RPG Wiki - User contributions [en]

Nomic 2/Proposals/All Hail The RNG

2012-02-29T21:07:29Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
Two new rules:

* A player may "roll a die" or "dice" to meet the requirement of a rule by causing the dice server at http://www.pbegames.com/roller/ to send a message to the email address ifmud_nomic@mailinator.com giving the result of rolling the specified number of dice with the specified number of sides. No player may delete any email addresses sent to this address. If a player is called upon to roll a die and performs these actions more than once, only the first set of results will be considered valid for that roll.

* If one item is to be chosen randomly from an ordered set, the player choosing the item is to roll a die whose number of sides is the same as the number of items in the set. The item chosen will be the item whose ordinal number is the result of the die roll.

''Some fortune tellers used tarot cards, but Madame Luquenzi found it was more convenient to just carry around a pair of tarot dice in her pocket.''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Jota|Jota]] 05:31, 11 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
* You put the number/size of dice into the "Die Type" field (e.g., 2d6). You can see the email results at http://mailinator.com/maildir.jsp?email=ifmud_nomic --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 05:31, 11 February 2012 (PST)
* I added the "more than once" bit so you couldn't declare that any low roll was just a practice roll and then re-do it. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 05:31, 11 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* Olethros: Aye

== Proposal Status ==
Open for voting!

Nomic 2/Proposals/Beyond Hulk

2012-02-27T19:13:12Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==

1) The Anger stat has no upper bound.

2) Whenever a Stat Check of difficulty N is required, and a player's Stat is a number X, then the player rolls XdN.

3) If none of the dice come up 1, the Stat Check fails.

4) Conversely if at least one dice comes up 1, the Stat Check succeeds.

5) If X is non-positive, then the check fails automatically.

''Don't make me any angrier. You would like me even less.''

== Proposed by ==

--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 02:09, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

When anger checks may be triggered and what
is the effect of their failure of success is left for future rules to determine.

I'm guessing this is for a new rule. Sounds good to me. But a few thoughts:
* It might be convenient to also note at the end that if at least one die comes up 1, the check succeeds (or that if it does not fail, it succeeds), since as it stands, the rule doesn't actually define anything other than failure.
* Why not generalize parts 2 and 3 so they could be applied to any Stat?
* You'll probably want to actually add a link to it from the Proposals page so people can find it. Also, don't forget the Flavour Text.
--[[User:Jota|Jota]] 06:16, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* Olethros: Aye

== Proposal Status ==

Nomic 2/Proposals/Oath of Vengeance

2012-02-27T19:12:32Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
New Rule:

Whenever a Proposal is declared "dead", the Anger stat of any player who was "in approval" of it at the time is increased by 1.

''"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:42, 9 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
It probably won't be an issue, but we should probably be careful to pass Pruning before this. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:42, 9 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* Baf: Aye
* Roger: Aye, I can always vote for more anger.
* vimes: Aye
* Fang: Nay, I think this might lead to farming of anger by starting spurious proposals.
* Olethros: Aye

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting votes.

Nomic 2/Proposals/Beyond Hulk

2012-02-25T17:53:48Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

Nomic 2/Proposals/Pruning the Garden

2012-02-25T16:52:14Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
New Rule:

If more than one third of the players are in disapproval of a proposal at the same time, any player may declare that proposal "dead" by editing its wiki page to indicate this status under a "Proposal Status" heading on the proposal's wiki page.

* At the moment a proposal becomes dead, all players are considered to immediately vote against it (regardless of how they may have previously voted regarding the proposal).
* Any new players added to the game are considered to immediately vote against all dead proposals.
* If, by any means, a player votes in favor of a dead proposal, that player is considered to immediately change their vote to be against it.
* If a proposal is dead, no player is permitted to edit its wiki page in such a way that would make it appear not to be dead.

''Although they did lend a certain festive air to this year's Dia de los Muertos celebrations, some of the city's residents felt that lining the streets with exhumed corpses did pose a slight impediment to traffic.''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:17, 26 January 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
I originally included the "(not counting time elapsed before the adoption of this rule)" bit because I didn't want proposals to become having already been retroactively dead as soon as this passed, but if a player has to actively declare a proposal dead, I guess it's unnecessary. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 13:47, 27 January 2012 (PST)

Seems like this is kind of in conflict with the Supremajority rule, under which having a player in disapproval of a rule for four days straight isn't really an obstacle to passing it. [[User:Baf|Baf]] 17:59, 31 January 2012 (PST)

What if instead it required more than one third of the players to be against it? I'm mainly just interested in clearing out some of the old proposals that are cluttering the list that will probably never pass. (Edited the proposal, since no one but I has voted on it yet.) --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 05:08, 1 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* Roger: Aye, I can support the method and madness here.
* vimes: Aye.
* maga: Aye.
* Baf: Aye.
* Fang: Nay. RRRAAAGEEE.
* olethros: Aye.

== Proposal Status ==
Open for voting.

