Nomic - A Forum Game

[MetaTerminal he/him]

2 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

So you have indeed passed that rule into effect.

No, since the Voting Clause explicitly outlines when laws are in effect, and they must be in effect to have effect - since the law is not yet in effect, then it cannot have effect, and thus the Voting Clause supersedes it.

:3

Edited April 2, 2019 by MetaTerminal

[Voidus]

19 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

The problem here is that regardless of if you intended to comply with a rule, you can still violate it. If we decide that using the singular p-word is against the rules, then it is still against the rules, regardless if you attempted to comply or not.

Only if you take my words as literal, which you may not do as per the Literal rule if I intended something else. In the same way that the interpretation of a rule can change what it does and does not apply to, the interpretation of a post changes what rules can or cannot apply to that post. My intent was to make a post consistent with the rules, if you take that intent at face value then you cannot imply that it is not consistent with the rules. :3

EDIT: Clearer example perhaps - If you can assume that the word 'Eggs' also implies the word 'Egg' given context then I can also assume that a different word implies the word Egg, given context.

[MacThorstenson he/him]

1 minute ago, MetaTerminal said:

No, since the Voting Clause explicitly outlines when laws are in effect, and they must be in effect to have effect - since the law is not yet in effect, then it cannot have effect, and thus the Voting Clause supersedes it.

 

It specifies when rules are in effect, not necessarily when they are passed.

And while they have very similar functions, they have slightly different definitions and thus the voting clause has no claim on rules that have been passed and thus are applied to Normic

[MetaTerminal he/him]

50 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

It specifies when rules are in effect, not necessarily when they are passed.

And while they have very similar functions, they have slightly different definitions and thus the voting clause has no claim on rules that have been passed and thus are applied to Normic

I invoke the Literal Rule in conjunction with the Voting Clause, which I believe heartily invalidates your claim and means that your rule must go through the normal channels for being taken into effect. (Even if it was ‘passed’, it would not be in effect, and wouldn’t affect the shape of the game.) I will expand on this if I wish.

---

I am proposing a new rule - the Rule Lawyering Rule. This rule states that Rule Lawyering is forbidden - what is defined as Rule Lawyering can be decided on as a case by case basis, with common sense prevailing in this regard. (As a general concept, if passing a rule or making any sort of action requires bending existing rules to a great extent - by introducing alternate definitions or , or is contradicted by the Literal Rule, then it could be called Rules Lawyering.) Any post that is determined to contain Rule Lawyering will be entirely invalidated, under the same conditions as the rule to keep rules meaningful. Using a loophole that is clearly evident is obviously fine.

---

This is mainly to keep the focus on the bigger picture - it doesn’t prevent the exploitation of loopholes, but if passing a rule requires bending existing rules to a great extent (I know @MiToRo94 would be interested in this rule.) Even if this rule isn’t passed, I would urge existing rule lawyers (@Voidus and @MacThorstenson) to consider the bigger picture. We should be, in my opinion, evolving the game, and coming up with new and exciting ideas, rather than bogging down discussions with fine-toothed-comb disputes over existing rules. I know I would much prefer a game where things are constantly evolving, and not where we are stuck discussing the definition of ‘taken into effect’. This is why the Literal Rule exists. 

Again, though, grain of salt.

---

@Lunamor, @Snipexe, @Dr. Dapper, @I think I am here., @TheVillageIdiot, @Kidpen (I think), @Jaywalk and @Silverblade5 all need to vote on a great number of proposals. If you do so, rules can start to be passed in order to get the game moving.

I will be editing in votes on proposals soon.

:3

[MiToRo94 he/him]

26 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

I invoke the Literal Rule in conjunction with the Voting Clause, which I believe heartily invalidates your claim and means that your rule must go through the normal channels for being taken into effect. (Even if it was ‘passed’, it would not be in effect, and wouldn’t affect the shape of the game.) I will expand on this if I wish.

I agree

26 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

I am proposing a new rule - the Rule Lawyering Rule. This rule states that Rule Lawyering is forbidden - what is defined as Rule Lawyering can be decided on as a case by case basis, with common sense prevailing in this regard. (As a general concept, if passing a rule or making any sort of action requires bending existing rules to a great extent - by introducing alternate definitions or , or is contradicted by the Literal Rule, then it could be called Rules Lawyering.) Any post that is determined to contain Rule Lawyering will be entirely invalidated, under the same conditions as the rule to keep rules meaningful. Using a loophole that is clearly evident is obviously fine.

 

I support this rule

26 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

This is mainly to keep the focus on the bigger picture - it doesn’t prevent the exploitation of loopholes, but if passing a rule requires bending existing rules to a great extent (I know @MiToRo94 would be interested in this rule.) Even if this rule isn’t passed, I would urge existing rule lawyers (@Voidus and @MacThorstenson) to consider the bigger picture. We should be, in my opinion, evolving the game, and coming up with new and exciting ideas, rather than bogging down discussions with fine-toothed-comb disputes over existing rules. I know I would much prefer a game where things are constantly evolving, and not where we are stuck discussing the definition of ‘taken into effect’. This is why the Literal Rule exists. 

Again, though, grain of salt.

I also agree with this. It is very obvious when someone is trying to bend the rules beyond their intent just because they can, and that doesn't move the game along or really make for a fun time for others.

 

New Rule Proposal:

The Settlers of Disputes: If a dispute comes up about any aspect of the game, the dispute can be settled by a vote. The dispute will be decided by whichever side gets 3 votes first (any player can place one vote, but if there are multiple people directly involved in either side of the dispute, all those directly involved will only be able to count as one vote per side. This way we prevent a group of 3 players from joining together to jointly benefit from a dispute that they can settle immediately on their own.)

 

EDIT: It should be noted that my profile picture now depicts my dog and snake, which complies with Rule 15 in that it will show up in each of my posts. This also acts as an example of a reasonable loophole around a rule, without blatantly disregarding the intent and bending the rules to an unreasonable extent.

Edited April 2, 2019 by MiToRo94

[MetaTerminal he/him]

6 hours ago, Voidus said:

I intend for whitespace on this and all future posts to be construed as being similar to a dog and/or cat that happens to blend perfectly into a white backtround for the purposes of satisfying rule 15. And as that is my intention, per the literal rule that is how it must be interpreted.

I initially shrugged at this, but now I take issue with it. It must be either an image of a dog or a depiction of a cat - even with the Literal Rule applied, the proposal has to make sense, and in many cases random white space being a cat is inherently nonsensical. Obviously, there are cases where it does make sense, but this cannot be a blanket rule. As a result many of your posts are now UNO-able. I also call Rules Lawyering, which I have protested about earlier.

:3

Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect):

Spoiler

1. The Main Idea: Players take turns suggesting rules, or amendments to or the removal of existing rules.
2. The Voting Clause: Upon a majority vote of more than three players, said amendments or removals are taken into effect. (Note: no rule is exempt from this rule, including this one, unless superseded by another rule.)
3. The Winning Rule: The winning player shall be the first player that wins. When one player wins, all other players lose.
4. The Points Rule: The winning player shall be the first player to reach one million points.

6. The Literal Rule: All things, including rules, can be interpreted literally or not as they were intended, so long as it makes sense.

7. The Unnamed Proposal: just for clarification, voting for amendments should be in red and removals should be in green.

8. The Trading Rule: each player starts with 0 points. Players can give points to other players, or - with the agreement of said other player - ‘trade’ something for points. Once both players agree on the terms, the transfer occurs automatically.

11. Meta’s Clause: That every post that passes judgement (ie votes for or against) a rule must also propose a new rule. Should a vote be made without also proposing a new rule, then said vote is considered void until an associated rule is proposed.

12. First Law of Dapper: Points are to be hereafter refered to as Eggs.

13. Second Law of Dapper: Every ten Eggs you get your Coolness Level goes up by one.

14. Third Law of Dapper: Each Coolness Level make you cooler.

15. The Act of Dog Inclusion: Every post from here on out must have an image of a dog in it, real or fake, picture or gif, wordless or meme, so long as it's not inappropriate. The Act of Dog Inclusion also allows depictions of cats to fulfill its requirements.

18. The Original Version of the Rule of Honor: That anyone with the ability to modify the posts of others (mods/admins) or make minute, unnoticeable changes to the laws when listing them (Meta or anyone else who does) NOT be allowed to do so - no cheating, people.

20. The Negative Rule: Any player can have negative points if they have lost more points than they currently have, but a player cannot have more negative points than the total amount of points needed to win.

21. MiToRo's Rule of Punishment: Any post that breaks a rule that has been in effect for longer than 15 minutes - to give time for those who have simply not refreshed their page - shall cause that poster to lose 10 points.

25. The UNO Rule. If at any time, a post violates the rules, someone must point it out by quoting the post and saying ‘UNO!’ in order to implement any Egg changes or changes in game state - ie cheating in and of itself does not trigger any rules, but instead someone has to point it out. There is no time limit on UNO.

31. The Beginnings of Democracy: We have a poll and whoever gets the most votes is the president, who gets the ability to give up to 50 points to anyone but themselves.

36. The French Law: at any time, a member of the ‘public’ (ie a non-presidential person) may declare a vote to overthrow the president. If a majority vote is attained, the person who started the poll becomes the new president in the place of the old one.

