
    con: no knowledge of when the bot is online, might take up to 10 minutes for reply when online or more when offline

    Jabber
    pro: fast, also good for high-volume, knowledge of online/offline, also works when bot is offline (responds when coming online)
    con: needs Jabber account (though these are free to get - Google Talk also works), needs one-time "registration"

    Well, whew. Any questions, ask. If it doesn't work for you, ask. This info will find its way to the first post eventually. Requests for enhancements, ask. But if you wish to force a certain enhancement, you'll have to change the rules of the game.

    Usage of the bot is not mandatory in any way, but highly recommended to keep your sanity.
    #
    Grim Reaper 16 years ago
    "Amarth" said:
    Requestion rationale on Grim's proposal. Why is that better than the current rules?
    As I see it, the current rules have nothing to prevent a silly proposal with only one "Yes" vote (that is, the "Yes" vote being the only one cast on the proposal) from becoming a rule.

    Ergo, in order to prevent an unwanted rule that almost no-one noticed from becoming an official rule, a certain amount of voters should be required to have voted on it (1/3 out of all players for now, could be raised to 1/2, 2/3, or even 3/4, or something else depending on the number of players in the game).

    Also, in case of a scenario where most of the players were to be offline (leaving less than the designated amount of voters online) for the weekend (Fri-Sun), the other players wouldn't be able to fashion up a rule that makes them win instantly.
    #
    Amarth 16 years ago
    "Grim Reaper" said:
    As I see it, the current rules have nothing to prevent a silly proposal with only one "Yes" vote (that is, the "Yes" vote being the only one cast on the proposal) from becoming a rule.
    You see that wrong.
    "The rules" said:
    If a rule change/addition receives a vote from at least 50% of players AND the majority of these votes is YES, then the proposal is incorporated in the game from the following turn onwards.
    #
    Grim Reaper 16 years ago
    ...now why didn't I notice that before?
    #
    Shingo 16 years ago
    I vote no to Idiota's suggestion, and yes to MageKing's.
    #
    E_net4 16 years ago
    And I vote No to Grim's.

    Now I remember that we should actually roll a dice to get points. Is the bot done?
    #
    Amarth 16 years ago
    "E_net4" said:
    Now I remember that we should actually roll a dice to get points. Is the bot done?
    Aye, though it's not certain he's online at any given moment. If you enter IRC a couple of times and poke me around, he'll be there.

    Or you can roll your die via mail (an email holding only the text "roll 1d6" to <!-- e --><a href="mailto:nomicbot@gmail.com">nomicbot@gmail.com</a><!-- e --> or XMPP. I'm keeping logs of executed commands and I'll be able to track what you rolled.

    For clarity, I'll take the first 1d6 roll you do as the one that counts. That's the only fair way. I don't think anyone has rolled up to this point (well, terrva, but he isn't in the game)

    REMINDER! THIS TURN IS ALMOST OVER! ONLY ABOUT 9 HOURS LEFT! CAST YOUR VOTES AND ROLL YOUR DICE!
    #
    Nuklearni-okurka 16 years ago
    Edited!
    #
    Amarth 16 years ago
    Confirmed rolls so far:
    Grim (IRC): 5
    Amarth (IRC): 6
    Idiota (Mail): 3
    Murska (IRC): 6
    Nuk (Mail): 1

    And Nuk, for reasons of spam, I'd suggest not placing your email address on the boards.

    If anyone that should be on the list is not on it, or anything has gone wrong, let me know. Now is the time to work out possible quirks (like my computer going in Sleep modus while acting as a bot - silly Vista).

    Also, Idiota and Nuk, please confirm you got a mail back from the bot with these results. And yeah, I know it's a bit slow with email. That's the way email works, can't do anything about it. If your mail has not been answered for longer than 15 minutes, though, the bot is down. Once again, it should answer as soon as it's up, but let me know something cause I might not know when it goes down.
    #
    Idiota 16 years ago
    Actually, it did answer decently fast.
    #
    Nuklearni-okurka 16 years ago
    Yeah, I'm poor, got that email with 1.
    #
    Amarth 16 years ago
    Okay. Overview of this turn.

