Rule 105 shall be made mutable.
Justification to follow.
From what I've heard from other playing this game, nearly everyone would like our game to evolve into something more complex, with many different possible things you can do with your turn, and many more ways of interacting with your fellow players than simply proposing, debating, voting on every turn. It seems to me that you would rather be able to focus on these facets of the game. . .economies, diplomacy, strategy, etc. Of course, the way we have the game set up now, we will always be spending more time debating whether votes and so forth were legal, and how things should take place. I think that this rule is the one immutable rule that creates that problem. So, let's get it out where we can change it to our mutual satisfaction and have done with it. Then, we can get on to the more important things.
Things I'd like to see this modified to allow (i.e. ideas for your future proposals):
When a judicial system is created, this could be modified to allow the Judge (however it is that he is chosen) to be an ineligible voter, and therefore less biased in his judgements.
Secret ballots, which will instantly get everyone off the hook about having to justify why they voted the way they did, and, more importantly, force you to vote the way you truly feel rather than, as happens now, letting you change your vote according to the way everyone else votes.
I think this will let us focus more on the other aspects of the game as well, and even allow our future proposals to be more creative and more the result of team brainstorming.
Sounds interesting...I like the idea about Judges.
As some of you know I'm hammering out a judicial system and I hadn't considered 105. Now that I look at it, it will need to be amended if an impartial judge position were to actually work; I had been relying on some interpretation and careful wording to get around it.
Another consideration to think of - we might- either now or later- want to distinguish between voting players and non voting players. If game size becomes a problem kingdoms/teams may need to elect representatives to a legislative body.
Because we are going to be opening up this rule. It would be a good time to consider defining what a "player" is in the game. Currently you are a player if- you got a account on soulriders, joined Nomic, and posted you wanted to play. From there it is assumed you will abide by the rules and indoing so propose new legislation at the appropriet time and vote at the appointed time. Its all very loose. It has to be neated up if were going to add players.
Also just as players have the right to vote (i.e. they have the choice to do or not do) should they have the right to make proposals or not make them? At the very least we need to separate and redefine a player's "turn" from the proposal sequence, for all players. Just separate definitions would give us room to make a mini-game and incorporate it into the "turn". A part of my upcoming proposal will amend 202 for the purpose of creating an impartial judge, but only for the specific judge case.
Just some thoughts,
Char Coal
105. Every player is an eligible voter. An eligible voter has 24 hours from the submission of the final version of the proposal to vote by replying to the forum thread where the proposal is placed, clearly stating their vote. If this is not done within the 24 hour time period their vote is forfeited.
This doesn't have to be made mutable for the changes you suggest.
QuoteWhen a judicial system is created, this could be modified to allow the Judge (however it is that he is chosen) to be an ineligible voter, and therefore less biased in his judgements.
Whether a judge has a say in the vote itself isn't going to effect how he judges how current rules are put into effect. Even if we decided to impliment this, we could make a new rule without making 105 mutable. Parts of 105 are vitally important from keeping people vote-less.
QuoteSecret ballots, which will instantly get everyone off the hook about having to justify why they voted the way they did, and, more importantly, force you to vote the way you truly feel rather than, as happens now, letting you change your vote according to the way everyone else votes.
Secret ballots are not exactly phesable - we'd need to have a program that would let us restrict who voted without seeing it. And while you've suggested coding such measures, I would much rather see them as phesable before we mutate a law that makes sure that everyone has a fair and equal chance to vote. If we decide to change the system, we can always make a rule that specifically states that it over-rides 105.
I do not like the thought of 105 being open to future change.
Alright Sax I see where your going with this. If we mutate the law we could strip individuals of their right to vote. Let me tell you now that's not happening on my time. It's against the sprit of the game plain and simple.
My problem with 105 is that it forces all players to make proposals. I can get around the voting part via abstention. But the simple fact is an impartial judge cannot propose legislation or amendments to existing legislation. While in the office of Judge a player would have to separate themselves from the legislative process completely in order to be impartial. With 105 overruling all mutable rules this can't be accomplished.
"Every player is an eligible voter."
If we made judges Judges, and not players, then it would work.
A player has a turn in the playing order. Currently turns consist solely of proposing legislation- there will be more options in the future and there is no need to deny a Judge the right to those other options - or wasting time correcting a poorly written rule that was written with no foresight. Also a judge must be a player to begin with - to strip them of their status as a player is forcing them to quit which is expressly forbidden.
The rules actually state that no penalty will be extracted greater than "losing." Also, I don't think we can have a non-partial judge. =\
completely impartial never- but I can get damn close with clearly defined and restricted powers, separation from the legislative function of the game, a rigorous election process, sufficient length of time in office, and appropriate compensation.
So then, are we looking at having one permanent, impartial judge for all questions?
A regularly elected official
for further inquery on the subject check out my post in Game Dicussion.