Nomic 2020/Proposals

Useful Pages

• Players
• Rules
• Proposals
• Activity
• Game State

Pending Proposals

• Rule Proposal. Cards and Captures
  • Any time a piece is added to the board or moves from one place on the board to another, the player who caused it to move it must randomly draw one card from the Deck. This card is no longer in the Deck; it is now in the possession of the piece in question.
  • At any time, a player who A) has a score of at least 2 and B) owns a piece which possesses a card can, as an action, spend two points (i.e., reduce their score by two) to transfer ownership of that card from the piece to them. Likewise, a player who A) has a score of at least 2 and B) possesses a card can, as an action, spend two points to transfer ownership of the card from themselves to the piece.
  • Any time a piece is captured by another piece:
    • All of the cards possessed by the captured piece are no longer possessed by anyone and are returned to the Deck.
    • If there are any gold stars in the Cosmic Void, one of those stars is re-assigned from the Cosmic Void to the player who caused the capturing piece to move.
  • Jota (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
  • NAY: Jota (I'm temporarily voting NAY in order to A) give other players a chance to give feedback and B) let some of the other proposals this relies on pass first), Matthew
    • What if, upon capturing, the point value of the cards was awarded to the capturing piece? That might create some danger that a piece could win. -LS
    • It might be interesting to have the Black Knight owned by the Cosmic Void. -LS

• Rule Proposal. What's an entity?
  • New Rule 0 subrule:
    • An Entity is any noun mentioned in these Nomic rules. In particular, Players, Pieces, Cards, and the Cosmic Void are all entities.
  • YEA: lpsmith, Matthew, Jota, Roger

• Rule Proposal. Naughty Knights (v2)
  • Edit 16.2 to add "horizontal or vertical" before the first instance of the word "direction".
  • Jota (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
  • YEA: Jota, Matthew
  • NAY: lpsmith (just because)

• Rule Proposal. All-Consuming Void
  • Rule 3: Change title to "Players" and add the following subrule (as rule 3.3): Each currently active player is assigned a number according to when he or she joined the game. Numbers for the first five players are assigned based on the order of the players on the Player page when this rule was proposed (Jota=0, Roger=1, inky=2, Matthew=3, lpsmith=4)
  • New Rule: All-Consuming Void: Beginning one week from the day this proposal is enacted, Player 0 will roll two random numbers:
    • The first roll (from 0 to the maximum player number) determines which player is affected
    • The second roll (from 0 to 2) determines which type of entity is affected (0=Piece, 1=Card, 2=Star)
  • The [player chosen from the first roll] must select an entity to sacrifice to the Cosmic Void. This item is removed from regular play and placed into the Cosmic Void.
    • This player has complete authority over what item is chosen; it does not need to be owned by this Player, and no other Player or entity can prevent the item from being taken. (It is assumed in the game universe that the Cosmic Void "consumes" it of its own volition.)
  • The next game day, the process repeats, with the next player making the rolls. After the player with the highest number is reached, Player 0 rolls and the cycle repeats.
  • The [Player chosen in the first roll] 'must' place an item of the determined type into the Cosmic Void if one is available in the game. If the second roll corresponds to an entity type not currently in the game, nothing more happens that day.
  • [After the item to be put in the void is selected, the rolling player updates the Activity Page with a current list of entities the Void contains.]
  • Items within the Cosmic Void may not be interacted with by players or other non-player entities, and thus do not directly count toward win conditions. They only count again if they are removed from the Void.
    • WesternActor (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Matthew

Approved Proposals

• Proposal. Scoring
  • Each player has an associated number called a score. The initial value of a player's score is zero. If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, then 24 hours later, if any player has a score of 100 or greater, those players have won the game. Proposed by inky, May 3, 2020, 8:12 PM
    • YEA: Roger, Matthew, Jota

• Proposal. Longevity Scoring
  • At any point a player may take an action to award themselves points. They may award themselves any number of points as long as the number is greater than zero, and the total number of points awarded to a player due to this rule may not exceed the number of 24 hour periods since the game has begun. Proposed by inky, May 3, 2020, 8:12 PM
    • YEA: Roger, Matthew, Jota

