All players in-game shall have a TITLE. At first, this Title shall be determined by the *preceding player*, i.e
If Player A takes his turn before Player B, he may deem Player B to be called 'Captain Player B'. Player A would be knows as the 'Titler', and Player B would be known as the 'Titee'.
Each round, each Titler shall be assigned the Titee of the player preceding him. In this fashion all players shall get a chance to Title every other player.
i.e. Player B titled Player C at first. When the next round begins, Player A will Title Player C, as he has his turn preceding Player B.
No two Titles may be the same.
The Titles shall be displayed through use of the Soulriders Custom Title System. The player known as Rezantis, henceforth known as the 'Title-Agent', shall be responsible for making sure all the Titles are properly assigned. When a change in Title is required, it is the Titler's job to report to the Title-Agent as quickly as possible.
All Titles must be Appropriate; i.e. suitable for a PG-13+ audience. They must not exceed 20 characters; they must consist only of standard English Letters, numbers, and punctuation where applicable.
When referring to another player on any Nomic-related thread, one must always use the proper Title. If this is not done, the post will be edited so that the proper Title is shown. The Title may be placed aside the players name in whatever way is appropriate; i.e. 'The King of Gaul, Todd' is as viable as 'Todd, King of Gaul'. Titles may also be shortened when appropriate; 'King Todd' would also be appropriate.
If a player is assigned a Title that they feel is inappropriate, they may put the topic to vote. All players aside from the Titee and the Titler vote on the issue, and if a majority decide that the Title is inappropriate, the Titler must give the Titee a new Title.
Interesting.
But three complaints.
(A) This proposal should be 301 - EDIT, YOU!
(B) This proposal needs a name
(C) Does everyone -have- to refer to said player by their current title?
a) Done.
b) Done.
c) Yes.
A. Very interesting. It needs a max character limit of, say, 20.
B. Clarify whether we set the titles immediately, or only during our turn.
C. Clarify what you mean by your turn. IE, would it be in the player's proposal stage?
D. Where should such a title change be stated? In a player's proposal? In the other chat forum? Should there be a thread for listing players' titles?
E. All title changes need to be appropriate.
A) I agree.
B) We set the title immediately on the Rule being approved.
C) The *Titler* may change his *Titees* Title on *his* turn, i.e. changes only apply when it's the Titler's turn.
D) Rez will use his Admin Powaz to change Custom Titles.
E) Appropriate is a loose term. Define what you mean more. I have no problems with anything being allowed. :D
I don't mind anything being allowed..I'm just thinking..lets keep it in PG-13 range, or some such.
Are we voting on this rule yet? If so, I vote yes.
Nope! The next 24 hours is -debate time-! :D
I like this idea. Muahaha.
All such references by title should only be -compulsory- upon the forum, though - at least for now. :)
Ah. That brings up another point- if you break the rule, you should be penalized.
Let's say that you lose 5 points. :D
Give us a rewrite of it so we can view and marvel at it's new perfection!
I think that the penalty for not refering to the title of a person when adressing them should only apply to the Nomic and Nomic-related threads.
I don't like the penalty for not using the title. Perhaps the only one who should receive a penalty for not using the title is the Titler for his Titlee (Titlee is more PG-13 that Titee, which can be pronounced Titty, and it is more correct anyway), so that some Titler won't give out a Title of Adljkhgwe!!!!!!Yss, which neither e or anyone else would be able to spell correctly all the time anyway. Clearly, if everyone could be penalized, someone giving out such a random title would be a bold move at a chance to win. Also, why did we bother coming up with names for ourselves if everyone is going to have to use a title?
The title is displayed under our name on the left. ^^ And titty is PG-13, but terms found in XXX movies would not be.
I don't like the point penalty - simply require that we do it, and all posts that have names without titles must be edited to contain their titles. It'll be a lot of work to remember to dock points every time someone messes up.
I won't pass this unless something similar to the following clause is added:
{{Any Player may change another Player's title by creating a Proposal to change it. A Title-changing Proposal will effectively change the Player's Title if it passes a majority vote. A Title-Changing Proposal will be considered a move and the Proposer with receive 1 point if it passes.}}
The reason I want this is because most of us are strangers here, but in the future, we will know one another well enough to come up with deliciously creative titles for one another. In the meantime, we already can come up with good titles for our friends here, but would not be able to give them these titles under the Bill as it stands.
I disagree. Half the fun is changing titles without a vote. Not to mention thats a lot of senseless voting.
Your suggestion changes it from a fun grab-bag setup into a un-used proposal - I'm not going to waste a turn changing someone else's title when I have my own legislation to propose.
EDIT: Oh, and change Rez to "the player named Rezantis."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You would have an easier time coming up with a title Rez was getting because you know him. I'm the one who has to title him, and I don't. You'd have a more difficult time coming up with a title for tinuviel or Rye Coal or Leus, because you don't know them. I do. And don't even act like you aren't trying to take over the world. It's as important now as it is later.
How about a pseudoanonymous grab bag? Where only one person knows who the names came from? And then we get one point for each person who chooses the name we created? How much fun would that be? And don't worry about gendering the names. Obviously, guys will choose guy names, and girls girl names. And if there is a title like "Duke of. . ." and a girl wants it, she can just change it to Duchess. It's the same name.
But its just as fun to name Rezantis "Queen Rezantis" as it would be to name Rye Coal "Queen Rye Coal." Your solution doesn't solve the problem of not knowing the person well enough to title - rather, it weakens it.
And I don't think not knowing should be an excuse - its more of a reason to try and get to know the person.
