Other SMOGON NOMIC (PROPOSAL PHASE 18)

brightobject [NO]
sunny004 [YES]
ButteredToast [YES]
Pidge [NO]
Walrein [NO]
Leethoof [NO]
Izhuark [NO]
PokeguyNXB [NO]
More Cowbell [NO]

I just want to say that Walrein's proposal would be pretty disastrous for the game. Should his be allowed to pass, we would be end up voting on each others proposals based on who is winning/losing and less so based on the quality of the proposal. This is a bad practice and would only end up creating politics situations in which players align themselves with a group to pass their legislation and to obtain points because there is a disincentive towards voting.

I proposed a points system a few turns ago that would award points based on quality of play determined subjectively by impartial hosts to shy away from this type of points system. I'm not saying that it is the answer, but it would be better for this game as a whole to not directly assign points based on the passing of proposals or by vote counts. I'd rather have a fair game than a popularity contest...
 

Ampharos

tag walls, punch fascists
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
brightobject [YES]
sunny004 [YES]
ButteredToast [YES]
Pidge [NO]
Walrein [YES]
Leethoof [NO]
Izhuark [NO]
PokeguyNXB [NO]
More Cowbell [YES]
 
Where's my proposal :(
brightobject: [NO]
sunny004: [YES]
ButteredToast: [YES]
Pidge: [NO]
Walrein: [NO]
Leethoof: [NO]
Izhuark: [NO]
PokeguyNXB: [NO]
More Cowbell: [NO]
 
I just want to say that proposals would be pretty disastrous for the game. Should these be allowed to pass, we would be end up having a game where people can score points. This is a bad practice and would only end up creating situations in which players align themselves with the rules to obtain points because there is a disincentive towards losing.

I proposed a points system a few turns ago that would award points based on quality of play determined very subjectively by the whims of our wonderful hosts, who are real humans. I'm not saying that it is the answer, but it would be better for this game as a whole to not directly assign points based on objective rules. I'd rather have a popularity contest with the hosts than a fair game...
 
I just want to say that proposals would be pretty disastrous for the game. Should these be allowed to pass, we would be end up having a game where people can score points. This is a bad practice and would only end up creating situations in which players align themselves with the rules to obtain points because there is a disincentive towards losing.

I proposed a points system a few turns ago that would award points based on quality of play determined very subjectively by the whims of our wonderful hosts, who are real humans. I'm not saying that it is the answer, but it would be better for this game as a whole to not directly assign points based on objective rules. I'd rather have a popularity contest with the hosts than a fair game...


Pretty much how your childishness comes off in my head.
 
VOTING PHASE IS OVER.

Rules passed:
sunny004's Point Tracker (now rule 7.2, as per the numbering system detailed in 3.5)
ButteredToast's Clean Slate Substitutions (now rule 7.1, as per the numbering system detailed in 3.5)
..only those

7.1 has no effect currently due to no new substitutions.

In addition, the "18 hours" part of 3.2 and 3.3 has been removed and added to a list of obsoletes as per 5.2: DEAD RULE WALKIN'

Golden009 and Ullar have failed to take action this phase. For both of them, this is a consecutive Proposal and Voting Phase where they did not post, and by rule 5.1: Stricter Activity, they each lose 10 points. By rule 3.4, if they do not take action this phase they will be removed from the game, and a sub may be requested.

Additionally, the new Rule 7.2: Point Tracker requires me to post this list:
Thetwinmasters
PokeguyNXB
ButteredToast
Pidge
Izhuark
Walrein
Golden009 -10 points
Leethoof
Ullar -10 points
Phione
brightobject
sunny004
More Cowbell
any player with unlisted points has zero (0)

PROPOSAL PHASE SEVEN ENDS IN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.
 
Last edited:
With the pacing of this game, I am kind of concerned that there may at some point come a time where there will be two players left and there is a deadlock where no one can win or pass any rules. Figure we can tackle that now while we're still in early stage generic rules in case we get to that point later down the road.

Proposal: Three is a Magic Number
Until a winner is declared, there must always be at least three active players for the advance to the next phase. Should there be an occurrence where there are only two active players to end the round, the hosts will have 48 hours to find a sub. Should the hosts fail to find a sub in this time period, the last player(s) to be eliminated will be allowed to return to the game as if they had not lost in the first place.
 

Ampharos

tag walls, punch fascists
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
I think it's fine for the game to reach a one-on-one situation. Surely the best solution is to find a way for players to earn points autonomously without relying on votes.

That being said, I don't have any good ideas right now. So have a bad one.