• Proposal. Amendment to Rule 2: Assigning Blame.
  • All proposals shall clearly indicate who they were proposed by. Proposed by Roger, May 3, 2020, 9:02 PM.
    • YEA: Matthew, Jota -- But note that once this goes into effect, it'll invalidate any in-progress proposals that don't include that

• Proposal. Amendment to Rule 2: Assigning time.
  • All proposals shall clearly indicate the date and MUD time when they were proposed. Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 9:02 PM
    • YEA: Matthew, Roger, Jota -- Ditto as above, and we probably want to make sure both of these go in at the same time because of that

• Proposal. Amendment to Rule 1: "If at any point during the voting period, the player who originally posted a proposal votes to reject it, any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was rejected. This ends the voting period."
  • If the player who proposed the rule votes to reject it, and the rule has neither attained majority support for adoption after 24 hours nor has there been a resolution to reject it, the rule is automatically rejected and the voting period cancelled. Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 8:53 PM
    • YEA: Matthew, Roger, Jota

• Proposal. Amendment to Rule 6
  • Any player who has accumulated 1 or more points and violates a rule established by another player will lose 1 point. Any player who has accumulated 1 or more points and violates rule he or she established himself will lose 3 points. No loss of points may take the player's score below zero. Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 9:04 PM
    • YEA: Matthew, Jota -- But I'm fine if we end up voting it down, inky
    • NAY: Roger -- I like the idea of a nascent justice system, but this doesn't do it for me.

• Rule Proposal. Friendly Typo Handling
  • Correctable text, for purposes of this rule, means a proposal which has not yet been accepted or rejected, or an entry in the Activity Log. If any player makes an error when writing a piece of correctable text, they may correct it by editing the page (previous text should be left in place with strikeouts, or the change should be noted in square brackets). No corrections may be made after the game has been won. If a player feels a correction excessively changes the meaning of the correctable text, they may challenge it by editing the page (noting the challenge). Once a correction in a piece of correctable text has been challenged, no further corrections may be made to that piece of text under this rule.
    • Proposed by inky at 10:39pm, May 3 (MUDtime)
    • YEA: inky, Matthew, Jota (I'm wary of this in theory, but if we all make sure to only use it when we're confident it won't change the meaning of anything, we're probably safe...), Roger
    • NAY:

• Rule Proposal. Pawns
  • The game includes a set of pawns. Each pawn is uniquely identified with either a color, a letter of the alphabet, or a name.
  • Any player can add a pawn to this set as an action in the Activity Log, identifying the new pawn with a color, letter or name. A player can do this at any time, but can only do it once for each category (color, letter, name).
    • Proposed by Jota at 10:18pm, May 3 (MUDtime)
    • YEA: Jota, inky, Roger
    • NAY: Matthew

• Rule Proposal. Amendment/addition to Rule 9: Pawn Promotion.
  • A player [may] take ownership of a pawn as an action; this may be done once per player per game day. The player need not have created a pawn to take ownership of it. No pawn may be owned by more than one player at one time. A player may also use an action to take ownership of a pawn from another player. [The player then "owns" the pawn and adds his/her name as owner to the pawn's entry in the Activity Log.]
  • A pawn that is owned by a player may be promoted by its owner to a Queen if the player declares on the Activity Page his or her intent and does one of the following:
    • Forgoes proposing any new rules for three game days.
    • Immediately subtracts 5 points from his or her score.
  • When either of those conditions is met, the pawn is immediately promoted [to Queen, and the appropriate changes are made to the Activity Log page].
  • A pawn may not become owned or change ownership and be promoted [to Queen] on the same game day.
  • No other characteristics [specific to that] pawn are changed when it is promoted to Queen.
    • Proposed by Matthew on May 4, 2020, at 10:06 AM
    • YEA: Matthew, Jota, inky

• Rule Proposal. Format rule sub-lists as numbers:
  • It's easier to refer to 'rule 9.1' and the like if they're numbered as such.
  • Proposed by lpsmith at 14:14, May 4th
    • YEA: lpsmith, Matthew, inky
    • NAY:

