Proposals Main Page - Next (351-400)
Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Why shouldn't the speaker vote?
Transmute Rule 102
Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Immutability considered harmful
Transmute Rule 104
Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
More flexibility in proposal success
Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified elsewhere in the rules the'.
Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Quick Start
Enact the following as a rule:
Quick Start
The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of
the legal votes cast on it.
Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Accepted
Default Assumption
Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Lets have some property to play with
Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Accepted
And you can call me Al
Proposal 308 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Make it easy for the Speaker
Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Accepted
What week is it?
Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Encourage Voting
Proposal 311 - Slakko
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 09:53:28 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Creates Rule 311)
Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System
Proposal 312 - Mike Pitt
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:56:01 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Proposal 313 - Mike Pitt
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:56:01 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:56:01 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:56:01 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Proposal 316 - Wild Card
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Creates Rule 316)
Some degree of reversability
"
Some degree of reversability
A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still
available for voting perform the action of repudiating it.
A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however
the author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they
would usually loose in such an occurance.
This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when
a proposal is defeated. "
Proposal 317 - Wild Card
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Speak up will you?
"
Speak up will you?
Rules may call for hearings to be held. If a hearing is called then
one Player (by default the Speaker) is in charge of the hearing (and
is called by default the Herald of the hearing).
The hearing lasts four days.
During this time all Players who don't have the Title
"Disenfranchised" are entitled to mail the Herald once and once only
with either an unambiguous indication that they are in favour of the
hearing called, or an unambiguous indication that they are against
it.
The Herald is required at the end of the four days, to report whether
those in favour or those against have the majority of the indications.
If the majority are in favour then the hearing is said to have been
Upheld, otherwise it is said to have been Defeated. "
Proposal 318 - Wild Card
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Something missing in the rules?
"Making 105 useful
For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is
unable by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until
the situation changes such that they are once again able to vote on
that proposal. "
Proposal 319 - Wild Card
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Consider Phlebas
" Consider Phlebas
The game of Damage is illegal within the precincts of Chiark.
(Note, this does not make it against the rules) "
Proposal 320 - Wild Card
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Creates Rule 320)
Textual Convention
"A textual convention to make life easier
Any text between brackets '{}' is considered not to be part of the
rules, however it is part of the text of the rules, and should be
maintained along with the rules.
It may be considered part of game custom. "
Proposal 321 - Wild Card
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Amends Rule 203)
We'd like *some* leeway
", and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player"
and by replacing the first 'player' in the text of the rule with
'Player'.
Proposal 322 - Wild Card
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Undecided? Poppycock!
" Undecided? Poppycock!
While a Judgement is 'undecided' and no Judge is assigned to that
Judgement any Player who has not been a Judge on that Judgement, and
who is neither the Player who incurred the CFJ nor any Player
mentioned by name or psuedonym in the text of the CFJ, may assume the
position of Judge for that CFJ by emailing the Players with a message
of the form:
'CFJ### undecided? Poppycock! I'll decide it myself!' where '###' is
replaced by the appropriate number.
They then have three days to make Judgement on that CFJ.
"
Proposal 323 - Wild Card
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Reduce the lockdown further
"Reduce the lockdown!
There can never be more rules that are less mutable than Mutable rules
than there are Mutable rules.
Immutable rules are less mutable than Mutable rules.
"
Proposal 324 - Wild Card
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Creates Rule 324)
A wider definition of 'person'
"
A wider definition of 'person'
A person is either a natural person or an rule-described entity with
the 'animate' attribute.
The animate attribute can only be given or removed from an entity as
described by the rules.
"
Proposal 325 - Slakko
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:37:14 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Creates Rule 325)
Soft Upper Limit
Proposal 326 - pm215
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:14:35 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
Amend rule 202 as follows:
the text currently reading "those players who voted against it"
should be changed so that it reads "those Voters who voted against
it".
The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker.
Proposal 327 - Ben Harris
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:50:41 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Amends Rule 307)
To amend rule 307 as follows:
Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym".
Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters
from the ECMA-6 International Reference Version".
The first change is necessary to prevent duplicate pseudonyms.
The second change means that the character-set used is one defined in
a freely-available document and that control characters are
disallowed. Since ASCII is not so defined, I can't easily tell if "7
bit ASCII" includes control characters.