39. The Paradox of Retroactive Rulings: Rules will never retroactively apply to posts made prior to the rule being voted into effect - unless directly stated otherwise in the rule. This applies to Eggs given or taken for certain kinds of posts, as well as rule infractions that would lead to any sort of punishment.

58. The Fairness Rule: that Meta shall receive a one-time sum of ten Eggs upon the passing of this rule.

59. The Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea: that the Literal Rule be rephrased as “All things, including rules, can be interpreted literally or metaphorically - as they were assumed to be intended - so long as it makes sense; and that any associated implications of the rule not explicitly stated should also be interpreted as true - this includes taking the spirit of a rule, even if the actual letter of the rule differs slightly due to a small technicality. This plea applies retroactively, with one exception: this plea does not apply to the post where this plea was introduced.”

Proposed Rules:

Spoiler

5. The Equal Opportunity Act: any rule that discriminates based on the identities of players outside of the game (including screenname, rank, etc.) shall be considered invalid. (6)

9. Ene’s First Rule: one way for points to be given should be by awarding them to people based on rules of theirs that go into effect, three per rule. (6)

10. Ene’s Second Rule: I also propose the rule that players must keep track of how many points they have in their signatures, About Mes, titles, or in each of their posts on this thread. (3)

16. Voidus’ Law of Unfair Advantage: All those who support this rule shall gain two points for every point that is gained by someone who did not support this rule. (4)

17. Voidus' Rule of Potential Karmic Retribution: Should a player propose a rule to change the name of 'points', that player is to be referred to by the name they suggest changing points to, until such a time as the rule is adopted. (5)

19. The Rule for Meta’s Sanity: that Voidus be unable to edit posts in the thread for his own benefit, under threat of immediately losing the game; and that Rule 16 shall be considered irrevocably immoral and unimplementable, from now and in perpetuity, and that should it be passed Voidus will immediately lose the game. (6)

22. MiToRo's Rule of Forgiveness: Whenever a player has negative points, that player may post an apology - no shorter than 3 full sentences, and unique to each other player - to other players in order to regain 1 point per apology. (4)

23. Reputation Points Rule: For each reputation awarded to a post, that poster gains 10 points. (4)

24. Everyone Is A Winner Rule: Any time a proposal - new rule, amendment, removal, or any other rule adjustment - gains unanimous support, the proposer gains 10 points, while the first 2 supporters (after the original proposer) gain 5 points. Unanimous support here means that all players vote in favor of the rule until the rule goes into effect; once the rule would go into effect, future voters who vote against it will not affect the points given by this rule. (5)

26. The Self Punishment Act: If a player breaks a rule, they will be able to decide what their punishment is. (2)

27. The Fair Play Act: If a player cannot obey a rule for 'reasons' then they receive no punishment. (3)

28. The Act that Concerns the Frequency of Turns (or ACFT): as stated by the Main Idea, you may only create new rules or amendments on your turn. You may only take a turn if two other people have taken their turn between now and your most previous turn, or if you have not taken your turn in over 24 hours. You do not have to propose a rule on your turn (unless otherwise indicated, eg by Meta’s Clause). (6)

29. The Chessboard Rule: there exists a standard chessboard, originally starting as the starting piece positions for white and black. Each player may elect one piece on the board as theirs - during their turn, they may move their piece as per the standard rules of chess. Checking a piece (checks being defined as per standard chess rules) which is controlled by another player (the ‘recipient’) gains the moving player 100 points, and loses the recipient 100 points. Mutual checks provide no point increase or deduction for either side. (3)

30. The Rule that Says You’ve Lost the Game (or RSYLG): every player must lose the Game at least once every ten turns. Other players are morally obligated to remind players when this requirement due. To announce the fact that you have lost the Game, say in a post during which you have taken your turn, “I have lost the Game.” (4)

32. New Rule the First: New proposed rules must rhyme, this rule will last till the end of time. (4)

33. New Rule the Second: Every 10 eggs will be referred to as a "Basket". (4)

34. Participation Eggs: Once per 24 hour period, if a player makes a post and votes on all current proposals as well as submits at least one new proposal, that player gains 25 Eggs. (5)

35. Non-Participation Eggs: In any 24 hour period, if any player makes more than one post that does not include votes on all current proposals, that player loses 25 Eggs per post after their first without necessary votes. (5)

37. Fair Start: Any new player who starts the game after this point will begin with a number of Eggs equal to the player with the next lowest amount of Eggs - this could still be 0. (6)

38. Duel of Awww: Any player may challenge another player to a Duel of Awww, along with a bet amount. The challenger may bet any number of Eggs up to the current total Eggs held by the lesser of the two players; if one or both players has 0 Eggs, the bet is automatically set to 10 Eggs. The Duel of Awww begins once the challenged player accepts the duel in a new post. The public (all other players not participating in the duel) votes on which of the two duelers has the better animal picture - as per rule 15 - based on any arbitrary qualifications they would like. The animal pictures used for the duel will be the ones posted in the challenge post and the acceptance post, and must have both been a picture taken/drawn/created by the respective dueler. Once a majority vote has been reached, the winner gains the bet amount in Eggs and the loser loses the same amount, unless the loser has fewer Eggs - in the case of starting with 0 points - then the loser goes to 0 total Eggs while the winner gains 10 Eggs. (5)

40. The Taxation Rule: The US tax code applies in its entirety to all points gained in whatever manner. (2)

41. The Spikes Rule: Spiking newcomers in the Intro thread gives the spiker 100 points. This rule applies retroactively. (2)

42. The Rule of Exceptions: that rules that are multiples of 1, 2, 4, and 8 are exempt from rules that are multiples of 3. (1)

43. The Brevity Act: that there be a maximum of 50 proposed rules at any one time. Players may also vote to strike proposals from consideration - once a majority is reached, the vote is struck from consideration, and must be reintroduced and reattain all votes in order to reach a majority. (3)

44. The rule of rules actually meaning something: Any post that violates a rule shall be considered void of all meaning for the purposes of this game, specifically no votes in said post shall be counted, no rules proposed shall be voted upon, no points can be gained, no other rules that would apply any benefit or punishment outside of this rule shall take effect until said post is in accordance with all rules. (5 - Kidpen needs to approve the amendment for their vote to count.)

45. The Maybe A Rule So We Can Actually Start Earning Eggs? Rule: At any time, any group of players (at least 2) may compete in any game available to them (whether online or in person, as long as it can be verified). Examples include, but are not limited to, a game of chess, a pokemon battle, a footrace around the world, etc... Upon completion of the game, the winner gains a number of Eggs equal to 100 x the number of other players (i.e. the winner gains 100 Eggs if the game was only between two players), and the losers lose 100 Eggs each, unless a different amount was specified in a challenge post to initiate the game. In the case of a tie, the following occurs: if all players tie for the win, no Eggs are gained or lost; if some but not all participating players tie for the win, each winner gains a number of Eggs equal to 100 x the number of losers / the number of winners, and each loser still loses 100 Eggs. (4)

46. The law of inactivity: If a player does not comment supporting a rule, then their vote will count as a no. (3)

47. The Discord of Disputes: In order to prevent this thread from being over-cluttered with meta-discussion (i.e. discussion about the game in a meta sense, not about the player, MetaTerminal), we should have a Discord channel for all meta-discussion. This channel should be completely exempt from all rules in order to allow for unrestricted discussion and quick resolutions to any disputes. If the players would like separate channels for other discussion (e.g. off-topic, new rule ideas without actually submitting them, commenting on particularly dramatic happenings within the game without cluttering up this thread, etc...) that will be allowed. This Discord channel would also be an good place to have easy access to a pinned list of all currently active rules and proposals. (1)

48. The President of Discord: In the event that we have a Discord channel and we have an elected president as per rule 31, the President will be in charge of keeping the Discord up to date. (1)

49. Dapper Anti Rule 15Act: Anyone who posts a photo in relation to rule 15 loses all their Coolness Levels and 6 pounds of Eggs. (1)

50. Discarded Proposal: If any proposal has been left unapproved after a total of 24 hours, and during that time a number of players equal to the number necessary for approving it with a majority vote have been active, that proposal will immediately be dismissed and have to be re-submitted without any votes. (2)

51. The PM of Productivity: Same thing (in reference to Rule 47), but with a PM. I'm fine there being a President of the PM also. (2)

52. The Internal Consistency Plea: that the Literal Rule be rephrased as “All things, including rules, can be interpreted literally or metaphorically - as they were assumed to be intended - so long as it makes sense; and that any associated implications of the rule not explicitly stated should also be interpreted as true - this includes taking the spirit of a rule, even if the actual letter of the rule differs slightly due to a small technicality. This plea applies retroactively.” (2)

53. The not internally consistent rule: No rules have to be consistent with anything. Even themselves. (1)

54. The Voidus law of mayhem: People should be able to interpret anything in any logically consistent manner. (3)

55. The Last Will and Testament: If any player wishes to leave the game, they may do so freely. In doing so, they may select another current player to receive all of the retiring player's Eggs (only a positive number of Eggs may be given), or choose to allow the Eggs to expire without going to anyone else. (3)

56. Musical Page Proposal: that the first person to post on the tenth, twentieth, thirtieth, and so on (you guys know what I mean, please interpret this seriously - I just don't want to type infinity out) pages of this thread must include a CLEAN music video in their post. If they don't notice they're going to be that post and edit it in a few minutes later, they have not broken this rule. (2)