Nomic 2/Proposals

2012-02-25T15:18:14Z

Olethros: /* Proposals */

==Tentative Proposals and Tentative Proposals==
* [[/What Can A Proposal Do Really]] ([[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 12:01, 23 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE]] --[[User:Fang|Fang]] 16:06, 28 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Nine Billion Names of Nomic]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 12:50, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Quoric Rule]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 12:50, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/All Hail The RNG]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 05:32, 11 February 2012 (PST)

==Proposals==

* [[/Voting Brevity]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 11:39, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Agents of Empire Rule]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 11:45, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Standing Rule]] [[User:Fang|Fang]] 12:23, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/No Cheating]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:37, 20 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/Doug Wins]] --[[User:Doug|Doug]] 12:47, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Is This Your Card?]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:53, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Pruning the Garden]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:33, 26 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Enh, Good Enough]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:47, 26 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Busy Shopping]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 15:59, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Some Things Can Only Be Learned By Lowering Your Inhibitions]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:06, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Sober Occasions]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:19, 2 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/What's Good For The Goose]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:46, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Demiquora]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:00, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/For Everything There Is A Season]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:26, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Oath of Vengeance]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:42, 9 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Beyond_Hulk]] --[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 07:14, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Ratified Proposals ==

* [[/Station Identification]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 20 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/Revolving Door]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:22, 20 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/What The Heck Is A Proposal Anyway]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 12:09, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Clarity Rule]] [[User:Maga|Maga]] 15:30, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Barbarians at the Gates]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:11, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Supermajority Rule]] [[User:Fang|Fang]] 12:28, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Pork Belly Politics]] --[[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 10:18, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Basic Voting Procedure]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 12:36, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/All Hands On Deck]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:22, 23 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/Stats]] --[[User:Maga|Maga]] 16:43, 23 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Flavour Text]] --[[User:Fang|Fang]] 16:06, 28 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Unlock the Revolving Doors]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 16:28, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Good Job!]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:58, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Roger That]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:16, 2 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/An Omen]] --[[User:Fang|Fang]] 13:21, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Minimum Value]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 16:55, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/They'll Regret This]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:21, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Pointless Proposals ==

* [[/The Honest Politician Rule]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 11:51, 20 January 2012 (PST) (What The Heck made this redundant)

== See Also ==
[[Nomic_2/Rules]]

Nomic 2/Proposals

2012-02-25T15:18:01Z

Olethros: /* Tentative Proposals and Tentative Proposals */

==Tentative Proposals and Tentative Proposals==
* [[/What Can A Proposal Do Really]] ([[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 12:01, 23 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE]] --[[User:Fang|Fang]] 16:06, 28 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Nine Billion Names of Nomic]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 12:50, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Quoric Rule]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 12:50, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/All Hail The RNG]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 05:32, 11 February 2012 (PST)

==Proposals==

* [[/Voting Brevity]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 11:39, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Agents of Empire Rule]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 11:45, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Standing Rule]] [[User:Fang|Fang]] 12:23, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/No Cheating]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:37, 20 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/Doug Wins]] --[[User:Doug|Doug]] 12:47, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Is This Your Card?]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:53, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Pruning the Garden]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:33, 26 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Enh, Good Enough]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:47, 26 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Busy Shopping]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 15:59, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Some Things Can Only Be Learned By Lowering Your Inhibitions]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:06, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Sober Occasions]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:19, 2 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/What's Good For The Goose]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:46, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Demiquora]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:00, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/For Everything There Is A Season]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:26, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Oath of Vengeance]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:42, 9 February 2012 (PST)

== Ratified Proposals ==

* [[/Station Identification]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 20 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/Revolving Door]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:22, 20 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/What The Heck Is A Proposal Anyway]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 12:09, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Clarity Rule]] [[User:Maga|Maga]] 15:30, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Barbarians at the Gates]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:11, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Supermajority Rule]] [[User:Fang|Fang]] 12:28, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Pork Belly Politics]] --[[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 10:18, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Basic Voting Procedure]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 12:36, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/All Hands On Deck]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:22, 23 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/Stats]] --[[User:Maga|Maga]] 16:43, 23 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Flavour Text]] --[[User:Fang|Fang]] 16:06, 28 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Unlock the Revolving Doors]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 16:28, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Good Job!]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:58, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Roger That]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:16, 2 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/An Omen]] --[[User:Fang|Fang]] 13:21, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Minimum Value]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 16:55, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/They'll Regret This]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:21, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Pointless Proposals ==

* [[/The Honest Politician Rule]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 11:51, 20 January 2012 (PST) (What The Heck made this redundant)

== See Also ==
[[Nomic_2/Rules]]

Nomic 2/Proposals/Beyond Hulk

2012-02-14T22:05:58Z

Olethros: /* Proposal */

Nomic 2/Proposals/Demiquora

2012-02-12T20:19:15Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
If more than one third of the players have been in approval of a proposal at the same time continuously for four days straight, and no player has been in disapproval of it during this period of time, any player may declare that proposal "ascended" by editing its wiki page to indicate this status under a "Proposal Status" heading on the proposal's wiki page.

*At the moment a proposal becomes ascended, all players are considered to immediately vote in favor of it (regardless of how they may have previously voted regarding the proposal).

''Hariz and Shalma climbed to heaven, not by building a great tower, but by standing upon each other's shoulders, one after the other after the other. For there was no one to tell them they could not.''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:00, 1 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
Is this better? --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:00, 1 February 2012 (PST)

Yeah, I think this is more appropriate. That way we are sure that at least a representative sample of players have seen the proposal. --[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 05:12, 7 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* Olethros: AYE

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting votes.

