Other SMOGON NOMIC (SIGNUPS PHASE)

[Izhuark]

We all need rules and make them ! But we need a direction an objective to see trought the dark clouds of hesitation ! We need a framework to choose between the infinity of possible rules, come with me and let's all reclaim a better environement for this nomic game. For a fun and creative game i propose as our first rule the universal symbole of gaming trought history (well apart from the dice) the 54 card deck !

Vote Card deck 2015 !
​

Rule proposal #1 : There is a classic 54 card (4 suits + 2 joker)

1. each time a player propose a rule or vote he draws a card from the afformentioned deck

• if the deck is empty another one is created without affecting the player hands

2. A player can at anytime play card for different effects that will be decided with later rules.​

 

[internet]

To be entirely clear, signups are still open and will be open for a few more days. People are already allowed to start making and posting their proposals so the game can have a running start. Voting will not begin until later.

 

[Phione]

Before we handle points, we need to handle bureaucracy. Who's with me?

Rule Proposal #1: Mutability
All rules shall be classified as "immutable" or "mutable". All pre-existing rules, including this one, are immutable; all future rules are created as mutable.

Immutable rules always have precedence over mutable rules, even those of higher number, if that happens for some reason. Rules in the same category are sorted as usual.

Immutable rules are part of the core foundation of Smogon Nomic and may not be edited or repealed by other rules (while mutable rules can be edited and repealed by others at any time). However, a vote may be conducted to make an immutable rule mutable, or vice versa.

 

[Golden009]

Personally, I think that some "first rule" proposals are a bit too ambitious. The bigger a rule is, the more loopholes can happen. Instead, I'm going to propose a simple rule that might prevent many problems in the future.

The Futureproof rule
1. In the case of rules contradicting, the rule that comes first chronologically will take precedence.
a. If both rules were made in the same proposal phase, then the rule with more votes takes precedence. If both have the same number of votes, the rule with a lower number takes precedence.
b. Contradictions can be pointed out by anybody, but must be reviewed and confirmed by the hosts for this rule to come into effect.
2. After a contradiction has been resolved in the way stated by Rule 1 in this proposal, each player can propose an amendment to the rule that caused the contradiction. This amendment must fix the contradiction while also not causing any other contradictions. This "Amendment Phase" works similar to a normal cycle, with players making amendments and then voting for as many amendments as they like. The only change between this amendment phase and the normal voting phase is that, whereas in a normal voting phase, it takes majority for a rule to be passed, in the Amendment voting phase, only the most-voted rule passes.
a. In cases of ties in Amendment voting, there will be a run-off, with each person only able to vote for one option.
b. The Amendment Phase, in cases where it is needed, happens before the next Proposal/vote cycle, and has the same timings as the proposal/vote cycle.

Any questions? For now, this is just a proposal.

(100th post, yay)

 

[Thetwinmasters]

Proposal #1 There can be only 1 winner at this end of this game. If there is a state where 2 players or more fulfill the winning conditions at the same time the game is not over until 1 player is left still fulfilling the winning conditions.

 

[Ampharos]

Look at you guys, trying to make legitimate (read: boring) rules. How quaint.

WALREIN'S PROPOSAL: TRIAL BY CHAMPION
In the event that a new rule is passed which contradicts an old rule (either of which can include this rule), the rule which takes precedence shall be decided via TRIAL BY CHAMPION.

Each rule shall be represented by a champion in the form of the individual which proposed the rule. In the event that one of the original rules is being challenged, one of the hosts shall be its champion; the hosts may decide amongst themselves who shall participate.

Once both champions have been established, the champion of the rule being challenged (here defined as "not the rule that was just enacted"; in the event that two contradicting rules are passed at the same time, this honor goes to the rule which garners more votes) may select the competition in which the champions shall be competing.

The competition must adhere to the following rules:
A. The competition must be something which can have a clear winner and loser
B. The competition must be something which both champions can reasonably participate in
C. The competition must have clear rules which both champions can reasonably adhere to
-Corollary to rules B and C: should the champions be unable to decide on a competition or rules for a competition, the blanks shall be filled in by one of the hosts (I.E. if one host is participating, the other should be the one to decide the rest of the rules)
D. The competition must allow for either photographic evidence or the presence of at least one witness

Upon the completion of the competition, evidence must be provided regarding the winner, at which point the victorious rule shall be placed into effect and the loser be discarded.

 

[Golden009]

What happens if the rules on contradictions contradict?

 

[brightobject]

RULE PROPOSAL 1: TITLES

This rule would be titled the 'Title Rule'
all rules have to have official titles! It's that simple. Whether these titles are immutable/mutable or whether they will actually affect gameplay aside from making them easier to cite would depend on future rules :)

 

[sunny004]

In

 

[Pidge]

Proposal #1 There can be only 1 winner at this end of this game.