Proposal: I have to drive 4 hours on Sunday
Between now and Sunday, December 13th (US Central Time), any user may post one Spotify playlist comprised of 4 hours' worth of songs that any reasonable observer would classify as some form of rock music. Doing so will earn the poster 10 points. Walrein may only participate in this if at least 1 other user posts a playlist, and the playlist Walrein posts must be a new playlist created after the time of this rule's passage (this restriction does not apply to anyone else).
 
Proposal: Speed things up a teeny-tiny bit

Each turn, the leading player gains 1 point. If there's a tie, all players who are in the lead will receive this point
 

Pidge

('◇')
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
With the pacing of this game, I am kind of concerned that there may at some point come a time where there will be two players left and there is a deadlock where no one can win or pass any rules. Figure we can tackle that now while we're still in early stage generic rules in case we get to that point later down the road.

Proposal: Three is a Magic Number
Until a winner is declared, there must always be at least three active players for the advance to the next phase. Should there be an occurrence where there are only two active players to end the round, the hosts will have 48 hours to find a sub. Should the hosts fail to find a sub in this time period, the last player(s) to be eliminated will be allowed to return to the game as if they had not lost in the first place.
It's a good idea, but I think last player(s) eliminated should be prioritized rather than a random sub who has the possibility to win even though they barely even played.
 
Looking more and more like the winner of this game is going to be determined more by who stays the most active than anything else. Really didn't think that a majority of players would be inactive in a 24 hour time frame. Maybe next round we need to increase the time of rounds again...
 
I mean it'd be hard pressed to get less active than 4 proposals out of 13 players. I kind of see where you are getting at in terms of people forgetting to vote because of the lack of immediacy of having to do it. At the same time though, asking people to come up with new, original, and relevant proposals on a slow moving game might create growing apathy in the game. Especially when they see their odds of winning are diminished by inactivity.

If allowing more time for creativity isn't the answer, we need a way to speed up the game and make it a bit more interesting rather than just going for safe rules. While I'm not in favor of doing cheesy one time gimmicks for points such as sandwich pictures or playlist making, I wouldn't mind having a fun task round being created where the hosts give us a random/humorous task to try and complete and then award us a small amount of points to spice things up. Something like 3 points for 1st, 2 points for 2nd, 1 point for first. I'd like to give the power to decide the topic to the hosts just so that we don't have to constantly propose and pass rules for different ideas for that round to occur.

I dunno. I kind of don't want the game to die out before we've gotten a chance to actually start playing.
 
Oh sorry i tought that the deadline would be this afternoon (i'm on GMT+1), anyway this situation is why i proposed my card deck idea (anything else would work a set of dice, a chess board, a custom game board) this way we will have a framework to work around, we can't base ourselves on rules only because this would be ridiculously boring before at most 20 rounds. This game is made not to win but to create our own game : this is literally a game of game design.
 
Proposal: Game Accelerator
If any player votes NO on more than 75% of the proposals in a voting phase, they must write a minimum of two (2) sentences on why they voted no, and what a better alternative is / how they think the game should move forward. If any player fails to do so, they lose 25 points.


(I kinda lost track of deadline and only got 4 hours of sleep the night before last, so I kinda fell asleep instead of making a rule earlier, sorry)
 

internet

no longer getting paid to moderate
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
To be clear, I will not end the current phase until I have at least had the opportunity to discuss the current situation with phoenix

This is an experimental game, and I think it can work on smogon, but I think it's clear things have to be a bit different. Feel free to chip in how you think things should be different other than through proposals.
 
Proposal: Game Accelerator
If any player votes NO on more than 75% of the proposals in a voting phase, they must write a minimum of two (2) sentences on why they voted no, and what a better alternative is / how they think the game should move forward. If any player fails to do so, they lose 25 points.


(I kinda lost track of deadline and only got 4 hours of sleep the night before last, so I kinda fell asleep instead of making a rule earlier, sorry)
As much as i think this rule would strengthen the game, the people doing this are probably going to vote no on it anyway, and that's easily the majority of the game... there has to be some way to get these guys to vote for these rules
 

Pidge

('◇')
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
My idea for the game would be to eliminate proposal and voting phase. If player(s) want to add a rule, they can talk about the addition of a rule freely, and a player can formally put it up for vote whenever they feel. The point of doing things this way is that it might promote discussion on why or why not a proposal might be good or bad, and it gives the proposer time to modify the proposal before it is available for vote. For example, I would probably vote No on ButteredToast's current proposal, unless he changed one thing. When a vote is formally available for vote, it has to get a majority of players to vote yes within a certain time frame. We could say 48 or 24 hours maybe. Players may be penalized for not voting.

I can make this an official proposal if people agree with this.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top