57. New Rule Proposal: MiToRo wins! If this rule is put into effect, MiToRo immediately gains 1 million Eggs and wins. (3)

60. The Proposal Proposal: If a player has ever been married or engaged, including in a roleplay, that player gets one Egg every time they lose any amount of Eggs. (2)

61. The Following Proposal: From here on out, winning is actually bad. (1)

62. Ene’s Third Rule: that rules allowing players to automatically win not be allowed for submission. (2)

63. Meta’s Clause Removal: That Meta’s Clause should be removed from the rules and no longer be in effect. (2)

64. Title Rule: All rules, amendments, and the like must have names. (3)

65. Don't Leave the Eggs to Spoil: At the end of each 24 hour period - to be established at midnight EDT for consistency - if none of the players have earned any Eggs (defined as a net positive gain of Eggs for any one player) during those 24 hours (not including Eggs earned from this rule as of the previous 24 hour period), then all players immediately earn 1000 points. (1)

66. Ene’s Fourth Rule: that porpoises be banned from this thread. (1)

67. Jaywalk’s First Declaration: that we make porpoises the mascot of this thread. (1)

68. Voidus' Rule of Things: If a player posts the word 'things' in any post (Editing it in does not count) then they are to be awarded 20 Eggs. However if someone quotes said post and says 'and stuff' then the original player loses 10 Eggs, does not gain any Eggs that they would otherwise gain, and the player who quoted them gains 10 Eggs. (3)

69. Rule of Voting: Everyone who participates in the game must vote on at least five waiting proposals. We need to move some of these along! (2)

70. Mac's First rule of organization: For a rule to make it onto the list of rules that can be considered (the waitlist), someone needs to propose it, and another person needs to second it. (3)

71. Mac's Second rule of organization: There is a list of 15 rules that can be voted on at any given moment (the waitlist), regardless of how many rules have been submitted and seconded. (3)

72. Mac's third rule of organization: Rules are divided into categories based on what they cover. Examples could include: Acquisition, Removal, or Transfer of eggs, Fun things (E.X. rule 15). Player rules (like the rule of inactivity). There is no limit to the amount of categories, but people should make an honest effort to try to fit rules into categories. (3)

73. Voidus' Ultimatum of Doom! (Also known as: Everything is RP): All players shall create a character sheet containing basic details for a character that shall represent the player in a collaborative RP. Every post that a player makes in-character for the character represented by the character sheet shall earn that player 1 point. (1)

74. Macthorsten's government increase of efficiency proposal: This vote only needs the support of one other person to be passed. (Note from Meta: this is superseded by the Voting Clause.) The first person to support this rule besides me (note from Meta: this is Meta) gets the ability to cut any number of the rules on the waiting list in a one time purge.

75. Silverblade’s First Law: that we remove voting and give all power to an undefined group of players.

76. The Rule Lawyering Rule. This rule states that Rule Lawyering is forbidden - what is defined as Rule Lawyering can be decided on as a case by case basis, with common sense prevailing in this regard. (As a general concept, if passing a rule or making any sort of action requires bending existing rules to a great extent - by introducing alternate definitions or , or is contradicted by the Literal Rule, then it could be called Rules Lawyering.) Any post that is determined to contain Rule Lawyering will be entirely invalidated, under the same conditions as the rule to keep rules meaningful. Using a loophole that is clearly evident is obviously fine. (2)

77. The Settlers of Disputes: If a dispute comes up about any aspect of the game, the dispute can be settled by a vote. The dispute will be decided by whichever side gets 3 votes first (any player can place one vote, but if there are multiple people directly involved in either side of the dispute, all those directly involved will only be able to count as one vote per side. This way we prevent a group of 3 players from joining together to jointly benefit from a dispute that they can settle immediately on their own.) (2)

78. The Fonz Rule:  Every ten levels of coolness you reach you must post a quote from Henry Winkler. (2)

Proposed Amendments:

Spoiler

* That the Winning Rule be ammended so that the authors of this and the next two posts directly after it be the winners. (2)

* In reference to the First Law of Dapper: 'Eggs' will be changed to a lowercase 'eggs'. (4)

* I would like to amend my own rule (16. Voidus’ Law of Unfair Advantage) to addend the following: No rule or ammendment may be passed or voted on if that rule would alter any part of Voidus’ Law of Unfair Advantage or punish those who have voted in favour of Voidus' Law of Unfair Advantage. And no person who has only conditionally voted in favour of Voidus’ Law of Unfair Advantage shall count as having voted for it, except for the purposes of passing the rule. (1)

* To change the name of the rule from The Act of Dog Inclusion to The Act of Animal Inclusion, and to allow depictions of any animal to fulfill its requirements, so long as the poster genuinely appreciates the animal being posted - whether that is in cuteness, silliness, or any other positive feeling. (5)

* amendment to 15: You must use a picture different from every picture you've used so far. The Internet is big, there are enough. (1)

* amendment to the winning rule. Along with having 1 million points, having -1 million points also makes you win. (2)

Edited April 2, 2019 by MetaTerminal

[Voidus]

On 01/04/2019 at 9:03 AM, MetaTerminal said:

with each player trying to bend the rules such that he or she can win first.

Just a note that this was explicitly stated in the OP, my reading of this was that it was intended behaviour which honestly is what caught my interests. If this statement was false then I'll happily withdraw from play.

:3

[MetaTerminal he/him]

11 minutes ago, Voidus said:

Just a note that this was explicitly stated in the OP, my reading of this was that it was intended behaviour which honestly is what caught my interests. If this statement was false then I'll happily withdraw from play.

I’d say that this is still the case - however, in my opinion, it should be amended to: “with each player trying to subtly bend the rules such that he or she can win first.” The fun of the game should still be necessarily prioritised, alongside the existing rules. It is still entirely possible to arrange the rules such that you can win - however, the idea is more to set up a series of rules such that you are able to win first, without others noticing. The unique aspect of this game is that it evolves, and that people are able to shape in what direction it goes. Any game can get bogged down by Rules Lawyering and nitpicking. That isn’t what makes the game special. By all means, design a system where you are more likely to win, given your position. Just don’t try and leverage existing rules in order to achieve that. (Unless we choose to make such behaviour systemic - but I would opposed to that. Salt, salt, salt.)

(Actually, it should be more “with each player trying to implement a system rules such that he or she can win first, while other people can also have fun.” Bending the rules is admittedly shorter.)

:3

EDIT: By all means, withdraw if the game was not what you anticipated. In which case, I apologise for misleading you, and I shall make that clearer to potential players in the future.

Edited April 2, 2019 by MetaTerminal

[Mistcloaked Mountains]

I vote in favor of the following rules: 5,9,19,23,24,28,32,37,38,44,46

2 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

13. Second Law of Dapper: Every ten Eggs you get your Coolness Level goes up by one.

I propose The Fonz Rule:  Every ten levels of coolness you reach you must post a quote from Henry Winkler.

As per rule 15:

Spoiler

[MetaTerminal he/him]

Welcome, MistCLOAKed!

The majority requirement has remained at 7. Several proposals are currently at 6 - if people who have not voted on proposals could cast their vote, then we should be able to implement them. 

In addition, be sure to get your vote in for president! The cutoff will be when no additional votes from players will change the outcome, which is not currently true.

I support the following proposals: 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, and 78 - in addition to the proposals I already support.

:3

—————————

Here is the shape of the game, as I see it now.

Tomorrow, we shall hopefully have an influx of votes from those who haven’t checked in for a while. This will lead to rapid implementation, and the idea of Eggs and Presidents will be more or less put into place. From there, more mechanics should hopefully be implemented, to start shaping this game into something more tangible. Which means that we likely want to start looking at the bigger picture, of where we want this Nomic to go, and how we will spend our turns and actions in the future. New rules should therefore, in my opinion, be aimed towards addressing this.

Edited April 2, 2019 by MetaTerminal

[Silverblade5 he/him]

I vote on no  rules at all

[Voidus]

7 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I’d say that this is still the case - however, in my opinion, it should be amended to: “with each player trying to subtly bend the rules such that he or she can win first.” The fun of the game should still be necessarily prioritised, alongside the existing rules. It is still entirely possible to arrange the rules such that you can win - however, the idea is more to set up a series of rules such that you are able to win first, without others noticing. The unique aspect of this game is that it evolves, and that people are able to shape in what direction it goes. Any game can get bogged down by Rules Lawyering and nitpicking. That isn’t what makes the game special. By all means, design a system where you are more likely to win, given your position. Just don’t try and leverage existing rules in order to achieve that. (Unless we choose to make such behaviour systemic - but I would opposed to that. Salt, salt, salt.)

(Actually, it should be more “with each player trying to implement a system rules such that he or she can win first, while other people can also have fun.” Bending the rules is admittedly shorter.)

:3

EDIT: By all means, withdraw if the game was not what you anticipated. In which case, I apologise for misleading you, and I shall make that clearer to potential players in the future.

Yeah my impression was that it would be about subtle interpretation and wording choices, players making sure that they didn't introduce an ambiguous rule that allowed someone else to win. As I understand your position on the nature of rules interpretation then I'd find it unlikely that anyone would ever win, barring it simply turning into a different game and someone winning at that instead.