Nomic 2/Proposals/Beyond Hulk

2012-02-12T15:27:53Z

Olethros: /* Proposal */

== Proposal ==

1) The Anger stat has no upper bound.

2) Whenever a Stat Check of difficulty N is required, and a player's Stat is a number X, then the player rolls XdN.

3) If none of the dice come up 1, the Stat Check fails.

4) Conversely if at least one dice comes up 1, the Stat Check succeeds.

5) If X is non-positive, then the check fails automatically.

== Proposed by ==

--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 02:09, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

When anger checks may be triggered and what
is the effect of their failure of success is left for future rules to determine.

I'm guessing this is for a new rule. Sounds good to me. But a few thoughts:
* It might be convenient to also note at the end that if at least one die comes up 1, the check succeeds (or that if it does not fail, it succeeds), since as it stands, the rule doesn't actually define anything other than failure.
* Why not generalize parts 2 and 3 so they could be applied to any Stat?
* You'll probably want to actually add a link to it from the Proposals page so people can find it. Also, don't forget the Flavour Text.
--[[User:Jota|Jota]] 06:16, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==

== Proposal Status ==

Nomic 2/Proposals/Beyond Hulk

2012-02-12T15:23:10Z

Olethros: /* Proposal */

== Proposal ==

1) The Anger stat has no upper bound.

2) Whenever a Stat Check of difficulty N is required, and a player's Stat is a number X, then the player rolls XdN.

3) If none of the dice come up 1, the Stat Check fails.

4) Conversely if at least one dice comes up 1, the Stat Check succeeds.

== Proposed by ==

--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 02:09, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

When anger checks may be triggered and what
is the effect of their failure of success is left for future rules to determine.

I'm guessing this is for a new rule. Sounds good to me. But a few thoughts:
* It might be convenient to also note at the end that if at least one die comes up 1, the check succeeds (or that if it does not fail, it succeeds), since as it stands, the rule doesn't actually define anything other than failure.
* Why not generalize parts 2 and 3 so they could be applied to any Stat?
* You'll probably want to actually add a link to it from the Proposals page so people can find it. Also, don't forget the Flavour Text.
--[[User:Jota|Jota]] 06:16, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==

== Proposal Status ==

Nomic 2/Proposals/Beyond Hulk

2012-02-12T15:16:49Z

Olethros: /* Proposal */

== Proposal ==

1) The Anger stat has no upper bound.

2) Whenever an Anger Check of difficulty N is required, and the player has an anger A, then the player rolls AdN.

3) If none of the dice come up 1, the Anger Check fails.

4) Conversely if at least one dice comes up 1, the Anger Check succeeds.

== Proposed by ==

--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 02:09, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

When anger checks may be triggered and what
is the effect of their failure of success is left for future rules to determine.

I'm guessing this is for a new rule. Sounds good to me. But a few thoughts:
* It might be convenient to also note at the end that if at least one die comes up 1, the check succeeds (or that if it does not fail, it succeeds), since as it stands, the rule doesn't actually define anything other than failure.
* Why not generalize parts 2 and 3 so they could be applied to any Stat?
* You'll probably want to actually add a link to it from the Proposals page so people can find it. Also, don't forget the Flavour Text.
--[[User:Jota|Jota]] 06:16, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==

== Proposal Status ==

Nomic 2/Proposals

2012-02-12T15:14:43Z

Olethros: /* Tentative Proposals and Tentative Proposals */

==Tentative Proposals and Tentative Proposals==
* [[/What Can A Proposal Do Really]] ([[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 12:01, 23 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE]] --[[User:Fang|Fang]] 16:06, 28 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Nine Billion Names of Nomic]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 12:50, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Quoric Rule]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 12:50, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/All Hail The RNG]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 05:32, 11 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Beyond_Hulk]] --[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 07:14, 12 February 2012 (PST)

==Proposals==

* [[/Voting Brevity]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 11:39, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Agents of Empire Rule]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 11:45, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Standing Rule]] [[User:Fang|Fang]] 12:23, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/No Cheating]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:37, 20 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/Doug Wins]] --[[User:Doug|Doug]] 12:47, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Is This Your Card?]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:53, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Pruning the Garden]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:33, 26 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Enh, Good Enough]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:47, 26 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Busy Shopping]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 15:59, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Some Things Can Only Be Learned By Lowering Your Inhibitions]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:06, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Sober Occasions]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:19, 2 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/What's Good For The Goose]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:46, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Demiquora]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:00, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/For Everything There Is A Season]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:26, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Oath of Vengeance]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:42, 9 February 2012 (PST)

== Ratified Proposals ==

* [[/Station Identification]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 20 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/Revolving Door]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:22, 20 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/What The Heck Is A Proposal Anyway]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 12:09, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Clarity Rule]] [[User:Maga|Maga]] 15:30, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Barbarians at the Gates]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:11, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/The Supermajority Rule]] [[User:Fang|Fang]] 12:28, 20 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Pork Belly Politics]] --[[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 10:18, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Basic Voting Procedure]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 12:36, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/All Hands On Deck]] ([[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:22, 23 January 2012 (PST))
* [[/Stats]] --[[User:Maga|Maga]] 16:43, 23 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Flavour Text]] --[[User:Fang|Fang]] 16:06, 28 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Unlock the Revolving Doors]] --[[Vimes|vimes]] 16:28, 24 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Good Job!]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:58, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/Roger That]] --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:16, 2 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/An Omen]] --[[User:Fang|Fang]] 13:21, 1 February 2012 (PST)
* [[/Minimum Value]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 16:55, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* [[/They'll Regret This]] --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:21, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Pointless Proposals ==