• Rule Proposal. Amendment to Rule 9[.4.2]
  • Th[is] rule currently reads: "Immediately subtracts 5 points from his or her score." Change this to "Immediately subtracts 5 points from his or her score. If subtracting the 5 points would reduce the player's score below 0, he or she may not promote a [pawn to] Queen by this method."
  • Proposed by Matthew on May 4, 2020, 2:39 PM
    • YEA: Matthew, inky, Jota

• Rule Proposal. Alternative adjustment to Rule 6.1:
  • This is a co-op game with opposition
  • Remove this text:
    • 'If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, then 24 hours later, if any player has a score of 100 or greater, those players have won the game.'
  • Replace it with this text:
    • 'If at any point before the game has ended, a majority of the players have a score of 100 or greater, then any player may declare victory for all players as an action, at which point all players immediately win and the game ends. If at any point before the game has ended, any entity other than one of the players has a score of 100 or greater, that entity immediately wins the game. All the players immediately lose and the game ends.'
  • Jota (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Jota, lpsmith (works for me! I'd also be interested in incorporating Matthew's ideas in this.), inky

• Rule Proposal. Win Conditions v2
  • Revision to Rule 6.1: add ", and all other win conditions have been met" after the first '100 or greater'.
  • New Rule 11: Queen Win Condition. "In order for one or more players to win the game, there must be at least three different Queens in play, owned by at least three different players, with at least one identified by a color, at least one identified by a letter, and at least one identified by a name."
  • Lpsmith (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: lpsmith, Jota, Roger, inky
    • NAY: Matthew

• Rule Proposal NPC Victories
  • If any entity which is not a player wins the game, then all players lose the game and the game is over.
  • Inky (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: inky, Jota, Roger
    • NAY: lpsmith (this is already part of the revised 6.1, though I guess it's slightly more generic?)
      • Yeah, this is just intended to be a more general version of that. I suppose I could have pitched it as a revision to that rule instead.

• Rule Revision Proposal
  • The 'wait, what?' addendum
  • Change the following text of rule 1.1.3:
    • 1.1.3 If at any point during the voting period, a strict majority of all players has voted to approve or reject it, any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was approved or rejected, as appropriate. This ends the voting period.
  • To read:
    • 1.1.3 If at any point during the voting period, all players have voted on a proposal and a strict majority of them have voted to approve or reject a proposal, any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was approved or rejected, as appropriate. This ends the voting period.
  • And add:
    • 1.1.4 If after 24 hours have passed during the voting period, if a strict majority of players have voted to approve or reject a proposal, any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was approved or rejected, as appropriate. This ends the voting period.
  • And renumber the following sub-rules accordingly.
  • 18:24, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: lpsmith, Roger (appears harmless), inky
    • NAY:

• Rule Proposal. The Deck
  • The game includes a deck of cards. Cards in the deck can have one of five suits: air, earth, fire, water, and quintessence. Cards can also have no suit. Cards without a suit are known as the Monkey Arcana. Initially, the deck includes ten cards in each suit, numbered from 1-10.
    • Jota (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Jota, Roger (I'm pretty on the fence with this one, but I'll barely support it), lpsmith
    • NAY: Matthew

• Rule Proposal. More definitions
  • Rename Rule 0 to 'Definitions', and
  • append the following definitions
    • Consenters are those players who voted YEA in favour of a proposal, implicitly or explicitly;
    • Dissenters are those players who voted NAY against a proposal, implicitly or explicitly;
    • Abstainers are those players who did not vote for or against a proposal, implicitly or explicitly, or who explicitly ABSTAIN
    • RogerC (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Matthew, Jota, Roger, lpsmith, inky
    • NAY:

• Rule Proposal. Passivity == FAIL
  • New subrules:
    • 0.6.1 Explicit Abstainers are players that vote 'Abstain' on a proposal.
    • 0.6.2 Implicit Abstainers are players that did not vote on a proposal, and did not propose it.
  • Modified rule:
    • 1.1.5 If a proposal has not been resolved after 72 hours from the time it was posted, the voting period automatically ends. No votes may be cast or changed after the end of the voting period. If the number of Consenters plus the number of Explicit Abstainers form a majority of the players, then any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was approved. If not, any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was rejected.
  • Lpsmith (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
  • YEA: lpsmith, Matthew, Jota, inky, Roger
  • NAY:
  • ABSTAIN:
  • CREDITS: Matthew