Proposal 328 - Slakko
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:45:00 +0100 (BST)
Oops - Probably Not For the Last Time
Rejected
Create a new Rule entitled "Moose and Squirrel" containing the
following quoted text:
"Slakko and Wild Card each receive the Title of Non-Newbie, and then
this sentence is deleted from this rule. Whenever a player's score
exceeds the score of all other players they acquire the Unique Title
of Fearless Leader. If there is a Fearless Leader, and one player
other than the Fearless Leader has more points than all players other
than the Fearless Leader, that player acquires the Unique Title of
Boris Badinov. If any player is both Fearless Leader and Boris
Badinov, they lose both Titles.
Whenever the Fearless Leader has a proposal accepted, they gain 8
points, and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 8 points.
Whenever Boris Badinov has a proposal accepted, they gain 12 points,
and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 12 points. This rule
takes precedence over Rule 202 in the event of a conflict."
This is designed to encourage people to chase the leader - if you are in second place you can catch up rather quickly. The names - well, I just like Rocky & Bullwinkle. The first sentence is necessary because Rule 311 doesn't affect people who had already had a proposal accepted at or before the time of its acceptance.
Proposal 329 - Slakko
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:45:00 +0100 (BST)
Over Compensation
Accepted (Creates Rule 329)
Create a new Rule, entitled "Point Transfer", with the following
quoted text:
"A player may unilaterally gift some of their points to another
player, provided that (i) the player giving the gift does not finish
the transfer with a negative number of points, and (ii) the player
receiving the gift does not finish the transfer with more than 100
points."
This provides a way to reward players as appropriate for services rendered to other players. However, it cannot be scammed to enable a player to win the game.
Proposal 330 - Slakko
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:45:00 +0100 (BST)
Rehabilitation of Offenders
Accepted (Creates Rule 330)
Create a Rule, titled "Points Recovery", with the following
quote-delimited text:
"At the start of each calendar week, any player who has a negative
number of points gains 10 points, or the number of points needed to
increase their score to -1, whichever is smaller."
If players have a long run of bad proposals, they may feel that they have no chance of getting back into the game. This little compensation may keep their spirits up.
Proposal 331 - Ben Harris
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:49:00 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Creates Rule 331)
To introduce a new rule, entitled "Order of points", to read:
Players may only lose and gain points as prescribed by the Rules.
Proposal 332 - Ben Harris
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:49:00 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Transmutes Rule 110)
To transmute Rule 110.
Proposal 333 - Wild Card
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:39:21 +0100 (BST)
Chocolate Frogs
Rejected
"Chocolate Frogs
A chocolate frog is created in the possession of a player if, when a
proposal they proposed is accepted, they have had at least four other
proposals accepted within the previous 168 hours.
Chocolate frogs are edible.
Chocolate frogs can only be manipulated by the player that they are in
the possession of.
"
Proposal 334 - Muppet
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:29:34 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Creates Rule 334)
"
Inactivity Considered Harmful
Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker,
optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not
vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if
specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are
leaving Coventry, in either case not less than 7 days after entering
Coventry. Any player not in Coventry who votes on no proposals during
a calender week is penalised 5 points at the start of the next. "
It is considered a good idea to get people involved in the game and to
keep the game active.
In an attempt to do this a small penalty to people who remain inactive
for a period of time is proposed. The time period should be such that
some it is likely that activity will be possible, while ensuring that
the penalty is not criplling should it be impossible to be involved
due to external factors. It also has the side effect of encouraging
some proposals every week to avoid the game stagnating.
Some method to allow players to opt-out when they are on holiday,
snowed under due to work or other reasons was needed, hence Coventry.
Coventry was used 'cos I can't spell abeisance.
Players in Coventry have to have a penalty (hence may not vote) to
avoid abuse. The fixed time allows "I'm off on holiday" type mails,
wheras the second way out is for when you are snowed under.
Thanks to all those who helped with the phrasing.
Proposal 335 - Slakko
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:41:42 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
I propose that CFJ 1 be overturned to Undecided.
Rationale:I believe that Rules 105 and 106 overrule any attempt by Rule 110 to ban the adoption of proposals which change the methods of winning. They do not stop Rule 110 from preventing any new such rules from having an effect (as per Rule 109), but that is not the issue covered by the statement.