* [[/The Honest Politician Rule]] [[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 11:51, 20 January 2012 (PST) (What The Heck made this redundant)

== See Also ==
[[Nomic_2/Rules]]

Nomic 2/Proposals/Beyond Hulk

2012-02-12T10:09:34Z

Olethros: Created page with "== Proposal == 1) The Anger stat has no upper bound. 2) Whenever an Anger Check of difficulty N is required, and the player has an anger A, then the player rolls AdN. 3) If n..."

== Proposal ==

1) The Anger stat has no upper bound.

2) Whenever an Anger Check of difficulty N is required, and the player has an anger A, then the player rolls AdN.

3) If none of the dice come up 1, the Anger Check fails.

== Proposed by ==

--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 02:09, 12 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

When anger checks may be triggered and what is the effect of their failure of success is left for future rules to determine.

== Voting ==

== Proposal Status ==

Nomic 2/Proposals/Is This Your Card?

2012-02-09T10:06:51Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==

New Rule:

:A card has a "suit" and a "rank". A card may be referred to as "[rank] of [suit]".

:* A card's suit is a noun or noun phrase. The plural and singular versions of this noun or noun phrase are considered synonymous when used to refer to a card's suit. If a card has no other suit, then its suit is "tiny ninjas".

:* A card has a "rank". A card's rank is an integer. If a card has no other rank, then its rank is 0. When used to refer to a card's rank, the term "ace" will be considered synonymous with the integer 1, "jack" will be considered synonymous with the integer 11, "queen" will be considered synonymous with the integer 12, "king" will be considered synonymous with the integer 13, and "corknut" will be considered synonymous with the integer 100.

And as a second thing in addition to the above rule:

:That the following cards be added to the deck:
:* the ace of tiny ninjas
:* the 0 of tiny ninjas
:* the negative ace of tiny ninjas
:* the three of clubs
:* the 42 of answers
:* the 20 through 29 of twenties (inclusive, as ten distinct cards)
:* the 17 of random numbers
:* the 17 of clubs
:* the 17 of tiny ninjas
:* the 1 through 13 of diamonds (inclusive, as thirteen distinct cards)
:* the 1 through 13 of sapphires (inclusive, as thirteen distinct cards)
:* the ace of corknuts
:* the seven of corknuts
:* the jack of corknuts
:* the queen of corknuts
:* the king of corknuts
:* the corknut of corknuts
:* the negative corknut of corknuts
:* the corknut of tiny ninjas
:* the twelvety of nonces
:* Mr. Onion
:* Mr. Onion (Sinister)
:* the 0 of spoons
:* THE TWENTY-SIX OF CAPITAL LETTERS

''Four men gathered to play poker, but when the cards were dealt, every one was blank. Somewhere, the Sorcerer laughed.''

== Proposed by ==

[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:51, 24 January 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

Note that, as the rules stand at the time of this comment, this still needs a unanimous vote to pass. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:33, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* Roger: Aye, I'll vote for this. I'm not sure what it is, but I like it.
* vimes: Aye.
* maga: Aye.
* olethros: Aye, I trust Jota to have some good use for this.

== Proposal Status ==

Open for votes.

Nomic 2/Proposals/What's Good For The Goose

2012-02-09T10:05:00Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
New Rule:

* Anything that can be done by unanimous agreement of the players can also be done by the agreement of a supermajority of two thirds or more of the players.
* If the rules state that something can be done by a supermajority of two thirds or more of the players, then a proposal to do that thing succeeds when two thirds or more of the players are in approval of it.

''And so it was decided: the hour would be forty minutes and the day sixteen hours. And thus did the moon finally catch up to the sun.''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:46, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
This is mainly so that all of our proposals (including adding cards or players or things like that) can be passed the same way. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:46, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* olethros: Aye

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting votes.

Nomic 2/Proposals/For Everything There Is A Season

2012-02-08T21:13:31Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
Four new rules:

* A turn begins at a point in time and ends at a later point in time. A turn belongs to a player.

* The order of turns will be alphabetical by the name of the player whose turn it is, cyclically, so that the first name follows the last. When one turn ends, the next begins immediately unless the game is over.

* A turn action is a kind of thing defined in the rules that a player can do during their turn. A player performs a turn action by editing http://inky.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nomic_2/Turns and adding a line to the bottom of the page describing the action being performed.

* Ending one's turn is a turn action. Ending one's turn causes one's turn to end immediately. If the current turn has been on-going for 72 hours or longer, the player whose turn is next can cause the player whose turn is in progress to end their turn by adding a line to the bottom of http://inky.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nomic_2/Turns indicating that this is happening. If the game ends, any player whose turn is in progress automatically ends their turn immediately.

''So spring followed autumn, summer followed spring, winter followed summer, and autumn followed winter, just as they had for as long as man could remember.''

== Proposed by ==
--[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:25, 1 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* vimes: Aye
* maga: Aye
* olethros: aye!