• Rule Proposal. Stellar Cartography
  • The game includes twenty-five gold stars. Each gold star can be assigned to exactly one entity at a time. Initially, all gold stars are assigned to the Cosmic Void.
    • At any time, a player who has a gold star assigned to them can redeem it as an action. This increases that player's score by twelve and assigns that star back to the Cosmic Void.
    • Jota (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Jota, lpsmith, Roger (barely), inky
    • NAY: Matthew

• Rule adjustment proposal. Keep win conditions together
  • Renumber and move rule 11 to become rule 6.3
  • Renumber and move rule 12 to become rule 6.4
  • Rename rule 6 to be "Scoring and Win Conditions'
  • Lpsmith (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
  • YEA: lpsmith, Matthew, inky, Roger, Jota
  • NAY:

• Rule Proposal. Rule Renumbering (Addition to Rule 2)
  • Any currently active player may renumber rules [and, if necessary, pending proposals] at any time for purposes of clarity, convenience, or error correction, provided the text of the rules themselves does not otherwise change.
    • WesternActor (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Matthew, inky (this seems potentially problematic when we're referring to rules by number, but what the hell), Roger, lpsmith, Jota

• Rule Proposal. The board (v2)
  • New Rule A: The Board
    • The game includes a board, consisting of a 12x12 grid of squares with two alternating colors ('dark' and 'light'), with 'dark' in the lower left corner.
    • Board squares are referred to by row (number) and column (letter), starting at the lower left square as 'A1', proceeding through the upper right square as 'L12'.
    • Any one square may only be occupied by one piece at a time.
  • New Rule B: Board actions
    • Every player may perform up to 3 actions involving the board per day for free. If every other players has performed at least N actions involving the board as well, the player may make N more moves for free.
  • New Rule C: Pawn Activity
    • Pawns may be introduced to the board through a player action, and placed in any unoccupied square in row 1.
    • Pawns may be moved forward one square (i.e. increase its row position by one, and keep its column position the same) through a player action, provided that square is unoccupied.
    • Pawns may be moved forward diagonally one square to an occupied square (i.e. increase its row by one, and either increase or decrease its column by one), capturing the inhabitant of that square.
    • If after a player action, a Pawn is on row 12, that Pawn is then promoted to a Queen automatically, without player involvement (i.e. rule 9.4 is not invoked).
  • New Rule D: Knight Activity
    • A Black Knight is a Piece in the game, not controlled by any Player or any other entity.
    • If after any player action, the Black Knight is on the board, it moves in an 'L' shape, two squares in one direction (through occupied or unoccupied squares), followed by one square at a 90-degree angle from the first direction. If that square is occupied, the Black Knight captures that Piece. It moves semi-randomly, according to the following rules:
      • It must remain on the board.
      • If it can capture a Piece, it does so. If it could capture more than one piece, it chooses one to capture at random.
      • If it cannot capture a Piece, its move is chosen at random.
    • Otherwise, if after any player action the Black Knight is not on the board, it is placed on the board in a random unoccupied square.
  • New additions to Rule 0:
    • A Piece is any of a Pawn, Queen, or Knight.
    • Capturing is an activity that happens on the game board. If a Piece is Captured, that Piece is removed from the game board, and half of its points (if any) are awarded to the Piece that captured it, and half to the entity that controlled the capturing Piece (if any).
    • Randomly: Any activity that happens 'randomly' may be carried out by any Player by using any RNG, as long as there is some record of the method they chose (such as orokos.com, or ifMUD). They must, in that history, indicate that they are choosing randomly for a particular Nomic choice that must be made. They must use the first result so generated.
  • Lpsmith (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
  • YEA: Jota, lpsmith, inky
  • NAY: Matthew
  • ADDENDUM NOTE: Feel free to propose changes to the above; I'm happy to accept changes and clear the voting.