    Accepted proposals:
    Amarth: Change rule 2 to "Each turn, each player has the right to propose a set of changes and additions to the rules."
    Passed with 5-2.

    Idiota: There can only be voted on even days of the month.
    Passed with 6-1.

    MageKing17: Delete rule number 8 and come up with a more satisfactory victory condition at a later date.
    Passed with 6-1.

    There were 4 rejected proposals. Don't take it personal.

    I'm adjusting Idiota's wording slightly to "even days of the month in GMT" for clarity. If you're not okay with that, let me know.

    I'll be adjusting the first post to contain the new rules. Next turn starts at 00:01 GMT.

    (This post will be generated by a bot in the future because it sucks to write all this myself )
    #
    Amarth 16 years ago
    Hmm. I have the feeling my new rule is a bit ambiguous. Did you guys interpret it as "each player can make only one proposal that can change a lot" or "each player can propose as many changes each turn as he likes"? Or even something else?

    Also, next turn has started you know...

    I'm rewriting the bot to be a bit more flexible, using a database backend instead of the XML files I used previously. It's mainly to ease programming for me - SQL statements are easier to write than huge blocks of hashref-abusing Perl code, and a database is easier to keep consistent. It's also easier to keep track of what is happening for me. You should see no changes on the user end, I think.

    EDIT: rewrite pretty much done, I think.
    <Amarth> !query SELECT V.player FROM vote AS V, proposal AS P WHERE P.turn = 1 AND P.player = 'Amarth' AND P.id = V.proposal AND V.vote = 'No'
    <NomicBotTest> E_net4
    <NomicBotTest> Pete
    Gotta love SQL. This feature is available to all. Database schema on request since I doubt a lot of you are interested.
    #
    Amarth 16 years ago
    Nearly-legal triple post! Whoo!

    My proposal for this turn:
    Every player will have hitpoints (HP). Initial HP is set at 100 for everyone, this is also the maximum number of HP. At the start of every turn, each player gains 10 HP, with a maximum of 100 HP.
    Votes and proposals of players with 0 or less HP do not count. Also, when rolling the die for points, the results are multiplied by your HP percentage.
    Where you could get 1d6 points before, you can now gain (1d6)*HP/100 points, rounded down, with a lower bound of 0 (so that you don't lose points if you have a negative amount of HP). Once again, this only happens if you DO roll a die.
    Also change the rule about rolling the die (rule to name the bot and not restrict it to IRC.

    I'll leave it to someone else to come up with rules by which hitpoints can be reduced.

    Also, I'd say we introduce a victory condition (or more than one), because we currently don't really have a goal.

    Remember that votes on uneven days (GMT - you can ask the bot with the "gmtime" command) don't count! You have about an hour after this post, then it's the 11th and you can't vote for 24 hours.
    #
    Idiota 16 years ago
    I propose that when someone breaks one of the rules, he or she will have his hp reduced by 30. This includes forgetting to roll a die at the end of each turn. I also propose that if a person attempts to delete his or her post to cover up evidence of breaking a rule, and someone else can provide us with a screenshot of the post, the trespasser will have his hp reduced to 0, unless he has a negative hp amount.
    #
    Grim Reaper 16 years ago
    "Idiota" said:
    I propose that when someone breaks one of the rules, he or she will have his hp reduced by 30. This includes forgetting to roll a die at the end of each turn. I also propose that if a person attempts to delete his or her post to cover up evidence of breaking a rule, and someone else can provide us with a screenshot of the post, the trespasser will have his hp reduced to 0, unless he has a negative hp amount.
    But not rolling a die is NOT breaking the rules. The rules state that players CAN roll a die, not that they MUST.
    #
    Amarth 16 years ago
    "Grim Reaper" said:
    "Idiota" said:
    I propose that when someone breaks one of the rules, he or she will have his hp reduced by 30. This includes forgetting to roll a die at the end of each turn. I also propose that if a person attempts to delete his or her post to cover up evidence of breaking a rule, and someone else can provide us with a screenshot of the post, the trespasser will have his hp reduced to 0, unless he has a negative hp amount.
    But not rolling a die is NOT breaking the rules. The rules state that players CAN roll a die, not that they MUST.
    Then I suppose he just proposed to change that rule.
    #
    Nuklearni-okurka 16 years ago
    Yes to Amarth, no to idiota.