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting votes.

Nomic 2/Proposals/Demiquora

2012-02-07T13:12:04Z

Olethros: /* Comments */

== Proposal ==
If more than one third of the players have been in approval of a proposal at the same time continuously for four days straight, and no player has been in disapproval of it during this period of time, any player may declare that proposal "ascended" by editing its wiki page to indicate this status under a "Proposal Status" heading on the proposal's wiki page.

*At the moment a proposal becomes ascended, all players are considered to immediately vote in favor of it (regardless of how they may have previously voted regarding the proposal).

''Hariz and Shalma climbed to heaven, not by building a great tower, but by standing upon each other's shoulders, one after the other after the other. For there was no one to tell them they could not.''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:00, 1 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
Is this better? --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:00, 1 February 2012 (PST)

Yeah, I think this is more appropriate. That way we are sure that at least a representative sample of players have seen the proposal. --[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 05:12, 7 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
[note yet]

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting comments.

Nomic 2/Proposals/Sober Occasions

2012-02-07T13:07:11Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
New rule:

Any player may, at most once per day, increase their Sobriety by one when they participate in a "sober occasion" in real life. Sober occasions include: church services, court proceedings, funerals, final exams, and any sort of test required for a government-issued license.

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:26, 2 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

..., checking the Nomic wiki for proposals that are now ratified and need to be acted on, not actually being drunk, opening the first beer of the day. --[[Vimes|vimes]] 16:39, 6 February 2012 (PST)

Do you need to get drunk in between instances of not actually being drunk for them to count as separate occasions? --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:43, 6 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Fang: Nay. I really don't want to make this game an ARG, and this would be unfair to players with lifestyles lacking in sobriety...
* olethros: Nay. Too arbitrary and intruding.

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting votes

Nomic 2/Proposals/Some Things Can Only Be Learned By Lowering Your Inhibitions

2012-02-07T13:05:45Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==

Any player may, at will, increase their Experience and decrease their Sobriety by the same amount. The amount must be a positive integer not greater than their current Sobriety.

''We had learned many things from the tomes of wisdom in our marble halls, but not how to escape an aggrieved constable.''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:23, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
I like it. But technically, Flavour Text passed before this was proposed, so I believe it needs some flavor text added to it to be valid. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 05:11, 1 February 2012 (PST)

Flavor text added. --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 13:03, 1 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==

* Roger: Aye, this would appear to be sound.
* Jota: Aye.
* vimes: Aye.
* olethros: Aye, I like stat-moving

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting votes

Nomic 2/Proposals/Minimum Value

2012-02-07T13:04:45Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
Enact a rule:

Any stat may have a minimum value. By default, the minimum value of every stat is 0. If anything would decrease a stat for a player to less than the stat's minimum value, then that stat for that player will instead become the minimum value, unless a rule specifically makes an exception to this rule, citing it by name.

''I was wearing the worst hat in the world, but I didn't care much, because I couldn't be less sober.''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Baf|Baf]] 17:04, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
I see no obvious objection to this. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:10, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==

* Roger: Aye, I can vote for this. It's a bit scary, but not too scary.
* Jota: Aye.
* vimes: Aye.
* olethros: Aye

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting comments.

Nomic 2/Proposals/An Omen

2012-02-07T13:02:39Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
New Rule:

The Adversary exists. The Adversary can be awake, stirring, or soundly asleep. If the Adversary awakens, the game ends immediately and all players lose. The Adversary is initially soundly asleep.

''The local prophet was found one day, insane with terror. Few heeded his ravings.''

== Proposed by ==
Fang

== Comments ==

I'd recommend doing this in a similar way to the Stats page - that is, don't make the adversary's sleeping status a part of the rule, but define that he can be awake or asleep, where to track such things, and that he starts out asleep. --[[Vimes|vimes]] 15:58, 1 February 2012 (PST)

I'm not sure if we need to specifically define a sleep-tracking page in the rules (although I'm not strictly against it), but I agree with the "define that he can be awake or asleep" and "that he starts out asleep" parts. If we ''do'' define such a page, we might want to consider making it a "miscellaneous game status stuff" kind of page where any such one-off bits of info can be tracked. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:40, 1 February 2012 (PST)

Good point - his sleeping state could simply exist, much like the rules do. --[[Vimes|vimes]] 16:42, 1 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye.
* Baf: Aye
* Roger: Aye, I like this sort of thing.
* vimes: Aye.
* olethros: aye, why not

== Proposal Status ==

Nomic 2/Proposals/They'll Regret This

2012-02-07T13:00:45Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
New rule:

Whenever a Proposal passes (including this one), the Anger stat of any player who was "in disapproval" of it at the time is increased by 1.

''When the Anti-Crumbists signed the Crumbist Limitation Act into law, they thought they had triumphed. They did not count on the depths of Crumbist rage.''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:23, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

This is essentially a companion to Good Job! [[User:Baf|Baf]] 18:23, 31 January 2012 (PST)

I like it. But technically, Flavour Text passed before this was proposed, so I believe it needs some flavor text added to it to be valid. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 05:11, 1 February 2012 (PST)

Flavor text added. --[[User:Baf|Baf]] 13:07, 1 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye.
* vimes: Aye.
* Fang: Nay but in a most agreeable fashion.
* Roger: Aye, this is also righteous.
* olethros: aye

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting votes.