• Rule Proposal. Pawn Promotion Addendum
  • New subsection to rule 9.4 (9.4.3): "Immediately discards three cards, each of which must be of a different suit. Cards with no suit may not be discarded for this purpose."
    • WesternActor (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Matthew, Jota, lpsmith, inky, Roger

• Rule Proposal. Randomness
  • New addition to Rule 0 if a similar definition has not already been added:
    • Random: Any activity that happens 'randomly' or 'at random' may be carried out by any Player by using any RNG, as long as there is some record of the method they chose (such as orokos.com, or ifMUD). They must, in that history, indicate that they are choosing randomly for a particular Nomic choice that must be made. They must use the first result so generated.
    • Random draw: A random draw from a deck of cards is a Random activity that must have an equal chance of picking any card still in the deck.
    • Lpsmith (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: lpsmith, Matthew, Jota, inky, Roger
    • NAY:
    • CREDIT: Jota's 'Pick a Card, Any Card' proposal

• Rule 9. Rule 9 Cleanup to rewrite Rule 9 as the following (and fix any other rule numbers/references to it in the Rules or Proposals)
  • 9.1 The game includes a set of pawns. Each pawn is uniquely identified with either a color, a letter of the alphabet, or a name.
  • 9.2 Any player can add a pawn to this set as an action in the Activity Log, identifying the new pawn with a color, letter or name. A player can do this at any time, but can only do it once for each category (color, letter, name).
  • 9.3 A player may take ownership of a pawn as an action; this may be done once per player per game day. The player need not have created a pawn to take ownership of it.
  • 9.4 A player may also use an action to take ownership of a pawn from another player. The player then "owns" the pawn and adds his/her name as owner to the pawn's entry in the Activity Log.
  • 9.5 No pawn may be owned by more than one player at one time.
  • 9.6 A pawn that is owned by a player may be promoted by its owner to a Queen.
    • 9.6.1 To promote a pawn to a Queen, a player must declare on the Activity Page his or her intent and do one of the following:
      • 9.6.1.1 Forgo proposing any new rules for three game days.
      • 9.6.1.2 Immediately subtract 5 points from his or her score. If subtracting the 5 points would reduce the player's score below 0, he or she may not promote a pawn to Queen by this method.
    • 9.6.2 When [any] of the [above] conditions is met, the pawn is immediately promoted to Queen, and the appropriate changes are made to the Activity Log page.
    • 9.6.3 A pawn may not become owned or change ownership and be promoted to Queen on the same game day.
    • 9.6.4 No other characteristics specific to that pawn are changed when it is promoted to Queen.
    • WesternActor (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Matthew, Jota, inky, Roger, lpsmith

Rejected Proposals

• Proposal. Amendment to Rule 3: Removal of inactive players.
  • Any enrolled player who misses a scheduled Nomic session without notifying all the other players receives 1 demerit. Any player who accumulates three such demerits immediately loses the game, and any points he has accumulated toward winning are distributed equally among all remaining players. If the points cannot be distributed perfectly equally (because there are five points but only three remaining players, for example), those points are entirely removed from play. Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 8:37 PM
    • YEA: Roger
    • NAY: Matthew, because he's an idiot

• Rule Proposal. Proposal Points
  • Each proposal that is or has been adopted and added to the rules increases the score of the player who made the proposal by 0.5 points. This rule is effective retroactive to the beginning of the current game on May 3, 2020. Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 9:57 PM
    • NAY: Matthew (I originally liked the idea, but changed my mind)

• Rule Proposal. Change to Rule 7.
  • Rule currently states, "At any point a player may take an action to award themselves points." Change "At any point" to "A maximum of time per game week." Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 10:17 PM
    • NAY: Matthew

• Rule Proposal. Change to Rule 7.
  • Rule currently states, "At any point a player may take an action to award themselves points." Change "At any point" to "A maximum of one time per game week." Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 10:39 PM
    • NAY: Jota (I want to start taking actions! I don't want to have to wait a week between them!), Matthew

• Rule Proposal. Adjustment to Rule 6.1:
  • This is a co-op game
  • Remove this text:
    • 'If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, then 24 hours later, if any player has a score of 100 or greater, those players have won the game.'
  • Replace it with this text:
    • 'If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, then 24 hours later, if a majority of players have a score of 100 or greater, the players have won the game. If not, the players have lost.'
  • Proposed by lpsmith at 12:45, May 4th
    • YEA: lpsmith
    • NAY: Matthew, inky (but I would be interested in a version of this that had some opposition baked in)