I was imagining that the game would end with the introduction of a rule and a player pointing out that that rule meant they now had enough points to win, due to an unforeseen loophole in the rule. If all players understand the full implications of all rules then all they need to do is keep track of everyone's scores and they could never accidentally vote for a rule which causes someone else to win. So players would have to win through tangential activities.
From the way you're describing your intentions though it sounds more like your idea of the way this should unfold is that it is indeed just a game that evolves into other games and the imposition of rules is merely a way to facilitate changes to other or altered modes of gameplay, rather than the actual purpose of the game itself.

[GeneralHZRD he/him]

I support these, 43, 45, 47, 50, 55, 56, 62, 68, 76. I have already voted on all rules prior to 43.

I also support these amendments.

Spoiler

* To change the name of the rule from The Act of Dog Inclusion to The Act of Animal Inclusion, and to allow depictions of any animal to fulfill its requirements, so long as the poster genuinely appreciates the animal being posted - whether that is in cuteness, silliness, or any other positive feeling.

* amendment to 15: You must use a picture different from every picture you've used so far. The Internet is big, there are enough.

* amendment to the winning rule. Along with having 1 million points, having -1 million points also makes you win.

 

First rule of Idiocy: Each post must include a quote, regardless of form, context, or other defining features.

Rule 15:

Spoiler

 

[+Doomstick he/him]

The rule of losing

Spoiler

The first person to win The Game (fairly, without any hacks) wins. 

The rule of indefinitism

Spoiler

The only to win is by preforming actions necessary to win as the rule of losing declares

Rule of players

Spoiler

To be considered a player, you must be following this thread

Cat/dog

Spoiler

My profile pic

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by AonDii

[old man moomba he/him]

I'll support rules 73, 61, 64, 51, 50, 63. 

I do not support any other rules.

I propose the Rule of Big Eggs:

Once you have gained 100 Eggs, you lose all your Eggs and get one Big Egg. 

Each Big Egg is worth 100 Eggs. 

:3

Edited April 2, 2019 by Dr. Dapper
:3:;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3

[MetaTerminal he/him]

3 hours ago, Voidus said:

As I understand your position on the nature of rules interpretation then I'd find it unlikely that anyone would ever win, barring it simply turning into a different game and someone winning at that instead.

I was imagining that the game would end with the introduction of a rule and a player pointing out that that rule meant they now had enough points to win, due to an unforeseen loophole in the rule. If all players understand the full implications of all rules then all they need to do is keep track of everyone's scores and they could never accidentally vote for a rule which causes someone else to win. So players would have to win through tangential activities.
From the way you're describing your intentions though it sounds more like your idea of the way this should unfold is that it is indeed just a game that evolves into other games and the imposition of rules is merely a way to facilitate changes to other or altered modes of gameplay, rather than the actual purpose of the game itself.

I agree with you in some aspects, and disagree in others. The Literal Rule and the Rules Lawyering Rule does not prevent loopholes. Nor does it prevent setting up systems to allow for you to win (eg planting a coconut makes a seed - a seed grows into ten gold in one turn - coconuts cost five gold each - you need 100 gold to win). I would call AonDii’s and MiToRo’s interpretation as unintended loopholes, unanticipated by the intended meaning of the rule, while still fulfilling all conditions.

However, there is a difference between an unforeseen consequence of a rule which a player exploits, and willfully misunderstanding or stretching a rule beyond what is reasonable. It is very possible that the game will end with the implementation of an above rule - however, it is much more likely (in my opinion) that said rule will have been part of a system, instead of a singular winning rule.

As for turning into a different game - the very purpose of Nomic is to evolve. Technically, we have already turned it into a different game. If, however, I abide by the Literal Rule when reading that statement (that the only way to win would be to turn it into another game that already exists), then I would disagree.

The first aspect is the fact that people win Nomics, without requiring an external rule set. I can dig up some the examples if people would like them, but winning is possible - indeed, frequent for games which survive initialisation. Beyond that, the nature of Nomics is that existing rule sets do not remain in modified for long periods of time. If we wanted to change this Nomic into chess: firstly, if someone was close to winning, it would be conceivable that a rule would get passed to prevent them from winning; secondly, the rules would be modified anyway for fun. It is unlikely to win simply by focusing on the ‘game’ aspect, much how you are unlikely to win in SE if you ignore special abilities. The game you are playing is constantly in flux.

As for “the imposition of rules is merely a way to facilitate changes to other or altered modes of gameplay, rather than the actual purpose of the game itself.” The rules are, of course, the purpose. If we wish, we can make them centered around said altered modes. Certainly, I started this to see how the game would evolve, and not to try and win it. That’s why I voted against Dapper’s Voting Clause amendment. That is why I am protesting against unnecessary elastication of existing rules.

Nomic doesn’t have an existing purpose. It doesn’t even have a win condition. If we want it to have a purpose, we make it into a rule.

Grains. If people want, they can revoke the Literal Rule and make the rules lawyering playstyle as part of the game. I’m not sure what I would do if that happened, but should you gain sufficient votes, it would be entirely within the existing rules to do so. 

:3

[MetaTerminal he/him]

:3

New votes have been counted. The majority amount has risen to 8, unless... we’ll get to that.

Welcome, @AonDii! Be sure to vote on all proposals. Yes, there are over 80. I’m sorry.

On 4/3/2019 at 2:30 AM, Silverblade5 said:

I vote on no  rules at all

If nobody voted on any rules, then nothing would be passed. If you would like your own rules to be considered, it should be fair play to consider other people’s rules as well - especially if you raise the majority.

If both of you vote, then we will be able to pass some more rules.

---

Some Questionable and Perhaps Hypocritical Rule-Stretching

player (n): 1) a person taking part in a sport or game.

“The Voting Clause: Upon a majority vote of more than three players...”

It is a possibility that we only count people towards the majority if they are currently taking part in the Nomic. Currently would be about a 48 hour window, IMO. This would not violate the Main Idea, since if they are not active then they are not suggesting rules or amendments. This would lower the majority to 6, and allow more rules to be passed. If we wish to make this into a rule, I shall call it the Rule of Activity.

I support the Rule of Idiocy and the Rule of Big Eggs.

EDIT: Congratulations to @AonEne, who has been elected as President, as per the existing rule of the Beginnings of Democracy! All but one of the players have voted, which means the outcome has been determined.

---

Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect):

Spoiler

1. The Main Idea: Players take turns suggesting rules, or amendments to or the removal of existing rules.
2. The Voting Clause: Upon a majority vote of more than three players, said amendments or removals are taken into effect. (Note: no rule is exempt from this rule, including this one, unless superseded by another rule.)
3. The Winning Rule: The winning player shall be the first player that wins. When one player wins, all other players lose.
4. The Points Rule: The winning player shall be the first player to reach one million points.

6. The Literal Rule: All things, including rules, can be interpreted literally or not as they were intended, so long as it makes sense.

7. The Unnamed Proposal: just for clarification, voting for amendments should be in red and removals should be in green.

8. The Trading Rule: each player starts with 0 points. Players can give points to other players, or - with the agreement of said other player - ‘trade’ something for points. Once both players agree on the terms, the transfer occurs automatically.

11. Meta’s Clause: That every post that passes judgement (ie votes for or against) a rule must also propose a new rule. Should a vote be made without also proposing a new rule, then said vote is considered void until an associated rule is proposed.

12. First Law of Dapper: Points are to be hereafter refered to as Eggs.

13. Second Law of Dapper: Every ten Eggs you get your Coolness Level goes up by one.

14. Third Law of Dapper: Each Coolness Level make you cooler.

15. The Act of Dog Inclusion: Every post from here on out must have an image of a dog in it, real or fake, picture or gif, wordless or meme, so long as it's not inappropriate. The Act of Dog Inclusion also allows depictions of cats to fulfill its requirements.

18. The Original Version of the Rule of Honor: That anyone with the ability to modify the posts of others (mods/admins) or make minute, unnoticeable changes to the laws when listing them (Meta or anyone else who does) NOT be allowed to do so - no cheating, people.

20. The Negative Rule: Any player can have negative points if they have lost more points than they currently have, but a player cannot have more negative points than the total amount of points needed to win.

21. MiToRo's Rule of Punishment: Any post that breaks a rule that has been in effect for longer than 15 minutes - to give time for those who have simply not refreshed their page - shall cause that poster to lose 10 points.

25. The UNO Rule. If at any time, a post violates the rules, someone must point it out by quoting the post and saying ‘UNO!’ in order to implement any Egg changes or changes in game state - ie cheating in and of itself does not trigger any rules, but instead someone has to point it out. There is no time limit on UNO.

31. The Beginnings of Democracy: We have a poll and whoever gets the most votes is the president, who gets the ability to give up to 50 points to anyone but themselves.

36. The French Law: at any time, a member of the ‘public’ (ie a non-presidential person) may declare a vote to overthrow the president. If a majority vote is attained, the person who started the poll becomes the new president in the place of the old one.

39. The Paradox of Retroactive Rulings: Rules will never retroactively apply to posts made prior to the rule being voted into effect - unless directly stated otherwise in the rule. This applies to Eggs given or taken for certain kinds of posts, as well as rule infractions that would lead to any sort of punishment.