Nomic 2/Proposals/The Nine Billion Names of Nomic

2012-02-04T08:39:30Z

Olethros: /* Comments */

== Tentative Proposal ==
* Enact a new rule (named Unambiguous Names):
** Names of game elements must be unambiguous. (This only applies to game elements which both can be named and have a name.)
*** Rules must not share a name with any other extant rule, unless both rules are unnamed.
*** Proposals must not share a name or a wiki page with any other proposal, no matter the state of the proposal.
*** Players must have unique names, noms de plume, handles, or other methods of identification.

''Although the laws of the land were Byzantine and obtuse, they were unambiguous on one point: the hour from noon to one was known as '''lunchtime'''.''

== Proposed by ==
--[[Vimes|vimes]] 12:47, 1 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
Sure, why not. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:31, 1 February 2012 (PST)

I suppose that this rule is, strictly speaking, necessary. In general though, I'm against adding ''common sense'' rules until experience demonstrates that such a rule is practically necessary.--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 00:39, 4 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==

== Proposal Status ==
In discussion.

Nomic 2/Proposals/The Nine Billion Names of Nomic

2012-02-04T08:39:13Z

Olethros: /* Comments */

== Tentative Proposal ==
* Enact a new rule (named Unambiguous Names):
** Names of game elements must be unambiguous. (This only applies to game elements which both can be named and have a name.)
*** Rules must not share a name with any other extant rule, unless both rules are unnamed.
*** Proposals must not share a name or a wiki page with any other proposal, no matter the state of the proposal.
*** Players must have unique names, noms de plume, handles, or other methods of identification.

''Although the laws of the land were Byzantine and obtuse, they were unambiguous on one point: the hour from noon to one was known as '''lunchtime'''.''

== Proposed by ==
--[[Vimes|vimes]] 12:47, 1 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
Sure, why not. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:31, 1 February 2012 (PST)
I suppose that this rule is, strictly speaking, necessary. In general though, I'm against adding ''common sense'' rules until experience demonstrates that such a rule is practically necessary.--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 00:39, 4 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==

== Proposal Status ==
In discussion.

Nomic 2/Proposals/Roger That

2012-02-04T08:28:38Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
That Roger be added as a player and that "RogerC" be considered synonymous with "Roger" when referring to said player.

''It is prophesied that King Roger shall die the moment a male heir is conceived, and that he'll be reincarnated as his own son, King Roger II. And thus onward for a hundred generations.''

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:16, 2 February 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
I removed the "Baf: Aye" line because, until I'd added the flavour text, this wasn't a real proposal. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:21, 2 February 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* Baf: Aye
* maga: Aye
* Doug: Yes
* olethros: Aye

== Proposal Status ==
Open for votes.

Nomic 2/Proposals/Enh, Good Enough

2012-02-01T21:15:58Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
New Rule:

If a player other than the proposal's submitter has been in approval of a proposal continuously for four days straight, and no player has been in disapproval of it during this period of time, any player may declare that proposal "ascended" by editing its wiki page to indicate this status under a "Proposal Status" heading on the proposal's wiki page.

* At the moment a proposal becomes ascended, all players are considered to immediately vote in favor of it (regardless of how they may have previously voted regarding the proposal).

== Proposed by ==
--[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:46, 26 January 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==
I originally included the "(not counting time elapsed before the adoption of this rule)" bit because I didn't want proposals to become having already been retroactively ascended as soon as this passed, but if a player has to actively declare a proposal ascended, I guess it's unnecessary. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 13:48, 27 January 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* Baf: Nay
* olethros: Nay - Not in this form. I'd amend this to take effect if a) 4 days pass and b) at least 1/3rd of players have vote in favour. In effect, a similar rule to Pruning The Garden would be better.

== Proposal Status ==
Open for voting.

Nomic 2/Proposals/Enh, Good Enough

2012-02-01T21:13:47Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

Nomic 2/Proposals/Good Job!

2012-02-01T13:18:48Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
New rule:

Whenever a Proposal passes (including this one), the Experience stat of any player who was "in approval" of it at the time is increased by 1.

== Proposed by ==
[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:54, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Comments ==

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye
* Aye. --[[User:Maga|Maga]] 17:01, 31 January 2012 (PST)
* Baf: Aye
* olethros: Aye

== Proposal Status ==
Awaiting votes.

Nomic 2/Proposals/Basic Voting Procedure

2012-01-31T21:24:35Z

Olethros: /* Votes */

==Proposal==

Players can cast votes on proposals by appending their vote to the proposal page. The vote consists of the player's name followed by "aye", "nay", "yes", "no", or some other unambigious
statement of agreement or disagreement. A player may change or withdraw his or her vote, but can only have one vote at a time on each proposal.

A player shall be considered to be "in approval" of a proposal if that player has a vote in favor of it, or if that player made the proposal and does not have a vote against it.
A player shall be considered to be "in disapproval" of a proposal if that player has a vote against it.

If the rules state that something can be done by "unanimous agreement", then a proposal to do that thing succeeds when all the players are in approval of it.

If the rules state that something can be done by "passive consent", then a proposal to do that thing succeeds if, at the end of a voting period, no players are in disapproval of it. The voting period will be 72 hours starting from the first vote cast on the proposal unless a rule specifies otherwise.

