Announcement: Be excellent to each other.


Caravel Forum : Other Boards : Forum Games : Nomic (The classic game of rule-modification.)
12
Page 3 of 5
45
New Topic New Poll Post Reply
Poster Message
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
right. the petition is not a rule change or a scoring turn, no one gets points.


____________________________
:yinyang
04-18-2007 at 03:07 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1308
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Okay, so Chaco's in, and he gets an extra turn after silver's.
04-18-2007 at 03:18 AM
View Profile Show all user's posts Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
proposal 303. Any post which is "edited" is considered not to have been made - a player must post again to make corrections (with no social penalty for "double posting" in this thread alone).

(reminder, rules are not retroactive so this would only applied to edits after the adoption of this rule).


____________________________
:yinyang
04-18-2007 at 03:22 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
coppro wrote:
Okay, so Chaco's in, and he gets an extra turn after silver's.

see: http://forum.caravelgames.com/viewtopic.php?TopicID=15031&page=1#179218
:)


____________________________
:yinyang
04-18-2007 at 03:23 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Ravon
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 220
Registered: 02-19-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
I like it, though I would rather it only apply to editing after another post has been made in this thread.
04-18-2007 at 04:17 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Chaco
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3623
Registered: 10-06-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
I will probably vote no on this proposal unless it is modified such that some sort of grace period, perhaps of length one minute, is allowed to fix typographical errors and other such small mistakes, in the name of cleanliness.

____________________________
Quick links to my stuff (in case you forgot where it was):
Click here to view the secret text

04-18-2007 at 11:44 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts High Scores This architect's holds Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
revised proposal 303. Any post which has an "edit timestamp" which exceeds the "post timestamp" of the next post, or which exceeds five minutes plus its own "post timestamp", whichever is greater, will be treated as if the poster had deleted the post rather than editing it. As exceptions, posts 177911 and 175438 (summary of game progress) are never covered by this rule.


____________________________
:yinyang

[Last edited by silver at 04-19-2007 01:07 AM]
04-19-2007 at 12:51 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Ravon
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 220
Registered: 02-19-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
I would vote yes to 303 as it is now.
04-19-2007 at 01:03 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
you caught me in the middle of a grammar fixup and calling out of the perhaps obvious exceptions. Fortunately, 303 isn't in effect :)


____________________________
:yinyang

[Last edited by silver at 04-19-2007 01:05 AM]
04-19-2007 at 01:04 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Ravon
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 220
Registered: 02-19-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
silver wrote:
revised proposal 303. Any post which has an "edit timestamp" which exceeds the "post timestamp" of the next post, or which exceeds five minutes plus its own "post timestamp", whichever is greater, will be treated as if the poster had deleted the post rather than editing it.
The way I understand 303, the rule gives a five minute period in which one is allowed to edit their post regardless of other posts in the thread, but after those five minutes they are only allowed to edit if their post is the latest in the thread. Is this correct?
04-19-2007 at 01:15 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1308
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
No. I think that it means you either have 5 minutes or until whenever the next person posts, whichever is sooner. Plus, that would make more sense.
04-19-2007 at 01:24 AM
View Profile Show all user's posts Quote Reply
stigant
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 1182
Registered: 08-19-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
As written, the rule will repeal several yes votes to proposition 301, and therefore disallow the addition of chaco to the game.

____________________________
Progress Quest Progress

[Last edited by stigant at 04-19-2007 01:27 AM]
04-19-2007 at 01:26 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1308
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Rules wrote: 107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.
Nope. All posts made before it's adoption will stand.
04-19-2007 at 01:32 AM
View Profile Show all user's posts Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Ravon wrote:
silver wrote:
revised proposal 303. Any post which has an "edit timestamp" which exceeds the "post timestamp" of the next post, or which exceeds five minutes plus its own "post timestamp", whichever is greater, will be treated as if the poster had deleted the post rather than editing it.
The way I understand 303, the rule gives a five minute period in which one is allowed to edit their post regardless of other posts in the thread, but after those five minutes they are only allowed to edit if their post is the latest in the thread. Is this correct?

That is correct - let us consider four scenarios:

scenario 1:
post 1 has post timestamp t, edit timestamp t+4 minutes
post 2 has post timestemp t+3

first of all, we need to settle "whichever is greater": the post timestamp of the next post (t+3), or 5 minutes plus its own post timestamp (t+5). the latter is greater, so we use that (t+5) for comparison.

the edit timestamp is t+4, which does not exceed t+5, so the post is not treated as deleted (i.e. the post stands).

scenario 2:

post 1 has post timestamp t, edit timestamp t+8 minutes
post 2 has post timestemp t+10

which is greater? t+10 or t+5? t+10 is greater... t+8 < t+10, so the post is not treated as deleted.

scenario 3:

post 1 has post timestamp t, edit timestamp t+6 minutes
post 2 has post timestemp t+3

which is greater? t+3 or t+5? t+5 is greater... t+6 > t+5, so the post is treated as deleted.

scenario 4:

post 1 has post timestamp t, edit timestamp t+12 minutes
post 2 has post timestemp t+10

which is greater? t+10 or t+5? t+10 is greater... t+12 > t+10, so the post is treated as deleted.

---

the idea is to allow post edits for 5 minutes regardless of when the next person posts (mostly so if you immediately choose "edit" but someone posts while you're in the editor, you aren't anulled by the surprise)...

---

I've made my intentions clear, and proven that the wording supports my intentions. I'm fine if you disagree with my intentions at this point, and call for a vote. I vote "yes" :)



____________________________
:yinyang

[Last edited by silver at 04-19-2007 02:30 AM]
04-19-2007 at 02:26 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1308
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Hmm... what threw me off was the bit about writing about exceeding both. If you wrote it like that to a computer, it would be

if(max(edit_t > post_t+5, edit_t > next_t))

which is clearly not what you want.
04-19-2007 at 02:34 AM
View Profile Show all user's posts Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
while in programming C you can evaluate "edit_t > post_t+5" to "1 or 0" and compare it to another such thing, we're speaking in English, not C - I believe the grammar is about comparing timestamps and then asking if we exceed the greater timestamp (it's also fair to note that there are several other programming languages which would throw an error if you tried to find the max() of two booleans)


____________________________
:yinyang

[Last edited by silver at 04-19-2007 02:46 AM]
04-19-2007 at 02:45 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1308
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Well, I guess I put that badly. I mean that you should probably only have one "which exceeds", because it's redundant and confusing.
04-19-2007 at 03:41 AM
View Profile Show all user's posts Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
I stared at it written that way for a while, but it always felt wrong because the things I was connecting with 'or' were complex phrases and I felt that the second 'which exceeds' - turning the phrases into clauses - made things clearer. in any case, you're welcome to vote 'no', but I already called it to final vote :)


____________________________
:yinyang
04-19-2007 at 05:25 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1308
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
In that case I vote yes.

I disagree with the way it's worded, but I'm fine with the rule either way.
04-19-2007 at 01:38 PM
View Profile Show all user's posts Quote Reply
Ravon
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 220
Registered: 02-19-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
I vote yes.
04-20-2007 at 12:07 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
stigant
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 1182
Registered: 08-19-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Vote yes

____________________________
Progress Quest Progress
04-20-2007 at 12:08 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
Chaco
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3623
Registered: 10-06-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Vote yes.

____________________________
Quick links to my stuff (in case you forgot where it was):
Click here to view the secret text

04-20-2007 at 01:41 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts High Scores This architect's holds Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
okay, that's 303-291 = 12
12 * (5/5) = 12 points for me

current status:
it is Chaco's "extra turn" to propose a rule-change


____________________________
:yinyang

[Last edited by silver at 04-20-2007 01:48 AM]
04-20-2007 at 01:48 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Chaco
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3623
Registered: 10-06-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Proposal 304:

Whenever any player takes a turn and, instead of creating a new rule, modifies an old rule, the points that player earns in that turn are multiplied by (3/4). Any decimal point portion at this point is truncated, and then the points are added to the person's score as normal.

____________________________
Quick links to my stuff (in case you forgot where it was):
Click here to view the secret text

04-20-2007 at 02:24 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts High Scores This architect's holds Quote Reply
Ravon
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 220
Registered: 02-19-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Personally, I don't like it. 304 discourages modifying old rules too much, and some rules may need to be modified. I think it would work a lot better if modifying an old rule took less votes as well as giving less points, but that would have to be a completely separate rule.

If we were to vote right now, I would vote no. (This is not defining of my future actions, just speculating).
04-20-2007 at 10:15 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
304 uses different language to describe rule-changes than 103, and I could easily see arguments coming from what counts as "creation" and what counts as "modification"


____________________________
:yinyang
04-21-2007 at 02:50 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Chaco: going to revise or call to vote?


____________________________
:yinyang
04-23-2007 at 04:13 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Ravon
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 220
Registered: 02-19-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
Has anyone PM'ed chaco about his delay? If not, I'll gladly do it.
04-25-2007 at 06:19 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Chaco
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3623
Registered: 10-06-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
I would like to revise this rule.

Proposal 304:

Whenever any player takes a turn and, instead of creating a new rule, modifies an old rule, the points received for that turn are calculated normally, but before they are added to that person's score, it is decremented by whatever the last digit of their proposal number is.

For example, if a proposal was #310, there would be no penalty, but if the proposal was 354, there would be a 4-point penalty.

____________________________
Quick links to my stuff (in case you forgot where it was):
Click here to view the secret text

04-25-2007 at 10:04 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts High Scores This architect's holds Quote Reply
silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Nomic (0)  
this note "304 uses different language to describe rule-changes than 103, and I could easily see arguments coming from what counts as "creation" and what counts as "modification"" still applies?


____________________________
:yinyang
04-25-2007 at 10:06 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
12
Page 3 of 5
45
New Topic New Poll Post Reply
Caravel Forum : Other Boards : Forum Games : Nomic (The classic game of rule-modification.)
Surf To:


Forum Rules:
Can I post a new topic? No
Can I reply? No
Can I read? Yes
HTML Enabled? No
UBBC Enabled? Yes
Words Filter Enable? No

Contact Us | CaravelGames.com

Powered by: tForum tForumHacks Edition b0.98.8
Originally created by Toan Huynh (Copyright © 2000)
Enhanced by the tForumHacks team and the Caravel team.