58. The Fairness Rule: that Meta shall receive a one-time sum of ten Eggs upon the passing of this rule.

59. The Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea: that the Literal Rule be rephrased as “All things, including rules, can be interpreted literally or metaphorically - as they were assumed to be intended - so long as it makes sense; and that any associated implications of the rule not explicitly stated should also be interpreted as true - this includes taking the spirit of a rule, even if the actual letter of the rule differs slightly due to a small technicality. This plea applies retroactively, with one exception: this plea does not apply to the post where this plea was introduced.”

Proposed Rules:

Spoiler

5. The Equal Opportunity Act: any rule that discriminates based on the identities of players outside of the game (including screenname, rank, etc.) shall be considered invalid. (6)

9. Ene’s First Rule: one way for points to be given should be by awarding them to people based on rules of theirs that go into effect, three per rule. (6)

10. Ene’s Second Rule: I also propose the rule that players must keep track of how many points they have in their signatures, About Mes, titles, or in each of their posts on this thread. (3)

16. Voidus’ Law of Unfair Advantage: All those who support this rule shall gain two points for every point that is gained by someone who did not support this rule. (4)

17. Voidus' Rule of Potential Karmic Retribution: Should a player propose a rule to change the name of 'points', that player is to be referred to by the name they suggest changing points to, until such a time as the rule is adopted. (5)

19. The Rule for Meta’s Sanity: that Voidus be unable to edit posts in the thread for his own benefit, under threat of immediately losing the game; and that Rule 16 shall be considered irrevocably immoral and unimplementable, from now and in perpetuity, and that should it be passed Voidus will immediately lose the game. (6)

22. MiToRo's Rule of Forgiveness: Whenever a player has negative points, that player may post an apology - no shorter than 3 full sentences, and unique to each other player - to other players in order to regain 1 point per apology. (4)

23. Reputation Points Rule: For each reputation awarded to a post, that poster gains 10 points. (4)

24. Everyone Is A Winner Rule: Any time a proposal - new rule, amendment, removal, or any other rule adjustment - gains unanimous support, the proposer gains 10 points, while the first 2 supporters (after the original proposer) gain 5 points. Unanimous support here means that all players vote in favor of the rule until the rule goes into effect; once the rule would go into effect, future voters who vote against it will not affect the points given by this rule. (5)

26. The Self Punishment Act: If a player breaks a rule, they will be able to decide what their punishment is. (2)

27. The Fair Play Act: If a player cannot obey a rule for 'reasons' then they receive no punishment. (3)

28. The Act that Concerns the Frequency of Turns (or ACFT): as stated by the Main Idea, you may only create new rules or amendments on your turn. You may only take a turn if two other people have taken their turn between now and your most previous turn, or if you have not taken your turn in over 24 hours. You do not have to propose a rule on your turn (unless otherwise indicated, eg by Meta’s Clause). (6)

29. The Chessboard Rule: there exists a standard chessboard, originally starting as the starting piece positions for white and black. Each player may elect one piece on the board as theirs - during their turn, they may move their piece as per the standard rules of chess. Checking a piece (checks being defined as per standard chess rules) which is controlled by another player (the ‘recipient’) gains the moving player 100 points, and loses the recipient 100 points. Mutual checks provide no point increase or deduction for either side. (3)

30. The Rule that Says You’ve Lost the Game (or RSYLG): every player must lose the Game at least once every ten turns. Other players are morally obligated to remind players when this requirement due. To announce the fact that you have lost the Game, say in a post during which you have taken your turn, “I have lost the Game.” (4)

32. New Rule the First: New proposed rules must rhyme, this rule will last till the end of time. (4)

33. New Rule the Second: Every 10 eggs will be referred to as a "Basket". (4)

34. Participation Eggs: Once per 24 hour period, if a player makes a post and votes on all current proposals as well as submits at least one new proposal, that player gains 25 Eggs. (5)

35. Non-Participation Eggs: In any 24 hour period, if any player makes more than one post that does not include votes on all current proposals, that player loses 25 Eggs per post after their first without necessary votes. (5)

37. Fair Start: Any new player who starts the game after this point will begin with a number of Eggs equal to the player with the next lowest amount of Eggs - this could still be 0. (6)

38. Duel of Awww: Any player may challenge another player to a Duel of Awww, along with a bet amount. The challenger may bet any number of Eggs up to the current total Eggs held by the lesser of the two players; if one or both players has 0 Eggs, the bet is automatically set to 10 Eggs. The Duel of Awww begins once the challenged player accepts the duel in a new post. The public (all other players not participating in the duel) votes on which of the two duelers has the better animal picture - as per rule 15 - based on any arbitrary qualifications they would like. The animal pictures used for the duel will be the ones posted in the challenge post and the acceptance post, and must have both been a picture taken/drawn/created by the respective dueler. Once a majority vote has been reached, the winner gains the bet amount in Eggs and the loser loses the same amount, unless the loser has fewer Eggs - in the case of starting with 0 points - then the loser goes to 0 total Eggs while the winner gains 10 Eggs. (5)

40. The Taxation Rule: The US tax code applies in its entirety to all points gained in whatever manner. (2)

41. The Spikes Rule: Spiking newcomers in the Intro thread gives the spiker 100 points. This rule applies retroactively. (2)

42. The Rule of Exceptions: that rules that are multiples of 1, 2, 4, and 8 are exempt from rules that are multiples of 3. (1)

43. The Brevity Act: that there be a maximum of 50 proposed rules at any one time. Players may also vote to strike proposals from consideration - once a majority is reached, the vote is struck from consideration, and must be reintroduced and reattain all votes in order to reach a majority. (4)

44. The rule of rules actually meaning something: Any post that violates a rule shall be considered void of all meaning for the purposes of this game, specifically no votes in said post shall be counted, no rules proposed shall be voted upon, no points can be gained, no other rules that would apply any benefit or punishment outside of this rule shall take effect until said post is in accordance with all rules. (5 - Kidpen needs to approve the amendment for their vote to count.)

45. The Maybe A Rule So We Can Actually Start Earning Eggs? Rule: At any time, any group of players (at least 2) may compete in any game available to them (whether online or in person, as long as it can be verified). Examples include, but are not limited to, a game of chess, a pokemon battle, a footrace around the world, etc... Upon completion of the game, the winner gains a number of Eggs equal to 100 x the number of other players (i.e. the winner gains 100 Eggs if the game was only between two players), and the losers lose 100 Eggs each, unless a different amount was specified in a challenge post to initiate the game. In the case of a tie, the following occurs: if all players tie for the win, no Eggs are gained or lost; if some but not all participating players tie for the win, each winner gains a number of Eggs equal to 100 x the number of losers / the number of winners, and each loser still loses 100 Eggs. (5)

46. The law of inactivity: If a player does not comment supporting a rule, then their vote will count as a no. (3)

47. The Discord of Disputes: In order to prevent this thread from being over-cluttered with meta-discussion (i.e. discussion about the game in a meta sense, not about the player, MetaTerminal), we should have a Discord channel for all meta-discussion. This channel should be completely exempt from all rules in order to allow for unrestricted discussion and quick resolutions to any disputes. If the players would like separate channels for other discussion (e.g. off-topic, new rule ideas without actually submitting them, commenting on particularly dramatic happenings within the game without cluttering up this thread, etc...) that will be allowed. This Discord channel would also be an good place to have easy access to a pinned list of all currently active rules and proposals. (2)

48. The President of Discord: In the event that we have a Discord channel and we have an elected president as per rule 31, the President will be in charge of keeping the Discord up to date. (1)

49. Dapper Anti Rule 15Act: Anyone who posts a photo in relation to rule 15 loses all their Coolness Levels and 6 pounds of Eggs. (1)

50. Discarded Proposal: If any proposal has been left unapproved after a total of 24 hours, and during that time a number of players equal to the number necessary for approving it with a majority vote have been active, that proposal will immediately be dismissed and have to be re-submitted without any votes. (4)

51. The PM of Productivity: Same thing (in reference to Rule 47), but with a PM. I'm fine there being a President of the PM also. (3)

52. The Internal Consistency Plea: that the Literal Rule be rephrased as “All things, including rules, can be interpreted literally or metaphorically - as they were assumed to be intended - so long as it makes sense; and that any associated implications of the rule not explicitly stated should also be interpreted as true - this includes taking the spirit of a rule, even if the actual letter of the rule differs slightly due to a small technicality. This plea applies retroactively.” (2)

53. The not internally consistent rule: No rules have to be consistent with anything. Even themselves. (1)

54. The Voidus law of mayhem: People should be able to interpret anything in any logically consistent manner. (3)

55. The Last Will and Testament: If any player wishes to leave the game, they may do so freely. In doing so, they may select another current player to receive all of the retiring player's Eggs (only a positive number of Eggs may be given), or choose to allow the Eggs to expire without going to anyone else. (4)

56. Musical Page Proposal: that the first person to post on the tenth, twentieth, thirtieth, and so on (you guys know what I mean, please interpret this seriously - I just don't want to type infinity out) pages of this thread must include a CLEAN music video in their post. If they don't notice they're going to be that post and edit it in a few minutes later, they have not broken this rule. (3)

57. New Rule Proposal: MiToRo wins! If this rule is put into effect, MiToRo immediately gains 1 million Eggs and wins. (3)