A proposal can only be passed as a whole. If a proposal contains multiple parts that the rules allow to succeed by different means, then the proposal only succeeds if the criteria for all parts are satisfied.

==Proposed By==

[[User:Baf|Baf]] 12:37, 24 January 2012 (PST)

==Comments==

I intend to vote in favor of this, but I'm not doing so yet in case there's any part of it that needs to be tweaked first. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:33, 24 January 2012 (PST)

I intend to vote in favor of this, but I'm not doing so yet until the question of how many separate rules this is intended to enact is answered. --[[Vimes|vimes]] 16:34, 24 January 2012 (PST)

My intention was that this is all one rule, but I'm open to splitting it up a bit if you think that's a good idea. [[User:Baf|Baf]] 16:51, 24 January 2012 (PST)

Either way - just want it to be clear which it is. --[[Vimes|vimes]] 06:37, 25 January 2012 (PST)

Then I'll take baf's intention to be what it is, a proposal to enact one rule, and vote accordingly. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 14:44, 25 January 2012 (PST)

== Votes ==

* Jota: Aye.
* vimes: Aye.
* Fang: Aye
* olethros: Aye

Nomic 2/Proposals/Flavour Text

2012-01-31T14:04:09Z

Olethros: /* Comments */

== Proposal ==
NEW RULE:

Each proposal created after this rule is passed shall be accompanied by a passage of 'flavour text', written in italics, of length 1 to 5 sentences. This passage is not considered part of any rules being proposed in the proposal, in terms of governing the behaviour of players. The flavour text also must not directly contradict the flavour text of proposals already passed or else the proposal is invalid. If the proposal contains any rule changes, the flavour text must illustrate at least one of: the need for the rule changes, the context of the rule changes, the consequences of not following the changed rules, the consequences of following the changed rules.

''The archivists of Zuulana were most byzantine in their filing systems, but within the book of 'Nomic, a horrifying story could, with training, be eventually deciphered.''

== Proposed by ==
Fang

== Comments ==

For the narrativists amongst us!

--

I like this. I'll be back to vote in favor of it tomorrow if no one has presented any objections or criticisms of it in the meantime. (The only reason I'm not voting yet is so that Fang can still edit it if anyone else has suggestions.) --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:38, 28 January 2012 (PST)

In favour. --[[User:Maga|Maga]] 12:37, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Aye, in flavour. --[[Vimes|vimes]] 16:15, 30 January 2012 (PST)

This rule at least has some marginal utility--[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 06:04, 31 January 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye.
* vimes: Aye.
* olethros: Aye.

== Proposal Status ==

Nomic 2/Proposals/Flavour Text

2012-01-31T14:03:09Z

Olethros: /* Voting */

== Proposal ==
NEW RULE:

Each proposal created after this rule is passed shall be accompanied by a passage of 'flavour text', written in italics, of length 1 to 5 sentences. This passage is not considered part of any rules being proposed in the proposal, in terms of governing the behaviour of players. The flavour text also must not directly contradict the flavour text of proposals already passed or else the proposal is invalid. If the proposal contains any rule changes, the flavour text must illustrate at least one of: the need for the rule changes, the context of the rule changes, the consequences of not following the changed rules, the consequences of following the changed rules.

''The archivists of Zuulana were most byzantine in their filing systems, but within the book of 'Nomic, a horrifying story could, with training, be eventually deciphered.''

== Proposed by ==
Fang

== Comments ==

For the narrativists amongst us!

--

I like this. I'll be back to vote in favor of it tomorrow if no one has presented any objections or criticisms of it in the meantime. (The only reason I'm not voting yet is so that Fang can still edit it if anyone else has suggestions.) --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:38, 28 January 2012 (PST)

In favour. --[[User:Maga|Maga]] 12:37, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Aye, in flavour. --[[Vimes|vimes]] 16:15, 30 January 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* Jota: Aye.
* vimes: Aye.
* olethros: Aye.

== Proposal Status ==

Talk:Nomic 2/Proposals/Voting Brevity

2012-01-30T13:24:50Z

Olethros:

Should this be interpreted as a new rule? --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:44, 20 January 2012 (PST)

It occurs to me that without a formal process for making proposals or a formal definition of what a proposal is, this could lead to ambiguous situations. If I email a new rule idea to myself without showing it to anyone, is it a proposal? Does it become law in three days? --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:57, 20 January 2012 (PST)

A reasonable concern, which I hope to address with [[Nomic 2/Proposals/What The Heck Is A Proposal Anyway]] --[[User:Vimes|Vimes]] 12:19, 20 January 2012 (PST)

I think that a modification such that at least 1/3rd of folks vote positively for a rule should be included, at least.
That way we won't have a situation where a lot of people may not see a proposal due to being coincidentally away for some time. --[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 05:24, 30 January 2012 (PST)

Nomic 2/Proposals/Unlock the Revolving Doors

2012-01-29T21:04:13Z

Olethros:

== Proposal ==

Amend an existing rule: rule 8 shall be modified to read "unanimous agreement or passive consent" instead of "unanimous agreement".

== Voting ==

* vimes: Aye.
* Jota: Aye, if and only if "passive consent" is defined at the time my vote is being measured (otherwise, nay)
* Fang: Aye
* olethros: Aye, what are we, a swiss canton?

