301 (DRAFT): Law of Titles

[quintopia]

well, I don't want to be able to change titles without a vote, and I don't want to have a title-changing vote every other day.  Perhaps if it did not cost a move, did not gain you a point, but names could only be changed once over a given time period, say, a fortnight.

It should also be specified that Titles must consist entirely of numbers and english words, and punctuation only if appropriate.

And what is defined to be PG-13 really?  Is Cooter Tooter a PG-13 title?

[SuperusSophia]

A. I think PG-13 titles aren't something that needs to be defined.  Common sense should be able to determine whether or not a specific title works.

B. I don't think limiting the punctuation and/or word choces is the right way to go.  I think it should simply be something we can understand just by looking at it.  i.e. l33t  Nomic-gamer would work, but adkgjoegj wouldn't.

C. I think for the first round, each player gives themselves a title, then on the second or third round, it switches to the previous player, that way everyone gets to know everyone else to a certain extent before titles re randomly given out.

[quintopia]

I like C.  I don't like not having any guidelines as to what Titles are acceptable, but I suppose if we implement a vote, then it shouldn't be a problem, because people would only vote yes on readable titles.  In fact, they'd probably only vote yes on clever or funny titles.

[Rye Coal]

As I see it there are a few key issues: Changeability, appropriateness, and rewards/penalties.

Institute a recurring game phase every n cycles of play called 'The Naming Phase," or something more creative.

Phase One:
Everyone proposes name changes for other players during a 24 hour period. One proposal for each other player per player, maximum limit. Proposals will be displayed in a thread by current player name and title. Current Judge will be responsible for updating.

Phase Two:
Votes on the titles proposed during a twenty four hour period (Maximum, may end when all have voted).

Phase Three: Of the passed titles a vote for most creative/delicious/appropriate title would commence. The Proposer of the most creative/delicious/appropriate title would gain 10 points. Additional 15 point bonus for multiple awards in a single phase.

By instituting a new phase we eliminate the problem of sacrificing your turn just to change someone's name. The game phase is mandatory, unless otherwise legislated, so the name changes will occur frequently but not too frequently. Points are awarded for crafty titles and poor titles are weeded out by peer review.

Personally I wouldn't limit characters.

[CasualSax]

I also must bring up the fact that most people aren't going to be calling each other wfien!fu$ni^u#n*eg, and that PG-13 is just a guideline.  Live a little, folks.  =P

How about instead of putting in mandatory voting sessions, we settle and put in a clause that lets a player object to the title given, and then we vote on it, and a punishment is given to the player for starting the session if their complaint is shot down.

[Itarien]

There is also the option for the titler to refuse to title the titee/titlee isn't there?

I like the idea of title change proposals as it allows us to change away from titles we don't like but once the cycle comes around to the titler again they could just change it back. The rule forbidding title change proposals would have to be included in the Law of Title as there is no other rule stating that we can't propose to change our titles.

Why not add a clause that once a titler has been overruled by a proposal he/she no longer has the right to title the titee/titlee. Perhaps shift the titling to the player preceeding the titler.

[CasualSax]

No refusing.  You're stuck, I think, unless we put something into the original proposal that changes that.

It would be a good idea to add on a bit about if a titler has been refused, a different title must be used, OR if my objection bit is used, then the new title must be approved if the objection goes through.  Something along these lines.

But I am still very much opposed to mandatory title voting.

[Rye Coal]

I like the idea that a titler can loose the privledge to give someone a title. But how do you earn it back and who does the right go to?

[CasualSax]

If we make it so a player loses right, it would go to the player preceeding the titler.  They wouldn't earn it back, but they could become the titler if the player they origionally titled as also rejected as a titler.

I'd much rather just do objections, and make them submit one and the new one must be approved.  So much more logical.

[quintopia]

Well, I could do with the title refusing option.  That pretty much cleans up all my objections.  But, is there any chance that, instead of each person titling the next at the beginning, everyone comes up with 3 titles and puts them all in a pool, and we select someone else's title for ourselves first come first serve?  It's quite a burden to come up with a title if you know exactly who's going to get it. . .and everyone will be happier with their title if they chose it.

[Itarien]

What I meant was can the Titler give the titee a null title?

With the titling privledge loss I had in mind something like this:
Take for instance Player A, Player B and Player C.

Player A titles Player B, and Player B titles Player C. Player C titles the next player along in the cycle.

If Player C proposes that his title be changed and it is passed, Player B loses the right to title Player C. The right to title Player C is now passed on to Player A. This possibly isn't the best method as Player A now titles Player B and Player C.

[CasualSax]

I'd have an easier time coming up with a title I knew, say, Rez was going to get, then having to make it genderless.  We'd lose some originality, like rhyming with the name.  That, and I don't know if I could come up with three titles.

And while we would be happier about our own titles, in theory, its a matter of utility.  We'd have thirty titles, and the ten least offensive ones would be used.  So we won't be -as- upset as we would have been.

But this upsetness factor is ofset by the sheer pleasure we get from naming someone else.  But if only our least offensive one is used, we aren't going to be nearly as proud of the name chosen as we could have been.  Thus the net utility is higher if we don't do this grab-bag method.

EDIT:  And I see no reason why we can't give null titles.  I also thought about the two player thing, and thats why I'd rather them just have to get the new title approved, instead of passing it on.

[Rye Coal]

There had better be some award/penalty system involved in here somewhere. We are going to a lot of effort to choose titles no matter which way we slice it.

You could make it more complex by adopting a feudal system. Your Titler gets a fraction of the points you earn applicable recursively to the 1/100th of a point. We would need a dynamic title graph calculator to keep track of points. Quintopia - didn't you already write a similar app for your project last year? Hell I'd write it if it was adopted. That would be fun.

If this was implemented the reassignment of the title would need to be more than arbitrary.

[Itarien]

That could possibly go in a separate proposal. The titler getting a certain fraction of titlee's points. Perhaps it could go the other way too.

[CasualSax]

A fuedal system/fractions of points/awarding points sounds fun, but also impractical.  

Actually..the original title system was very simple and fun...this is turning it into a way to conquer the world, which I do not believe belongs in a title proposal.  If you want to submit a fuedal proposal, and if that passes, have a proposal to change 301 into the official right of the fuedal lord, that would be more appropriate.

EDIT:  I'd also like to add that this is Carth's proposal, and in the end, what he decides to submit is the final proposal.  And I'm not exactly sure what timezone he's in.