60. The Proposal Proposal: If a player has ever been married or engaged, including in a roleplay, that player gets one Egg every time they lose any amount of Eggs. (2)

61. The Following Proposal: From here on out, winning is actually bad. (2)

62. Ene’s Third Rule: that rules allowing players to automatically win not be allowed for submission. (3)

63. Meta’s Clause Removal: That Meta’s Clause should be removed from the rules and no longer be in effect. (3)

64. Title Rule: All rules, amendments, and the like must have names. (4)

65. Don't Leave the Eggs to Spoil: At the end of each 24 hour period - to be established at midnight EDT for consistency - if none of the players have earned any Eggs (defined as a net positive gain of Eggs for any one player) during those 24 hours (not including Eggs earned from this rule as of the previous 24 hour period), then all players immediately earn 1000 points. (1)

66. Ene’s Fourth Rule: that porpoises be banned from this thread. (1)

67. Jaywalk’s First Declaration: that we make porpoises the mascot of this thread. (1)

68. Voidus' Rule of Things: If a player posts the word 'things' in any post (Editing it in does not count) then they are to be awarded 20 Eggs. However if someone quotes said post and says 'and stuff' then the original player loses 10 Eggs, does not gain any Eggs that they would otherwise gain, and the player who quoted them gains 10 Eggs. (4)

69. Rule of Voting: Everyone who participates in the game must vote on at least five waiting proposals. We need to move some of these along! (2)

70. Mac's First rule of organization: For a rule to make it onto the list of rules that can be considered (the waitlist), someone needs to propose it, and another person needs to second it. (3)

71. Mac's Second rule of organization: There is a list of 15 rules that can be voted on at any given moment (the waitlist), regardless of how many rules have been submitted and seconded. (3)

72. Mac's third rule of organization: Rules are divided into categories based on what they cover. Examples could include: Acquisition, Removal, or Transfer of eggs, Fun things (E.X. rule 15). Player rules (like the rule of inactivity). There is no limit to the amount of categories, but people should make an honest effort to try to fit rules into categories. (3)

73. Voidus' Ultimatum of Doom! (Also known as: Everything is RP): All players shall create a character sheet containing basic details for a character that shall represent the player in a collaborative RP. Every post that a player makes in-character for the character represented by the character sheet shall earn that player 1 point. (2)

74. Macthorsten's government increase of efficiency proposal: This vote only needs the support of one other person to be passed. (Note from Meta: this is superseded by the Voting Clause.) The first person to support this rule besides me (note from Meta: this is Meta) gets the ability to cut any number of the rules on the waiting list in a one time purge.

75. Silverblade’s First Law: that we remove voting and give all power to an undefined group of players. 

76. The Rule Lawyering Rule. This rule states that Rule Lawyering is forbidden - what is defined as Rule Lawyering can be decided on as a case by case basis, with common sense prevailing in this regard. (As a general concept, if passing a rule or making any sort of action requires bending existing rules to a great extent - by introducing alternate definitions or , or is contradicted by the Literal Rule, then it could be called Rules Lawyering.) Any post that is determined to contain Rule Lawyering will be entirely invalidated, under the same conditions as the rule to keep rules meaningful. Using a loophole that is clearly evident is obviously fine. (3)

77. The Settlers of Disputes: If a dispute comes up about any aspect of the game, the dispute can be settled by a vote. The dispute will be decided by whichever side gets 3 votes first (any player can place one vote, but if there are multiple people directly involved in either side of the dispute, all those directly involved will only be able to count as one vote per side. This way we prevent a group of 3 players from joining together to jointly benefit from a dispute that they can settle immediately on their own.) (2)

78. The Fonz Rule:  Every ten levels of coolness you reach you must post a quote from Henry Winkler. (2)

79. First rule of Idiocy: Each post must include a quote, regardless of form, context, or other defining features. (2)

80. The first person to win The Game (fairly, without any hacks) wins. 

81. The rule of losing: The first person to win The Game (fairly, without any hacks) wins. 

82. The rule of indefinitism: The only to win is by preforming actions necessary to win as the rule of losing declares

83. Rule of players: To be considered a player, you must be following this thread

84. the Rule of Big Eggs: Once you have gained 100 Eggs, you lose all your Eggs and get one Big Egg. Each Big Egg is worth 100 Eggs.  (2)

Proposed Amendments:

Spoiler

* That the Winning Rule be ammended so that the authors of this and the next two posts directly after it be the winners. (2)

* In reference to the First Law of Dapper: 'Eggs' will be changed to a lowercase 'eggs'. (4)

* I would like to amend my own rule (16. Voidus’ Law of Unfair Advantage) to addend the following: No rule or ammendment may be passed or voted on if that rule would alter any part of Voidus’ Law of Unfair Advantage or punish those who have voted in favour of Voidus' Law of Unfair Advantage. And no person who has only conditionally voted in favour of Voidus’ Law of Unfair Advantage shall count as having voted for it, except for the purposes of passing the rule. (1)

* To change the name of the rule from The Act of Dog Inclusion to The Act of Animal Inclusion, and to allow depictions of any animal to fulfill its requirements, so long as the poster genuinely appreciates the animal being posted - whether that is in cuteness, silliness, or any other positive feeling. (6)

* amendment to 15: You must use a picture different from every picture you've used so far. The Internet is big, there are enough. (2)

* amendment to the winning rule. Along with having 1 million points, having -1 million points also makes you win. (3)

Edited April 3, 2019 by MetaTerminal

[Voidus]

5 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I agree with you in some aspects, and disagree in others. The Literal Rule and the Rules Lawyering Rule does not prevent loopholes. Nor does it prevent setting up systems to allow for you to win (eg planting a coconut makes a seed - a seed grows into ten gold in one turn - coconuts cost five gold each - you need 100 gold to win). I would call AonDii’s and MiToRo’s interpretation as unintended loopholes, unanticipated by the intended meaning of the rule, while still fulfilling all conditions.

However, there is a difference between an unforeseen consequence of a rule which a player exploits, and willfully misunderstanding or stretching a rule beyond what is reasonable. It is very possible that the game will end with the implementation of an above rule - however, it is much more likely (in my opinion) that said rule will have been part of a system, instead of a singular winning rule.

As for turning into a different game - the very purpose of Nomic is to evolve. Technically, we have already turned it into a different game. If, however, I abide by the Literal Rule when reading that statement (that the only way to win would be to turn it into another game that already exists), then I would disagree.

The first aspect is the fact that people win Nomics, without requiring an external rule set. I can dig up some the examples if people would like them, but winning is possible - indeed, frequent for games which survive initialisation. Beyond that, the nature of Nomics is that existing rule sets do not remain in modified for long periods of time. If we wanted to change this Nomic into chess: firstly, if someone was close to winning, it would be conceivable that a rule would get passed to prevent them from winning; secondly, the rules would be modified anyway for fun. It is unlikely to win simply by focusing on the ‘game’ aspect, much how you are unlikely to win in SE if you ignore special abilities. The game you are playing is constantly in flux.

As for “the imposition of rules is merely a way to facilitate changes to other or altered modes of gameplay, rather than the actual purpose of the game itself.” The rules are, of course, the purpose. If we wish, we can make them centered around said altered modes. Certainly, I started this to see how the game would evolve, and not to try and win it. That’s why I voted against Dapper’s Voting Clause amendment. That is why I am protesting against unnecessary elastication of existing rules.

Nomic doesn’t have an existing purpose. It doesn’t even have a win condition. If we want it to have a purpose, we make it into a rule.

Grains. If people want, they can revoke the Literal Rule and make the rules lawyering playstyle as part of the game. I’m not sure what I would do if that happened, but should you gain sufficient votes, it would be entirely within the existing rules to do so. 

:3

Alright, well to clarify something, because I now suspect this may not have been as obvious as I was intending it to be, I've been being a bit deliberately exaggerated and hyperbolic recently in order to prove the point that you can't eliminate rules lawyering through introduction of new rules because those rules in and of themselves would also be subject to it. Also trying to point out that insisting that subjective intention should be valued over the literal wording of a rule can lead to some pretty crazy situations.

The two inciting incidents that caused these discussions to arise, and the actual cases of rules lawyering that would be demonstrative of how I believed the game was intended to be played are as following:
 - A rule that says that a plural of a word should be referred to as a different word does not inherently require that the singular case be referred to as the singular case of the other word.
 - A rule which specifically states that a change to a post must be unnoticeable to violate the rule cannot ever nominate a post for violating this rule because noticing the change disqualifies it from being a case which this rule would apply to.

I do not believe that either of those interpretations stretch the rules any more than the interpretation that a profile picture could be considered 'in' a post. In fact they're both just straight, literal interpretations of the rules without stretching them in any way. They're not deliberately misinterpreting anything, simply pointing out explicit language in a rule that creates a situation that is potentially unexpected for the drafter of that rule.
:3
Subsequently I was more blatantly rules lawyering and stretching things to prove the point that leaving things to an explicitly subjective interpretation allows for even worse cases of rules lawyering than only allowing a straight reading of the rules would. (Eg. if all that matters is intention then I can simply intend to portray whitespace as an image and that must be accepted as satisfying rule 15)

[MetaTerminal he/him]

2 minutes ago, Voidus said:

 - A rule that says that a plural of a word should be referred to as a different word does not inherently require that the singular case be referred to as the singular case of the other word.
 - A rule which specifically states that a change to a post must be unnoticeable to violate the rule cannot ever nominate a post for violating this rule because noticing the change disqualifies it from being a case which this rule would apply to.