== Proposal Status ==

Now accepting votes!

Nomic 2/Proposals/Doug Wins

2012-01-29T21:02:49Z

Olethros:

== Proposal ==

The game has ended, with Doug the winner.

== Votes ==

* Doug: Yes.
* vimes: Yes, as per http://xkcd.com/391/
* maga: No.
* olethros: spoilers!

Nomic 2/Proposals/Pork Belly Politics

2012-01-29T21:01:40Z

Olethros:

== Proposal ==

Amend a rule: add a new bullet to section 6 of What the Heck is a Proposal Anyway:
* The proposal itself may not be edited once said vote or other mechanism has occurred. Other sections of the page are not so restricted.

== Voting ==

* vimes: Aye.
* Jota: Aye!
* Doug: Yes
* maga: Aye
* olethros: Aye

== Proposal Status ==

Voting is now open. Really. For real this time.

Nomic 2/Proposals/Stats

2012-01-29T21:01:01Z

Olethros:

==Proposal==
This proposal creates a new rule:

1) A ''stat'' is a kind of named decimal integer associated with a player.

2) By default, stats start at 0.

3) As stats change, the current stats for each player shall be updated on the page http://inky.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nomic_2/Rules/Stats. Anyone can do this in response to a passed rule or other player action. Stats are considered to be pending, rather than in effect, until they are changed on Rules/Stats.

4) When editing Rules/Stats, a player must change the stats for all players to their correct pending value. After editing, a player should note the actions or rules that have been implemented, to prevent double-edits. Inaccuracies in editing Rules/Stats shall be considered void if pointed out within one week of the inaccurate edit, and returned to the correct current value. Actions and effects found to have been dependent upon inaccurately recorded stats shall be considered void.

5) The initial stats are Experience, Hat Quality, Anger and Sobriety. Every player has one instance of each of these.

==Proposed By==
--[[User:Maga|Maga]] 16:56, 23 January 2012 (PST)
==Voting==
* maga: Aye
* Jota: Aye
* olethros: Aye

Nomic 2/Proposals/All Hands On Deck

2012-01-29T21:00:13Z

Olethros:

==Proposal==
New Rule:

A "card" is an entity that is a part of the game. The "deck" is the set of all cards which are part of the game. When this rule goes into effect, the deck is initially empty. The players can define new cards and add them to the game by unanimous agreement.

==Proposed By==
[[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:22, 23 January 2012 (PST)

==Comments==
I'm intentionally not defining what a card is or does, nor anything about ordering or shuffling or dealing the deck. The deck is just the notional set of all the cards, whether they're in players' hands or in a pack on the table or swimming through treacle or whatever cards end up doing. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:22, 23 January 2012 (PST)

No one appears to have voiced any objections, so vote away! --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:18, 24 January 2012 (PST)

==Votes==
* Jota: Aye
* vimes: Aye
* maga: Aye
* olethros: Aye

Nomic 2/Proposals/No Cheating

2012-01-29T20:59:35Z

Olethros:

== Proposal ==

New Rule: No player may intentionally attempt to maliciously deceive any other player about anything regarding the game.

== Proposed by ==

[[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:40, 20 January 2012 (PST)

== Voting ==
* maga: Aye
* <strike>Matthew: No</strike> (but primarily because I think we need to define what "malicious" means in this context)
* vimes: Aye
* olethros: no - Unenforceable

Nomic 2/Proposals/The Supermajority Rule

2012-01-29T20:58:52Z

Olethros:

==Proposal ==

Modifies rule 7: Rules can be changed by a supermajority of two thirds or more of the players.

==Proposed by==
--[[User:Fang|Fang]] 12:30, 20 January 2012 (PST)

==Comments==
My vote in favor of this is under the provision that A) everyone who voted in favor of this before me (I think just baf) confirms explicitly that they accept this as a valid thing to be voted on, and B) everyone who votes on it after me does not explicitly disavow this as a valid thing to be voted on. In the absence of these two provisions, my vote reverts to a Nay. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 16:53, 28 January 2012 (PST)

==Votes==

* Baf: Aye. The last game never ditched unanimity. I suspect there will be more drama to the game this way.
* Jota: Aye, with the provisions mentioned above under "Comments"
* Fang: Aye
* olethros: Aye

Nomic 2/Proposals/Voting Brevity

2012-01-29T20:48:14Z

Olethros:

Proposal:

Voting on a proposal shall by default be open until 72 hours after the proposal was originally posted. This initial timeframe may be modified at the time the proposal is made by clearly including an alternate closing date in the proposal. Any player who does not explicitly cast a vote during this timeframe will be assumed to have voted "Aye".

Votes:
* vimes: Aye
* Jota: Nay (I'm for this in spirit, but it needs revision, and it also needs What the Heck to pass first)
* Matthew: No, for the reason(s) Jota stated
* olethros: no - what happens when the deadline passes?

Talk:IfMud Nomic 2

2012-01-24T19:26:50Z

Olethros:

I hereby clearly and unambiguously announce that I am leaving the game, effective immediately. [[User:MatthewMurray|MatthewMurray]] 10:11, 24 January 2012 (PST)

Can I play? --[[User:Olethros|Olethros]] 11:26, 24 January 2012 (PST)