I was wanting this rule too since I am opposed to a group of players that is the size of majority to declare themselves the winners together. People individually competing against each other to be the sole winner seems more interesting and fun. However, I don't know how effective this rule would be if the players together just eliminate this rule first and then declare themselves winners.

Also what would happen if 2 or more people reach a winning condition at the same time with this rule in effect? How do they win from that point? Are they just in a state of non-winning, and do they have to get the other(s) out of this 'state'?

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

do they have to get the other(s) out of this 'state'?

That is pretty much it.

Add more rules that determine a single winner, like Walrein's Champion.

 

[Leethoof]

i n

 

[ButteredToast]

A lot of the proposals to this point seem differ from the scope that I envisioned from the first round. I want to keep this game being what it was intended to be, that is a game of rule making. I'm not really for deviating and turning this into an RPG with cards and powers.

Other rules I feel are trying to do a bit to much to change what we already have. I feel there is a pretty clear system in place right now without changes. It states in the rules now that rules with higher numbering take precedence over rules with lower numbering. This is a pretty easy system to follow and one that works better. Remember we are voting on whether rules pass or not, so we all have a say in whether or not we can change or alter a rule. Why them would we create a trail by combat system to keep rules that a majority wanted to change? We already have a system in place where the hosts interpret the rules in case someone wants to loophole a rule or make a case for a different interpretation. And if they get away with it, we have the opportunity to close that loophole the next turn by passing a rule. I say leave this alone and lets start working on the actual game instead of trying to alter a system that has yet to pose an issue.

----------

For my proposed rule, I wanted to off the bat make sure we have a basic system for scoring. Someone wins when they reach 100 points, yet there is no way for anyone to get points right now. I feel that needs to change. I talked with a few people on IRC about how we can start gaining points, and the ideas were not all that great or did not seem to fit. I want the winner of this game to be someone who is active, puts in effort, and is a positive influence in the game. As such I propose the following rule:

ROUND MVP
After the completion of each round, the hosts will award 10 points to one player of their choosing. This player can be chosen for whatever reason, but quality of posts, activity level, and creativity of play should be taken into consideration.

 

[acidphoenix]

closing in 4.5 hours

 

[More Cowbell]

Proposal: Permanent Deadline Extension

I find the 18 hour timers of both Proposal and Voting stages a bit short. With people in different timezones, work, school, et cetera, I propose that every cycle will last 24 hours from now on. This gives everyone a full day and night to respond to what is happening in the game, and hopefully eliminates having players who have no time to check on the thread within the cycle.

 

[acidphoenix]

signups closed

thread coming soon

 

[Golden009]

A lot of the proposals to this point seem differ from the scope that I envisioned from the first round. I want to keep this game being what it was intended to be, that is a game of rule making. I'm not really for deviating and turning this into an RPG with cards and powers.

Other rules I feel are trying to do a bit to much to change what we already have. I feel there is a pretty clear system in place right now without changes. It states in the rules now that rules with higher numbering take precedence over rules with lower numbering. This is a pretty easy system to follow and one that works better. Remember we are voting on whether rules pass or not, so we all have a say in whether or not we can change or alter a rule. Why them would we create a trail by combat system to keep rules that a majority wanted to change? We already have a system in place where the hosts interpret the rules in case someone wants to loophole a rule or make a case for a different interpretation. And if they get away with it, we have the opportunity to close that loophole the next turn by passing a rule. I say leave this alone and lets start working on the actual game instead of trying to alter a system that has yet to pose an issue.

----------

For my proposed rule, I wanted to off the bat make sure we have a basic system for scoring. Someone wins when they reach 100 points, yet there is no way for anyone to get points right now. I feel that needs to change. I talked with a few people on IRC about how we can start gaining points, and the ideas were not all that great or did not seem to fit. I want the winner of this game to be someone who is active, puts in effort, and is a positive influence in the game. As such I propose the following rule:

ROUND MVP
After the completion of each round, the hosts will award 10 points to one player of their choosing. This player can be chosen for whatever reason, but quality of posts, activity level, and creativity of play should be taken into consideration.

10 points seems a bit too much, imo. maybe 5 would work better.

 

[Wayan Vistar]

Sign me up as a sub

 

[acidphoenix]

open for two signups if anyone cares

 

[TeToN]

Is there any slots open? This looks fun

 

[acidphoenix]

you're in now

 

[acidphoenix]

this is probably going to be open as long as the game keeps going for reference, there's 7 slots available atm

 

[Maleovex]

In if I can still be