If we did do a grab bag, no name changing would be allowed. Again, I want to stress the comical value of the titles.
And, for the record, I want no part in ruling the world. And please remember that ruling the world does not equal winning the game.
Yet.
It does not weaken it. It provides a great conversation piece for getting to know one another. After we've played for a while, we will certainly be able to come up with more interesting titles. As long as we leave open the option to propose new titles for people, that is fine.
How about post titles? Like, "Player B, Ruler of the Netherworld." It gives us more flexability and allows for more creativity.
This is nomic, the door is always open. Unless it is explicitly stated to be closed...in that case we can amend it to be open later :D
Quote from: "CasualSax"
And I don't think not knowing should be an excuse - its more of a reason to try and get to know the person.
True, but it
does take time to get to know a person. :P
I don't mind the naming system as it is, it could have quite amusing results (and titles can be changed once the titler gets to know the titlee better). However, I would like the ability to refuse a given title - PG-13 though they may be, they could still be unintentionally offensive to the recipient. I think this would make voting on titles unnecessary.
Also, if we're going to have to refer to each other by titles only, definitely limit character number as well as number of title changes within a given period. Otherwise it could get excessively tedious trying to keep up with super-long titles and frequent changes.
Fun proposal though. :D
A simple thread in the game status folder can keep up with player titles and changing them. This same thread can keep track of turn order, and have arrows pointing to who's on the clock.
The goal of a title being PG-13 is not to keep it inoffensive, but to keep it clean.
I like it very much as is, but I agree it needs a character limit.
how about a limit of 60 characters, and no thread devoted to it, but the title actually physically planted under our names by the admin. I know phpBB2 can handle it.
If we're going to have to reffer to the person with their title at all times, then 60 characters is a lot.
"This sexy title is sixty characters long and, oh yeah-I hate Player B"
Quote from: "CasualSax"If we're going to have to reffer to the person with their title at all times, then 60 characters is a lot.
"This sexy title is sixty characters long and, oh yeah-I hate Player B"
Which is why we need to decide between character limits (less than 60 please quintopia dear :D ) and calling people by titles. (The other option being less restrictions on titles but not having to refer to people by them.)
Well, PG-13 in my mind implies inoffensive. But if that's not the case with everyone, then I suggest that be an added stipulation. I personally would not enjoy being stuck with a title that I found distasteful. And as we're not all bosom buddies here yet, how are we to know what someone considers distasteful? By giving them to option not to accept the given title.
I propose the system works like this:
1) Starting after the passing of this proposal, each player names the person in front of them with a title until one rotation is completed. The title is posted by the titler at the biginning of his turn and is officially put into effect when that turn ends.
2) During the titler's turn, the titlee, and only the titlee, is allowed to officially protest the title under the grounds that the titlee is offended by the title. The titlee must include with the protest the reason for which he/she finds it offensive. The entire group then has 24 hours to vote (seperately from the rest of the turn's procedings) on whether the reason is valid. If the reason is valid, then the title is protracted and the titlee provides his/her own title. If the reason is decided to not be valid, the titlee loses 5 points and the title goes into effect anyway.
3) Since each round lasts a couple weeks by the current rules, the title changes every round. Therefore the titlee has that title until the titler's turn comes back around, at which point the titler creates a new title and the cycle begins anew.
This should preserve both the spontaneaty of the titles, along with the natural humor (I would hope) that comes with recieving a title from someone who is (hopefully) trying to be humorous, while at the same time providing an efficient means of preventing anything too offensive from inadvertently spoiling the game.
I vote for no character limits, and not having to use titles, or even, only being required to use parts of titles (which part would be obvious, for example: Supreme High General Leus of the Sreebian Armies of the North would be called General Leus, and so forth). Agreed about not having to accept a title.
A combination of the above sounds good to me. (:
I like the idea of adding it to the post titles. We will see it reqularly and enjoy it's humor. It can be long without being annoying. Slap on a new title request system- ask nicely. If that doesnt work call a vote. If you lose, you lose points to the other players for wasting their time.
How about:
4) Players must use a player's title when referring to or directly addressing said player. Failure to do so will result in 5 lost points. If title is excessive in length, then the title may be shortened during posts at poster's discretion.
Sorry to steal your thunder Carth, but the discussion was getting cloudy due to a lack of specifics. Feel free to change anything; it is your proposal after all :wink:
Yeah..I think we've got all the ideas out in the open. Carth just has to pick and chose what changes he wants to make (if any).
And, we need to remember that the rule has to be passed unanimously.
this thing is late for its voting period.
Nope, there is between 24 and 48 hours of debate on a proposal. section 2 of rule 202. Rat then has 24 hours to submit a final version of the proposal.
ah. well, then, we should have the final tomorrow morning.
Kinda. At 3 AM, his 24 hours to post the final proposal starts.
Actually, he can close the debate and post the new proposal at any time now. *nodnod* But yeah, Mr Sax is right about the deadline.
24-48 hours from the time of original posting, right? The rules say "once it has been posted" so i assume that's what it means.
yup yup.
Debate period is now over! The Draft has been Edited. :D
change the title to remove (DRAFT) then
actually, he should make a new post - he's been informed, and should at some point.
oooooooooooooook then. will we be voting in that same thread?
yeah, you'll vote in the 301 (FINAL): thread.
DEBATE IS CLOSED! Rez, please lock the thread. Carth has 24 hours to post his final proposal. Do I have 24 hours now that debate has ended, or does it start when Carth posts his final proposal?