    I also say this rule: Each player should have his own speciality and should be able to craft things.
    #
    Amarth 16 years ago
    "Nuklearni-okurka" said:
    Yes to Amarth, no to idiota.
    Hey. You can't vote. It's the 11th.

    I like that rule.
    I also say this rule: Each player should have his own speciality and should be able to craft things.
    Might be interesting but needs a framework. How many thing can be crafted each turn? How can they be useful? Where can they be stored?

    We need to come up with a rule on how to handle unclear/incomplete proposals. Ideas?
    #
    Murska 16 years ago
    I do a delayed vote, tomorrow at this time, regardless of if I say it or not, I will vote no to Idiota's and yes to Amarth's.
    I also propose that if your proposal fails, you lose 20hp. That stops people from proposing the same/useless things over and over again by implying a penalty. Also, I want to hit someone for 20hp.
    #
    E_net4 16 years ago
    I'd like to vote alright, but no votes today.

    However, I suggest one would be producing 1 xtric (a newly invented measurement system) of the material of his specialty.
    The materials would be stored by the game bot. Then we could use it for other stuff... what stuff?
    #
    Idiota 16 years ago
    "Murska" said:
    I do a delayed vote, tomorrow at this time, regardless of if I say it or not, I will vote no to Idiota's and yes to Amarth's.
    I also propose that if your proposal fails, you lose 20hp. That stops people from proposing the same/useless things over and over again by implying a penalty. Also, I want to hit someone for 20hp.

    That's not really the way 'voting' works, Murska. You can't go to the town hall a day before the elections to cast your vote, you need to actually deliver your vote on the appointed day(s), in this case, even days of the month.
    #
    Murska 16 years ago
    I've got a headache and probably, if earlier signs are correct, will be feverish tomorrow. I dunno how long it will last. I still want to be able to vote though. :/
    #
    Idiota 16 years ago
    Well, I guess it's fair to say that if we don't see another reply from you by thursday, we will assume you have succumbed to the fever, and I at least will validate your vote. I can't speak for the others though.
    #
    MageKing17 16 years ago
    Still February 11th, by GMT, so I will not vote prematurely.

    I propose that (assuming the HP rule is passed), anyone who has an HP of 0 or less for two turns (as in, their HP started at or below 0 on the first turn and never rose above by the end of the second), then they are removed from the game, and that if only one person with HP remains, they are victorious.
    #
    Grim Reaper 16 years ago
    My votes:
    Amarth     - YES
    Idiota     - NO
    MageKing17 - YES
    #
    Idiota 16 years ago
    Yes to Amarth, Yes to MageKing17, Yes to Murska, No to Nuk
    #
    Grim Reaper 16 years ago
    Moar votes:
    Murska - YES
    Nuk    - NO
    #
    Murska 16 years ago
    "Grim Reaper" said:
    My votes:
    Amarth     - YES
    Idiota     - NO
    MageKing17 - YES


    I copy these ones.
    #
    E_net4 16 years ago
    As you're using the code tags, I'll use them as well.
    Amarth - YES
    Idiota - NO, because rolling a dice should be "optional", as in something you can do.
    Murska - NO
    MageKing17 - NO, because then we wouldn't be using the points.
    Nuk - NO, because we'd then need to define "what specialty for each one of us?"


    Also, I'll edit my suggestion and propose it: People produce 1 xtric each week, and these units would be used for further objectives.

    And yes, you can do a proposal on modifying the name of the unit. XD
    #
    Forum » Nomic
  • « previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • » next
    •

    Post Reply
    Your email:
    Your name: