NOMIC: GAME THREAD

I give my couple of points to droctopus.

We all have at least 10 to give. I give mine to Shinan.

...why am I getting so many? I feel loved :)

I'm scared now.

Round 2 starts now, so it's DrOctopus's turn to make a proposal.

Before I do anything, and completely agnostic to how my proposed thinking will turn out, I'm going to convert all 40 of my Makerscore to points, giving myself 8 points. With that said...

I would like try to get the Makerscore to muck up the voting process a little bit. Keep in mind, we can transfer Makerscore <=> points on our turns freely at this time.

One thing we don't have is a veto system. I think given the Makerscore, its conversion with points, and a little refinement, a balanced system to introduce a veto can be introduced.


This is my draft for 307 (If I am counting right)

A veto may be lodged against a proposal that would pass with the minimum number of votes. To lodge the veto, two or more of the players in opposition to the proposal must align and commit at least 25 combined Makerscore, with each player committing a minimum of 10 Makerscore. If these conditions are met, then the proposal is rejected. The players who aligned for the veto will have the Mkerscore they committed initially deducted from their Makerscore and will not gain any points from that turn's voting process. The player who made the proposal will have 5 Makerscore added to their Makerscore at the end of the turn. A veto cannot end a turn; gathering all votes or time elapsing remain the factors to end the turn.

---

In stead of looking at the Makerscore as something to leverage for or against other players, I'm looking to craft a rule around them that can be a bit of a double-edged sword.

My thoughts on requiring at least two people to lodge a veto is to make sure no one person gains too much influence through the Makerscore. The minimum requirement of how much must be committed means that the application of it may not be frequent, since the only current method to gain Makerscore is by decreasing your own score.

I can see two reasons for a veto:

1 - the players aligning against it genuinely do not want the proposal to pass by the skin of its teeth, sort of as a counter to rule 302

2 - as a means of forcing Makerscore onto other players. As LockeZ mentioned, we can make having Makerscore detrimental with later rules. This provides a means to impute that.

The back edge comes with giving the proposer 5 Makerscore, or the pity point. First, notice that we've put the proposer a little closer to being able to lodge a veto, and thus exact revenge later. Or they take their pity point a turn later.

I made my wording precise with words like "commit" and "lodge" since if we have implied nays (people who haven't been on in a few days for a vote are implied nays), the Makerscores are untouched and the veto can't stand. This is also the reason they cannot end votes, since I wouldn't want them abused such that a players vote is skipped.

Tell me where I'm dumb

Well, you misspelled Makerscore once.

Also, this probably needs to be an amendment to rule 302. Otherwise it conflicts with it.

I can sort of see how it might need to be an amendment. 302 flat out says 3 votes is a pass. With this, 3 votes yay and a proper veto would have 302 trample the veto, technically, since 302 will have a lower number than 307. 302 says it passes while 307 says it fails, 302 prevails, so I think making it as an amendment to 302 is the most clear way to address this.

author=Trihan
However, the objection has pointed out one thing: what if you move to veto it and then it gets another yea vote before another player can commit Makerscore?

That's where the first portion would apply, but it could need some altering. right now I have: "A veto may be lodged against a proposal that would pass with the minimum number of votes." This does leave room for three yays to be cast, then two folks align to lodge the veto while voting nay, while person #6 has yet to speak. If #6 comes along and votes yay, the intention was that the veto would disappear, and no changes would be made to anyone's Makerscore.

Maybe this line holds a bit better:

A veto may be lodged and stand against a proposal that would pass with the minimum number of votes.

This way two people can lodge the veto, but if #6 comes around and votes yay, or a prexisting nay changes to yay, then the veto can no longer be held, and since the veto did not take effect the deductions and additions to Makerscore will not take effect.

Should I reword it a bit so that in order for a veto to be lodged at all we need two people doing it? We can have one step forward to state they want to veto, but if another does not step forward, it cannot be lodged.

Okay, It's Monday, It's 6 AM, let's get rolling again.

How's this sounding?

A veto may be lodged and stand against a proposal that would pass with the minimum number of votes. To lodge the veto, two or more of the players in opposition to the proposal must align and commit at least 25 combined Makerscore, with each player committing a minimum of 10 Makerscore. If these conditions are met, then the proposal is rejected. The players who aligned for the veto will have the Makerscore they committed initially deducted from their Makerscore and will not gain any points from that turn's voting process. The player who made the proposal will have 5 Makerscore added to their Makerscore at the end of the turn. A veto cannot end a turn; gathering all votes or time elapsing remain the factors to end the turn.

I hadn't noticed that this was subtly two rules! I'll pull that out.