Proposal 336 - Dan Sheppard
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:21:01 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
*Then the demons are really angels, freeing you*
" winning, where specified in this ruleset is to mean winning in terms
of the game, and the ability to truthfully state `I won'. However, a
player is free to adopt whatever personal motives they wish, whether
they be to win at all costs, to be altruistic, or self-abdicating.
Every player is free to set their own goals in life, and in Nomic,
but, at least in Nomic, it is the right of other players to judge them
on their performance according to the explicit and implicit game
criteria. "
Proposal 337 - Dan Sheppard
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:21:01 +0100 (BST)
Rejected
I've got your number
"It is the role of the speaker to assign numbers to proposals,
according to 107, and to inform players of those numbers, in order
that there are no race conditions in the simultaneous assignment of
the same number by network-distant individuals."
Proposal 338 - Dan Sheppard
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:21:01 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Creates Rule 338)
The Wake
"If a player is taken from us by real life, we will hold a Wake, if
the nature of a Wake has been specified in the rules, customs, or
spirit of the game."
Proposal 339 - mormegil
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:36:42 +0100 (BST)
Accepted (Creates Rule 339)
"Someone To Watch Over Me"
"A Player may (for the purposes of chiark Nomic) have a Guardian Angel, Guardian Spirit, or Guardian Demon. These entities shall be collectively referred to as "Immortal Guardians". No Player may have more than one Immortal Guardian at once. A Player is not obliged to have an Immortal Guardian.
Immortal Guardians shall have such powers, capabilities, and other characteristics as shall be determined by the rules. The manner of acquiring an Immortal Guardian shall be determined by the rules.
Initially, a Player may acquire an Immortal Guardian simply by declaring themselves to have done so. They must specify which form of Immortal Guardian they have and what its name is.
Each Immortal Guardian must have a name, which must consist of characters from the set of characters acceptable for use in Players' pseudonyms. An Immortal Guardian's name must not be the same as the name of any existing Immortal Guardian, and also must not be the same as the name or pseudonym of any Player.
If a new Player enters the game whose name is the same as that of an existing Immortal Guardian, that Immortal Guardian must be immediately renamed in compliance with the rules. A Player may not adopt a pseudonym that is the same as the name of an existing Immortal Guardian."
Proposal 340 - Slakko
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:25:15 +0100 (BST)
So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway?
Rejected (failed quorum)
This gives us a nice reasonable definition which can be inserted in all other rules with just a one or two word phrase.
Proposal 341 - Muppet
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:00:10 +0100 (BST)
Rejected (failed quorum)
-- start --
"I was Al, but now I want to be Alice"
If a Player grows tired of their pseudonym they may change it by
emailing all the Players telling them unambiguously that they wish to
change it and what they wish to change it to; sending this email is
making The Notification Of Name Change. The pseudonym must be one that
could legitimately be chosen by a new Player.
The Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can force the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change to take a Pseudonym chosen by the Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" for one week. After that week the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change may change his pseudonym as decreed within the rules.
{Game Custom may decree how often a player may change Pseudonym (once a month possibly) but the power is intended to be absolute -- if the --> -- Player with the title thinks changing Pseudonyms is evil he can stop it totally or conversely he can leave it unregulated. I'd also strongly suggest the Job of Policing Pseudonyms maintains a web page which tracks peoples changing Pseudonyms so as to allow people to work out who voted for what.}
Unless otherwise decreed by any other rule the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can be granted by the Speaker at his whim and shall initially be held by the Speaker. If no other Player holds the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" then the Speaker is granted it.
{It may be desired to change it to an elected position when we get
those sorted out for example.}
-- end --
Proposal 342 - Paragon
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:00:10 +0100 (BST)
Rejected (failed quorum)
Proposal 343 - Paragon
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:00:10 +0100 (BST)
Rejected (failed quorum)
A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, amendment or renumbering of a mutable rule, or (b) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa. A proposal consists of exactly one proposed rule change.
A proposal to renumber a Rule must meet the following conditions:
(i) the new rule number must be a cardinal number;
(ii) the new rule number must not already be assigned to a Rule;
(iii) the new rule number must be less than or equal to the number of
the last proposal whose voting period has elapsed;
(iv) the new rule number must not be the same as the new rule number
in any proposal to renumber which is still in its voting period.
When a Rule is renumbered, a note of its previous number(s) should be kept with it. {e.g. if a Rule is renumbered from 213 to 99, it should be listed in the Ruleset as "Rule 99 (was 213)"}