I’ve been reflecting, and I have decided that I’ve been too harsh. Both of these are fine, and supported by the rule. (Damnation to my knee, and its jerkiness.)

I still take issue with some of your rulings. I also think that you don’t understand the Literal Rule.

3 minutes ago, Voidus said:

if all that matters is intention

 

4 minutes ago, Voidus said:

that subjective intention should be valued over the literal wording of a rule can lead to some pretty crazy situations.

“All things, including rules, can be interpreted literally or metaphorically - as they were assumed to be intended - so long as it makes sense; and that any associated implications of the rule not explicitly stated should also be interpreted as true.”

If something is a metaphor, or is phrased oddly but has a clear intended meaning (a la the original Literal Rule, or the Voting Clause), then you are required to interpret it in this way. No deliberate misinterpretations. Similarly, implications should be assumed - those can be debated and decided on, (does the First Law of Dapper assume the singular? As it stands, I think not, but that can be debated) but this rule effectively makes it so that rules can’t be broken excessively by pointless nitpicking, and that the pace of the game is maintained. I would also say that the rule drafter has no particular emphasis over the intention - note the ‘assumed’ before ‘assumed to be intended’. The Death of the Author applies.

Nowhere does it state that the intention should be valued over the literal wording of the rule - or indeed that the wording can be ignored at all in favour of the intention. This just influences our interpretations of the wording when multiple interpretations are available. I also think you misunderstand what is meant by intent - you can intend to not break a rule, but still break it. You can intend to do something, but forget - you can intend for something to be correct, when it is incorrect. The ‘sense’ subclause also applies in all these instances. Does it make sense for random whitespace to be interpreted as a ‘depiction of a cat’? (It’s certainly not an image.) It depends on the whitespace, but in many cases it does not make sense. Does a cat emoji depict a cat? That’s not an intended part of the rule when it was drafted (speaking as the person who proposed the amendment), but it makes sense.

I think this should resolve our conflict, and allow the game to continue. If you wish to withdraw - no hard feelings. (Though I would like to continue to play with y’all.) If you are continuing - what do you think of my Voting Clause activity interpretation? And more votes (if you’re behind) would progress things somewhat.

:3

 

[AonEne he/him in an enby way]

21 hours ago, MacThorstenson said:

I would propose a few rules for clarification and organization to damnation if I break any currently standing rules:

Mac's First rule of organization: 

For a rule to make it onto the list of rules that can be considered (the waitlist), someone needs to propose it, and another person needs to second it.

Mac's Second rule of organization: 

There is a list of 15 rules that can be voted on at any given moment (the waitlist), regardless of how many rules have been submitted and seconded.

Mac's third rule of organization:

Rules are divided into categories based on what they cover. Examples could include: Acquisition, Removal, or Transfer of eggs, Fun things (E.X. rule 15). Player rules (like the rule of inactivity). There is no limit to the amount of categories, but people should make an honest effort to try to fit rules into categories.

I don't support the first two but do the third.

21 hours ago, Voidus said:

Voidus' Ultimatum of Doom! (Also known as: Everything is RP)

All players shall create a character sheet containing basic details for a character that shall represent the player in a collaborative RP. Every post that a player makes in-character for the character represented by the character sheet shall earn that player 1 point.

I support this.

21 hours ago, MacThorstenson said:

I am voting for the above rules

Meta's Caluse and Rule 15 - UNO!

21 hours ago, MacThorstenson said:

Macthorsten's government increase of efficiency proposal: 

This vote only needs the support of one other person to be passed.

The first person to support this rule besides me gets the ability to cut any number of the rules on the waiting list in a one time purge.

EDIT: I should add for clarification that this rule supersedes the voting cause rule by virtue of saying so, and that the voting clase rule never specifies what authority is required for a rule to supersede it.

I don't support this.

21 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I propose the law of eh: that saying eh in this thread is forbidden.

I support this.

21 hours ago, Silverblade5 said:

I propose we remove voting and give all power to an undefined group of players.

I don't support this. (And I agree with Meta - please vote on stuff if you're going to play.)

20 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I am proposing a new rule - the Rule Lawyering Rule. This rule states that Rule Lawyering is forbidden - what is defined as Rule Lawyering can be decided on as a case by case basis, with common sense prevailing in this regard. (As a general concept, if passing a rule or making any sort of action requires bending existing rules to a great extent - by introducing alternate definitions or , or is contradicted by the Literal Rule, then it could be called Rules Lawyering.) Any post that is determined to contain Rule Lawyering will be entirely invalidated, under the same conditions as the rule to keep rules meaningful. Using a loophole that is clearly evident is obviously fine.

I'm holding off judgement on this one too.

19 hours ago, MiToRo94 said:

New Rule Proposal:

The Settlers of Disputes: If a dispute comes up about any aspect of the game, the dispute can be settled by a vote. The dispute will be decided by whichever side gets 3 votes first (any player can place one vote, but if there are multiple people directly involved in either side of the dispute, all those directly involved will only be able to count as one vote per side. This way we prevent a group of 3 players from joining together to jointly benefit from a dispute that they can settle immediately on their own.)

Also holding off judgement. (Can we change our votes once they're given?)

17 hours ago, MistCLOAKed Mountains said:

I propose The Fonz Rule:  Every ten levels of coolness you reach you must post a quote from Henry Winkler.

I don't support this.

11 hours ago, TheVillageIdiot said:

First rule of Idiocy: Each post must include a quote, regardless of form, context, or other defining features.

I support this.

9 hours ago, AonDii said:

The rule of losing

  Hide contents

The first person to win The Game (fairly, without any hacks) wins. 

The rule of indefinitism

  Hide contents

The only to win is by preforming actions necessary to win as the rule of losing declares

Rule of players

  Hide contents

To be considered a player, you must be following this thread

 

I don't support the first two but do support the last one.

8 hours ago, Dr. Dapper said:

I propose the Rule of Big Eggs: Once you have gained 100 Eggs, you lose all your Eggs and get one Big Egg. Each Big Egg is worth 100 Eggs.

I support this rule.

4 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

It is a possibility that we only count people towards the majority if they are currently taking part in the Nomic. Currently would be about a 24 hour window, IMO. This would not violate the Main Idea, since if they are not active then they are not suggesting rules or amendments. This would lower the majority to 6, and allow more rules to be passed. If we wish to make this into a rule, I shall call it the Rule of Activity.

 

EDIT: Congratulations to @AonEne, who has been elected as President, as per the existing rule of the Beginnings of Democracy!

I support this rule.

I would like to formally thank everyone who voted for me. Now, might I ask: If I give out Eggs, may I give out less than fifty at any time? Do I only have fifty, or is it just a maximum of fifty per person?

I propose the Bold Text Initiative. Should anyone use bold text while on this thread, that person loses one Egg. :3

Edited April 3, 2019 by AonEne

[Voidus]

2 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I still take issue with some of your rulings.

That's fine, they were very much intended for you to take issue with them, I was attempting to deliberately make obviously problematic rulings to illustrate the flaws as I saw them. So I suppose I did a good job, though apparently not such a good job at making it clear that I wasn't being entirely serious with those rulings

If it makes you feel better, highlight all the text in the posts I've made that you believe violate rule 15, you may find some surprises in each of them that will help you realize I was just making a joke.

2 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I also think that you don’t understand the Literal Rule.

I agree in a sense, I openly stated that I believed that I had a different interpretation of it to you, that was the whole thing that prompted the update to its wording. But either way is going to be ambiguous, if what matters is the assumption of intent then everyones reading is equally valid, so long as it is believable that that is genuinely what people assumed the intent of the rule was. But the literal rule doesn't specify what to do if there are multiple assumptions for the same rule, who gets to decide which is correct? For example the original reading of the literal rule clearly had two different ways that people were interpreting it, both sides were genuine in their interpretation so which is correct? Both? Neither? The proposer of the rule?
 

2 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I would also say that the rule drafter has no particular emphasis over the intention - note the ‘assumed’ before ‘assumed to be intended’.

I can't imagine a fair reading of this where the intentions of the drafter are not key. At the very least you have to read the rule in the way you assume that they intended it, but it's still their intention that matters. Yes you're assuming their intention but if the drafter clarifies exactly what they intended then you can only reasonably assume that what they state is what they intended. So does that allow the drafter of the rule to settle any dispute by simply stating their intention? If not then whose intention are you trying to assume when you read the rule?

Also to call to point: The fact that we're arguing about this and that you believe I've 'not understood' the literal rule is itself the problem. If my assumption of its intention is what matters then it is impossible for me to not understand it in the context of this game, whatever I assume you intended it to mean is indeed what it does mean for the purposes of application.
 

2 hours ago, MetaTerminal said:

I also think you misunderstand what is meant by intent - you can intend to not break a rule, but still break it.

