add proposal 417/0 1 26 Feb 2001 20:29:28 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 M'cachessilnath Even though no-one has used these NomicHomes, I'd better tidy up Amend R340 as follows: Replace the phrase 'can be bought and sold as any Object' with 'can be bought and sold by the transfer of a number of points either equal to the value or agreed by the players involved to the selling player from the buying player, which will result in the transfer of the NomicHome (but not its contents, which will remain the property of the selling player and be removed from the NomicHome) from the selling to the buying player.' ---- add proposal 418/0 1 27 Feb 2001 15:06:14 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 Joerg NomicHomes have no fixed value In rule 340, remove "Value: initially 0 points". ---- add proposal 419/0 1 28 Feb 2001 17:22:26 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 Benjamin proposal to revamp the proposal/scoring system enact a new rule entitled "Activity Points" with the following text: Definition: "Activity Points" (APs) are Objects. They are awarded to players for activity within this game of nomic. APs can be created, destroyed and transferred only as defined within the rules. APs are different from regular Points. GETTING APs 1. For each ballot item a Player votes on (either with a yes or no vote) e is awarded a single (1) AP. 2. For each Judgement a Player makes, e is awarded 5 APs SPENDING APs Activity Points can be spent on proposals. --END OF NEW RULE-- enact a new rule entitled "FPCs and Making Proposals" with the following text: MAKING PROPOSALS Each Player gets one Free Proposal Coupon (FPC) each week. If, at the end of an nweek, a Player's FPC has not been used, then it is destroyed. FPCs are Objects. To make a proposal, a Player do one of the following: 1. spend a FPC (destroying it in the process) 2. pay to the Bank 4 Points 3. spend (thus destroying) 3 Activity Points ---END OF NEW RULE--- Amendments: Amend R231/1 to read: "Whenever a Proposal is adopted, the Bank owes: 1. the Adopted Proposal Award to the Proposal's owner 2. the Opposed Minority Award to each Agent who voted against the Proposal " and amend R323/0 to read: "Once per nweek, the Banker may set the Point values of the Adopted Proposal and Opposed Minority Awards such that the value of each is neither less than zero no r greater than twenty. " [[thus getting rid of the Failed Proposal Fine]] ---- add proposal 420/0 1 1 Mar 2001 00:28:24 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 Joel Voting Clean-up foo ---- add proposal 421/0 1 1 Mar 2001 00:28:24 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 Joel R103/0 Fix Strike the text ", or transmutation", and insert "or " immediately before "amendment" in R103. ---- add proposal 422/0 1 1 Mar 2001 00:28:24 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 Joel Only Players May Change the Rules foo ---- add proposal 423/0 1 1 Mar 2001 00:28:24 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 Joel Proposal Dependency: I Need My Fix foo ---- add proposal 424/0 1 1 Mar 2001 15:01:00 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 Joerg Micropayment Create a new rule, entitled "Micropayment", with the following text: "Pennies are Objects. One Penny is worth 1/100 Point, one Point is worth 100 Pennies. Whenever an Agent owns 100 or more Pennies, 100 of eir Pennies are destroyed and one Point is created in eir posession. This process is repeated until the Agent owns less than 100 Pennies. Whenever an Agent transfers a number of Pennies larger than the number of Pennies in eir posession, one of eir Points is destroyed and 100 Pennies are created in eir posession until e has sufficient Pennies. The transfer is impossible if the Agent does not have the required number of Points. If an Agent is required to make a payment to another Agent that contains a fractional part, and the rule that governs the payment does not state that the amount should be rounded, e shall pay the fractional part in Pennies. Values, scores, etc. shall be written as the the amount of Points plus the amount of Pennies/100. [[ For example 8 points, 4 Pennies are written 8 + 4/100 = 8.04 ]]" ---- add proposal 425/0 1 1 Mar 2001 15:01:04 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 Joerg Joint Proposals Create a new rule entitled "Joint Proposals" with the following text: "A Player may suggest an amendment to a live Proposal owned by another Player by sending eir suggestion to a public forum. The owner of the Proposal can then decide whether e accepts the amendment or not. If e accepts the amendment, the Proposal is amended as suggested and becomes a Joint Proposal. The Player who suggested the amendment becomes a contributor of that Joint Proposal. Whenever a Joint Proposal is adopted, its owner owes 1/(N+2) of the Adopted Proposal Award to each contributor; Whenever a Joint Proposal fails, each contributor owes 1/(N+2) of the Failed Proposal Fine to the Proposal's owner. N is the number of contributors. [[ Examples: Number of Share for Share for contributors each of them the owner 1 1/3 2/3 2 1/4 1/2 3 1/5 2/5 . ... ... This makes sure the owner, who had the idea, always receives the largest share, while the rest is distributed equally among all contributors. ]]" Create a new rule entitled "Proposal piracy" with the following text: "Any of the following is considered Proposal piracy: 1. A Player (pirate) makes a proposal that deals with the same issues as a live Proposal owned by a different Player (victim), and that proposal is an amendment to the exisiting proposal rather than a new idea, unless the Player previously suggested eir Proposal as an amendment to the victim's Proposal, and that amendment was rejected by the victim. 2. The owner of a Proposal (pirate) rejects a suggested amendment to that Proposal, but later amends it as suggested without crediting as a contributor the Player (victim) who suggested the amendment. If a Player suspects that e has become a victim of Proposal piracy, e can make a Request for Judgement stating that eir Proposal was copied. If that RFJ is ruled True, the pirate owes to the victim 1/2 of that nweek's Adopted Prosal Award, or two Points, whichever is higher. If in case of 1. both Proposals are voted on, and the victim's Proposal fails, the pirate also owes the Failed Proposal Fine of the nweek in which the voting took place to the victim." ---- add proposal 426/0 1 1 Mar 2001 19:35:46 1 Mar 2001 22:48:06 relet Removing Players that are [Away] Amend Rule 307/1 to say: "Any Player may gain or lose the [Away] attribute by sending a message to this effect to a public forum. E may also specify a Date of Expected Return as an additional information. Players that have not voted in the last three nweeks automatically gain the [Away] attribute without any Date of Expected Return, if they have already been Player during these nweeks. In that case the Administrator shall, within a reasonable amount of time, grant them the [Away] attribute by posting a message to that effect to the public forum. Players that are [Away] are not required to make any action if that action was imposed on them while they were [Away]. The Administrator cannot become [Away]. Players that are [Away] do not count when calculating the Quorum." [[With the current ruleset, any newly created player would have been set [Away], as e did not vote the previous nweeks.]] Amend Rule 314/2 to say: "Any Agent qualified as a Player may cease to be one if a Motion to Remove naming em is adopted. Motions to Remove are Secondary Approvable Motions. A Motion to Remove is subject to - 10days-unanimous consent if the player has not got the [Away] atribute. - 30days-unanimous consent if the player is [Away]. If the Player specified a Date of Expected Return, no Motion to remove this player may be created before this date. [[This way, no player can be removed, if e checks the mailing list at least once per nweek, or during predictable periods of inactivity.]] The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Remove directs the Officer in charge of Roster maintainance to remove the named Agent from the Roster." ----