• Rule Proposal. Win Conditions
  • Change to Rule 6.1. Relevant text currently reads: "If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, then 24 hours later, if any player has a score of 100 or greater, those players have won the game." Text will now read: "If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, and all other win conditions have been met, then 24 hours later, if any player has a score of 100 or greater, those players have won the game.
  • New Rule 11: Queen Win Condition. "In order for one or more players to win the game, there must be at least three different Queens in play: one identified by a color, one identified by a letter, and one identified by a name. Each of these three Queens must be owned by a different player."
  • WesternActor (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Jota
    • NAY: Matthew, lpsmith (I like these ideas, but I'd rather see them in a purely-coop context.)

• Rule Proposal. Amendability
  • While a proposal is within its voting period, any player can suggest an amendment on that proposal. The person who made the proposal can then choose to:
    • A) Accept the amendment (which resolves the amendment), modifying their proposal to incorporate it and removing all votes that had been cast on the proposal,
    • B) Reject the amendment (which also resolves the amendment), indicating this on the page, or
    • C) Put the amendment up for voting. If an amendment is put up for voting, then any player can vote on it. If at any point the amendment has a majority of players is in favor of it, then any player can resolve the amendment by incorporating it into the proposal. (This does not change the votes on the proposal.) If at any point a majority of players is against it, any player can resolve it by indicating that it was rejected.
  • A proposal cannot be resolved while it still has unresolved amendments.
    • Jota (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
    • NAY: Roger, Jota

• Rule Proposal. Amended Amendability
  • While a proposal is within its voting period, any player can suggest an amendment on that proposal by adding it to the Proposals page just after the proposal and marking it as an amendment. The person who made the proposal can then choose to:
    • A) Accept the amendment (which resolves the amendment), modifying their proposal to incorporate it and removing all votes that had been cast on the proposal,
    • B) Reject the amendment (which also resolves the amendment), indicating this on the page, or
    • C) Put the amendment up for voting. If an amendment is put up for voting, then any player can vote on it. If at any point the amendment has a majority of players is in favor of it, then any player can resolve the amendment by incorporating it into the proposal. (This does not change the votes on the proposal.) If at any point a majority of players is against it, any player can resolve it by indicating that it was rejected.
  • A proposal cannot be resolved while it still has unresolved amendments.
    • Jota (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
    • NAY: Roger, Matthew (I'm in favor of the idea, but the details need to be better hammered out), Jota

• Rule Proposal. Additionally Amended Amendability
  • While a proposal is within its voting period, any player can suggest an amendment on that proposal by adding it to the Proposals page just after the proposal and marking it as an amendment. Players must add their name and the time/date when suggesting amendments. The person who made the proposal can then choose to:
    • A) Accept the amendment (which resolves the amendment), indicating this on the page and modifying their proposal to incorporate it and removing all votes that had been cast on the proposal,
    • B) Reject the amendment (which also resolves the amendment), indicating this on the page, or
    • C) Put the amendment up for voting by indicating this on the Proposals page. If an amendment is put up for voting, then any player can vote on it by adding their vote to the page. The person who suggested an amendment is assumed to have voted for it unless otherwise indicated. If at any point the amendment has a majority of players is in favor of it, then any player can resolve the amendment by indicating this on the page and incorporating it into the proposal. (This does not change the votes on the proposal.) If at any point a majority of players is against it, any player can resolve it by indicating that it was rejected.
  • A proposal cannot be resolved while it still has unresolved amendments.
    • Jota (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: inky
    • NAY: Roger, Matthew (again, I like the basic idea, but I question this implementation of it), Jota (assuming Matthew has a good alternative version)

• Rule Proposal. 1.2: Proposal Amendments.
  • While a proposal is within the first 48 hours of its voting period, any player may suggest an amendment to that proposal by adding it to the Proposals page just after the proposal and marking it as an amendment. Players must add their name and the time/date when suggesting amendments. No amendment may be added to a proposal after 48 hours of that proposal's voting period have elapsed.
  • For an amendment to a proposal to pass, it must receive yea votes from a strict majority of currently active players.
  • Any amendment that receives a strict majority of nay votes from active players at any time, or has not received a strict majority of yea votes by the time the proposal voting period ends, does not pass.
  • The proposal's original proposer may still pull the proposal following the procedure outlined in rule 1.1.2. If this occurs, all proposed amendments, regardless of their voting or passage status, are pulled as well.
  • WesternActor (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
    • NAY: Matthew

