CharNomic Past Proposals

This is a listing of former proposals.  This page is maintained for historical and reference purposes only and has no bearing on play in CharNomic.  If you wish to see the vote on a particular proposal, check the Voting Records page.

301. Voting shall be conducted in a secret manner.  The author of the
proposal being voted upon shall accept each player's vote and keep it in
secret.  At the end of the prescribed voting period, the votes will be
published and the outcome of the vote determined.  The author may not in
any way misrepresent or alter another player's vote, nor fail to publish
another player's vote and in so doing deny their ability to vote on the
proposal.  Neither may the author communicate in any manner a player's vote
to another player.

If a player's vote is in any way misrepresented by the proposal's author,
the player may, within two days of the publication of the votes, call upon
the Judge for correction.  The Judge, using whatever evidence and testimony
he or she may acquire, must determine whether or not the vote as published
stands.  If the vote is overturned, the proposal will be rejected and the
author will suffer whatever punishment the rules dictate.  If the vote
stands, the player calling for judgement will loose 10 points.

Submitted for consideration on March16, 1998, by Harry W. Culpan
Voting from 3/20 - 3/23.  Defeated

302.  Naming Conventions.  All rules (including inital rulesets and all
prior rules) need to be summarized with a 2 to 4 word title which
significantly describes each rule.  The words should be in English and
in a recognizable form excluding certain words such as a, the, and etc.
although these words may be inserted for clarity they just are not added
in the count.  The content of the title must adequately summarize at
least 3/4 of the proposed rule.  During the debate period some
consideration of the title should be made in the discussions but unless
there is no proposed title correction submitted during voting then the
proposed title will pass.  If 2/3 agree on any one title then it will
pass accordingly with the proposal.

In accordance to this rule all prior rules keep their numbering but must
go through a timely titling prosess which can be done on a volunteer
basis within the span of one week after this rule is duly enacted.

Lastly, when a rule is transmuted then its title should also incur some
sort of change.  The proposed change should be to insert a version
number for the original rule which would be numbered with "." and a
second number set of three digits beginning with "001" and running
consectutively each new revision.

Submitted for consideration on March 16, 1998, by Don Corcoran
Voting from 3/21 - 3/24

303 Economic System.  The following rule, imposes a relatively simple
economic system on the rule set using the basic point system as a form of
raw currency.

The points awarded to participants as stipulated by all point-related rules
(eg: rules 203, 205, and 206) shall be awarded to the player as compensation
from the Central Bank.  The reverse is likewise true of any player point
penalizations--points removed from players by penalty are returned to the
Central Bank.  Upon adoption, it will be as though the Central Bank began
the game with a fixed number of 500 points in the sense that any point
transactions which occurred prior to this rule's adoption will be used to
adjust the Central Bank's deposit by the appropriate amount (NOTE:  This
is not in violation to rule 107 because it only affects the Central Bank's
amount, which is a new addition to the system).

A player may purchase Potential Votes (PV) from the bank at a rate of 10
points per PV.  PVs may be stockpiled, or traded with other players for
points at whatever rate they agree upon, but can never be directly
reverse-traded with the bank to gain points from PVs.

Comprising an exception to rule 207, this rule also allows a player to use
PVs as additional voting leverage during a vote on a proposal.  Players
may use any number of PVs that they possess on a particular proposal as
votes in addition to their Natural Vote (NV).  Once PVs are used, they are
spent and removed from the spending player's PV count.  In keeping with
the spirit of rule 207, each player always has exactly one NV for each

The total number of points in the system (those awarded to players or in
the Central Bank) can never be greater or less than 500 points, but must be
exactly 500 points at all times.  Should the system become unbalanced,
judgement may be invoked and the judge has the power to adjust the system
subject to the normal judgement constraints.