That's true in the real world, though I will point out that most existing legal systems actually do take intent into account (As in the distinction between murder and manslaughter), but the literal rule states that everything must be taken as intended, so just as if a rule explicitly and literally states something but is clearly intended to be metaphorical then you should take the intended reading and not the literal reading, if someone uses a word but clearly intends for that word to be a stand in for whatever the correct word to use in that situation is then you should take that word to be the correct word to use in that situation.
This was the reason I objected to the wording 'all things' in the literal rule. If everything has to be taken in the manner that you assume it is intended to be interpreted then it creates a lot of loopholes, I feel that the literal rule should be reworded to only apply to rules.
:3
In order for clarity of discussion here I'm going to break some rules, I hope that people can appreciate the sentiment here and not UNO me on these but if you feel the need to then go ahead I suppose.

If you assume that the word 'points' in the First rule of Dapper also implies the word 'point' in spite of those words being two different words, then you cannot disagree that the word 'point' could imply the word 'Egg' for the same reason if the intention is similar. In both cases you're assuming a word means a different word and literally applying that reading to the case of what you are doing, in one case that means assuming that the word 'point' should be considered a violation of the rule even though that word never appears in the rule, in the other assuming that the word 'point' is not a violation of the rule because it implies the word 'Egg' even though that word never appears in the post.

And again just to point out that it's impossible for me to be mistaken in my interpretation of the exact implications because as previously stated, as long as you accept that I assume that this is the intention then it is a valid interpretation per the literal rule. (And just to highlight: If you think that this is, in itself a misunderstanding of the literal rule then the same logic applies, this is how I've assumed it to be interpreted and so it is valid)

Edited April 3, 2019 by Voidus
Edited because I think I came across as more confrontational than I intended

[MetaTerminal he/him]

1 hour ago, Voidus said:

I feel that the literal rule should be reworded to only apply to rules.

I feel like this would be a possible compromise. I don’t envision requiring to interpret posts as they are intended to be interpreted being much of an issue, but I think that would fix the dispute.

1 hour ago, Voidus said:

And again just to point out that it's impossible for me to be mistaken in my interpretation of the exact implications because as previously stated, as long as you accept that I assume that this is the intention then it is a valid interpretation per the literal rule. 

Again: you can intend to be correct without being correct. You can be mistaken of something even if you don’t intend to be mistaken.

The alternate issue that you are proposing here (which you may be referring to in the previous example) is that the issue of ‘assumption’ is tricky to pin down. I would say that this can be agreed on communally, through ‘Common Law’. Indeed, it’s something we would likely do anyway - it’s likely that someone would protest a point by saying “hang on, doesn’t Dapper’s First Law imply the singular as well?” And we would have the same argument over again.

That being said, this is a very strong argument, and perhaps the best reason to get rid of it. I don’t have an easy answer to it, beyond proposing a Common Law system... but any attempts to formalize such a system would be too unwieldy in practice. So...

Argh. Laws are hard.

If it really is an issue you think cannot be ignored (and since you’re not ignoring it, then it evidently cannot be), then I know of a loophole that I can use to remove the rule. (Heh.) However, should we remove the Literal Rule, I would rather we impose the Rules Lawyering Rule in its place. I would like not to get bogged down with needless nitpicking, and I think it would provide good guidelines for what we would and would not consider pastry (ie acceptable). I will likely impose this rule if I remove the Literal Rule.

1 hour ago, AonEne said:

If I give out Eggs, may I give out less than fifty at any time? Do I only have fifty, or is it just a maximum of fifty per person?

No part of the rule stipulates you must give out fifty at a time. The rule does stipulate you may give a maximum of fifty eggs to each player as a total. Thus, if you give fifty points to me (subtle suggestion is subtle) I may not receive any more.

With @Voidus‘s and the President’s (@AonEne) agreement, I shall exploit the loophole (and thusly fix it) to remove the Literal Rule and impose the Rules Lawyering Rule, and I shall similarly start putting laws into effect as per my Rule of Activity (which will also be put into effect).

I shall also do Egg counts tonight, so we can actually start using them egg-ectively. (Originally a misspelling - the pun was too good not to keep.)

1 hour ago, AonEne said:

(Can we change our votes once they're given?)

18 hours ago, MistCLOAKed Mountains said:

There is no rule forbidding the practice, so I would say so.

Rule 15 Mandated Cat - :3

[AonEne he/him in an enby way]

8 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

With @Voidus‘s and the President’s (@AonEne) agreement, I shall exploit the loophole (and thusly fix it) to remove the Literal Rule and impose the Rules Lawyering Rule, and I shall similarly start putting laws into effect as per my Rule of Activity (which will also be put into effect).

Rule 15 Mandated Cat - :3

You have mine.

Then, I have a deal for anyone willing to listen. I will give you fifty Eggs, but you must swear before everyone here that you will then trade - as per the Trading Rule - thirty of them back to me for one time in which I will vote as you direct on one law. This law must be one that comes in the future, and I have the power to veto which one it is if it goes against my morals - i.e. "Hemalurgy is okay" - but I will not use that power lightly.

[Voidus]

Firstly, not sure if you replied before or after I edited but I realized on re-reading that the original post came across as more aggressive than I intended so apologies if it seemed like that (Problems with intention versus literal reading again )
 

3 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

Again: you can intend to be correct without being correct. You can be mistaken of something even if you don’t intend to be mistaken.

I completely agree as a general rule, but for the purposes of this game as they currently stand you can't. There is a rule that explicitly states that things are to be taken as they are assumed to be intended. (I acknowledge that applying this interpretation to the rule itself is circular, but given that this rule is about how to read and interpret things, any reading of it is going to ultimately be circular)

9 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

That being said, this is a very strong argument, and perhaps the best reason to get rid of it. I don’t have an easy answer to it, beyond proposing a Common Law system... but any attempts to formalize such a system would be too unwieldy in practice. So...

This was my thought as well, that needing to have a full community vote every time we wanted to parse the nuances of a rule would result in play time being even longer than it already is, just adding another thing to the backlog of things people would have to vote for.
 

13 minutes ago, MetaTerminal said:

If it really is an issue you think cannot be ignored (and since you’re not ignoring it, then it evidently cannot be), then I know of a loophole that I can use to remove the rule. (Heh.) However, should we remove the Literal Rule, I would rather we impose the Rules Lawyering Rule in its place. I would like not to get bogged down with needless nitpicking, and I think it would provide good guidelines for what we would and would not consider pastry (ie acceptable). I will likely impose this rule if I remove the Literal Rule.

Well if all else fails there's the loophole that I pointed out earlier, that The Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea does not apply to the post in which it was established, leaving it open to interpretation and deliberate misapplication.
In terms of imposing the Rules Lawyering Rule, I think it's prone to some of the same issues, namely that people might rules lawyer the rules lawyering rule itself. That's always going to be the problem I think, any time you try to arbitrate how people can interpret a rule, that rule is itself going to need to be interpreted before it can be applied. I honestly don't know a good way to resolve the issue but I can say that my normal degree of rules lawyering is going to be limited to the level that I mentioned earlier, of whether or not a rule stating something about a plural applies to the singular.
If we think that is acceptable enough that it's at least not a definitive violation of rules lawyering then I'm happy to agree to support this and can promise that I at least will not attempt to dispute that understanding of the rule.

Perhaps in the interests of time and avoiding punishing people for honest misunderstandings we can state that so long as someones interpretation of the rule is at the least ambiguous and not obviously incorrect, then that person cannot undergo any point loss for the misunderstanding, though once the rule has been clarified no player may make use of he same erroneous interpretation.
(Eg. If we later decide that Dappers first law should apply to the singular, those who have not adhered to that aspect of it are not punished for previous posts, but can be punished for future posts if they make the same mistake)

And again I acknowledge that technically that means I'm supposed to propose something new but we already have too much on the backlog so:

I propose the following:
Proposal of not a proposal: This proposal should not exist.

I also withdraw this proposal from consideration as there is no current rule forbidding this from happening.

And since I don't need to make a point anymore, my cat is no longer going to be in a white font coloring so everyone can actually see it. :3

[MetaTerminal he/him]

15 minutes ago, Voidus said:

Well if all else fails there's the loophole that I pointed out earlier, that The Slightly Altered Internal Consistency Plea does not apply to the post in which it was established, leaving it open to interpretation and deliberate misapplication.
In terms of imposing the Rules Lawyering Rule, I think it's prone to some of the same issues, namely that people might rules lawyer the rules lawyering rule itself. That's always going to be the problem I think, any time you try to arbitrate how people can interpret a rule, that rule is itself going to need to be interpreted before it can be applied. I honestly don't know a good way to resolve the issue but I can say that my normal degree of rules lawyering is going to be limited to the level that I mentioned earlier, of whether or not a rule stating something about a plural applies to the singular.
If we think that is acceptable enough that it's at least not a definitive violation of rules lawyering then I'm happy to agree to support this and can promise that I at least will not attempt to dispute that understanding of the rule.

So do you support abolishing the Literal Rule and applying the Rules Lawyering Rule?

Also, unlike the Literal Rule, the only way to have a severe issue with the Rule Lawyering Rule is that there would need to be an interpretation of the Rules Lawyering Rule than allowed rule lawyering of the Rule Lawyering rule - from there, problems could be leveraged. A subclause of the rule could be implemented such that this is expressly forbidden. Since Rule Lawyering requires taking the literal meaning of a rule, if this was literally forbidden, the damage could be limited.

:3

Edited April 3, 2019 by MetaTerminal