• Rule Proposal. Change to Proposal Resolution
  • Change Rule 1.1.5 to read: "If a proposal has not been resolved after 72 hours from the time it was posted, the voting period automatically ends. No votes may be cast or changed after the end of the voting period. If [a majority of players] voted to approve the proposal, then any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was approved. If not, any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was rejected."
    • WesternActor (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Jota
    • NAY: Matthew

• Rule Proposal. Fae Magic
  • Each player initially possesses one magic faerie (including any new players added to the game). A faerie can be Newborn, Energized or Weary; all faeries begin as Newborn. At midnight UTC (8pm MUD time), all Weary faeries become Energized.
  • Any player who possesses a Newborn faerie can assign that faerie a name via the Activity Log. That name must not have already been assigned to any other faerie. This makes that faerie Energized.
  • Any player who possesses an Energized or Weary faerie can give it to another player via the Activity Log.
  • When giving oneself points as per Rule 7, any player who possesses one or more Energized faeries can choose to invoke any or all of them. This increases the number of points they receive by the number of faeries invoked and makes those faeries Weary.
    • Proposed by Jota at 9:31pm, May 3 (MUDtime)
    • YEA: Jota, lpsmith (why not)
    • NAY: Matthew, Roger (I'm not quite ready for this)

• Rule Proposal. Card and Queen Win Conditions
  • New subsection to rule 11.1 ("The game includes a deck of cards."): "Only Queens may possess cards of the quintessence suit."
  • New Rule: Card Win Conditions. "In addition to all other win conditions, a player may not win unless he or she possesses at least one card of the four player suits (air, earth, fire, and water) and owns at least one Queen that possesses at least one card of the quintessence suit."
    • WesternActor (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
    • YEA: Jota (tentatively -- I'm a bit concerned about the consequences for a full co-op victory)
    • NAY: lpsmith, Matthew
    • lpsmith amendment suggested change, to make it work with the co-op rules: "In addition to all other win conditions, the players may not win unless at least two players possess at least one card of the four player suits (air, earth, fire, and water) each, and additionally own at least one Queen that possesses at least one card of the quintessence suit." I would also recommend suggesting it as rule 6.3. (Also, perhaps an additional 13.2 defining 'player suits'?)
    • Jota amendment suggested change, to make it work with the co-op rules: "In addition to all other win conditions, no players may win unless every one of them possesses at least one card of each of the four player suits (air, earth, fire, and water) and owns at least one Queen that possesses at least one card of the quintessence suit.

• Rule Proposal. Pick a Card, Any Card
  • To randomly select a card from a set of cards, consider the set of cards to be in standard order. Randomly generate an integer number from 1 to the number of cards in the set. The selected card is the one in that position in standard order.
  • New addition to Rule 0:
    • Standard Order for cards is: first all the air cards in numerical order, then the earth cards in numerical order, then the fire cards in numerical order, then the water cards in numerical order, then the quintessence cards in numerical order, then the Monkey Arcana cards in alphabetical order by name. (If any of those categories is not present in the set, then it is not included in the order.)
  • New addition to Rule 0 if a similar definition has not already been added:
    • Randomly: Any activity that happens 'randomly' may be carried out by any Player by using any RNG, as long as there is some record of the method they chose (such as orokos.com, or ifMUD). They must, in that history, indicate that they are choosing randomly for a particular Nomic choice that must be made. They must use the first result so generated.
    • Jota (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
    • NAY: lpsmith (I don't think we need to define an algorithm for defining how to draw randomly from a deck of cards. Everyone knows how to draw randomly from a deck of cards, and when anyone wants to do that, they can use whatever algorithm they want. I wonder if we even need the 'randomly' rule. Hmm...), Matthew, inky, Jota (lps' replacement is about to pass, so I might as well spike this)
      • I guess this is redundant with the other randomness proposal, although the standard order might be useful for something