The Central Bank cannot be in debt.  Therefore if the Central Bank is
depleted of all funds, then the normal scoring is forgone.  The Central Bank
will not honor debts in scoring.  If there are not enough points in the bank to
award all points for a given proposal/voting result, then no points will be
awarded to any of the involved scoring players.  (NOTE:  An exception is if
the bank receives enough in penalties in the same prop/vote result to afford
the total payoff.)  Any disputes in point scoring at this level should be settled
by the judge.

Likewise a player who is penalized by the judge or rules cannot become
indebted to the bank.  A player must settle such penalties with whatever
points they currently have, but are not responsible for repaying the bank for
that which they do not have.  (NOTE: This has the side-effect of preventing
player scores from becoming negative based on penalties, a subtle change in
current rule interpretation).  If a judgement is invoked which may result in a
penalty, the player is forbidden to exchange points for PVs until that
judgement is settled.

Submitted for consideration on March 17, 1998, by Paul Wiegand
Voting from 3/22 - 3/25

Proposal 304
Players will be classified as either Active or Inactive Players.  Active
Players will be defined as players who are in regular contact with the
CharNomic group.  Inactive Players will be defined as players who have
been out of contact with the CharNomic group for some period of time and
are currently out of contact.  When a player is classified as Inactive,
his or her potential vote will no longer be considered for the purposes
of the determination of proposal acceptance.  Note that this is an
exception to Rule 207 in that only Active Players will have one vote for
each proposal.

An Active Player may become Inactive in one of two ways.  First, the
player may so declare himself by informing the group of his intention.
Second, if an Active player abstains from three consecutive votes, he
may be ruled by the Judge to be Inactive.

An Inactive Player may become Active by informing the group to this
effect.  Until he informs the group of his change in status, he may not
vote, debate, or propose new rule-changes.

Submitted for consideration on March 24, 1998, by Harry Culpan.
Voting Period from 3/25/98 to 3/28/98.  Passed.

305.  Transmuting 111
Rule 111, currently immutable, shall be transmuted to mutable.

Submitted for consideration on March 26, 1998, by Paul Wiegand
Voting Period from 3/27-3/29

Proposal 306:

For the purposes of this ruleset, a Proposal is defined as a request
for some action to occur that will alter the current state of the
Ruleset.  The Ruleset is defined as the rules currently in effect.  If
adopted, a Proposal will effect an alteration in the Ruleset as stated
in the text of the Proposal, but will not itself become part of the
Ruleset.  The term "rule-change" will be considered to be synonymous
with Proposal.

All Proposals will be in accordance with the Ruleset as it exists at
the time of the Proposal's introduction.  Proposals should explicitly
state what change in the Ruleset will result if the measure is
adopted.  Upon adoption of a proposal, the Ruleset will be immediately
altered in accordance with the Proposal.

Submitted for consideration on March 27, 1998, by Harry Culpan.
Voting Period from 4/2/98 to 4/4/98.  Passed.

Proposal 308:  Disinterested Proposals.

A new rule shall be added to the rule set, as follows:

Henceforth there will be an additional type of proposal, termed here a
"Disinterested Proposal", which follows all the guidelines and rules set
forth for proposals in general save that no points can be scored based on
such a proposal.  This includes points both gained and lost for the
proposals final acceptance or rejection on the part of the player, and also
includes points scored by players voting against a winning proposal.
Should there exist, in the ruleset, additional point scoring means (again,
both for and against a player), such would also be suspended in the cases
of disinterested proposals.

When submitting a disinterested proposal, a player must explicitly state in
the proposal itself that the proposal is disinterested, otherwise the
proposal will be considered a general proposal, with full scoring
potential.  Such a statement may be made in the heading of the proposal.
For instance, rather than heading a proposal "Proposal ###", a player could
state "Disinterested Proposal ###".

NOTE:  This currently comprises an exception to rules 203, 205, and 206.

Submitted for consideration on April 2, 1998, by Paul Wiegand.
Voting Period from 4/6/98 to 4/8/98.  Passed.

Back to the main CharNomic page.

This page last updated April 8, 1998.