I hereby express my interest, and as a player, agree to abide by all rules.

Chrispminis proposes Rule Change 301: Both the Gamemaster and all participating players must adopt a moniker, of their choice, corresponding to the common name of a single species of the Kingdom Animalia. This moniker is to be used in place of one's username in all further matters, including but not limited to, future proposals, comments, and votes.

Chrispminis comments on Rule Change 301: For example, one could take the moniker of "Hammerhead Shark", "Giant Panda", or "Naked Mole Rat". However, the monikers "Shark" or "Heterocephalus glaber" are not appropriate.

The benefits of the proposed rule are numerous, including but not limited to, expanding the zoological knowledge of all players and any observers who chance upon this thread and providing an outlet for all players who have always secretly wanted to be an animal or at least adopt an alias of an animal whose qualities they admire.

[Am I doing this right?]

Figlesquidge expresses interest in joining the Nomic.

With the prerequisit of acceptance into the Nomic, Figlesquidge votes yea on Rule Change 301

Moreover, Figlesquidge proposes Rule Change 302, that Rule 2b be modified with the addition of the term 'optional' after the first article; that is to say it be inserted prior to the first noun.

Gamemaster: you're doing perfect Chrisp. Figle, do you mean "1b. The following *optional* statements"? To what end?

Gamemaster: also, I would be up for updating the rules more often if you want.

TBroadley proposes Rule Change 303: that vote tallies and rule changes also be executed on the Saturday after the rule change has been proposed, at 12:00:00 UTC (7:00:00 EST).

Figle: sorry, read you wrong. So "2b: the *optional* punishment..."?

Gamemaster: made an error in 303.

TBroadley proposes Rule Change 303: that vote tallies and rule changes also be executed on the Wednesday after the rule change has been proposed, at 12:00:00 AM UTC (7:00:00 PM EST).

Chrispminis comments on Rule Change 301: For example, one could take the moniker of "Hammerhead Shark", "Giant Panda", or "Naked Mole Rat". However, the monikers "Shark" or "Heterocephalus glaber" are not appropriate.

Figlesquidge comments on Rule Change 302: Indeed, for it would seem rather severe for one to be executed for what could plausibly be a minor first offence. Their conscience may decide.

Figlesquidge comments on Rule Change 303: Perhaps Rule changes could be enacted on Saturday or Wednesday, whichever may come next, unless proposed on a Tuesday or Friday, in which case they would be processed on the next one. This would allow rules to be passed in reasonable time, whilst limiting the risk of rules being passed without many of the electorate becoming aware of their existence.

I express interest in joining this game of nomic.
lemon10 votes nay on rule 301
lemon10 votes yea on rule 302
lemon10 votes yea on rule 303
I think figlesquidge wants to change rule 3b from "The punishment for breaking any of the rules is instant death." to "The optional punishment for breaking any of the rules is instant death. "

Gamemaster: thanks, lemon10. I realize what he meant now.

I agree Figle. So:

TBroadley proposes Rule Change 304: that vote tallies and rule changes be executed on the Wednesday or Saturday specified for their execution, unless the rule change is proposed less than 24 hours before the time specified. In this case, the vote tallies and rule changes would be executed on the following Saturday or Wednesday respectively.

Lemon10 proposes Rule Change 305: Rule 1j be transmuted from immutability to mutability

Lemon10 Comments on Rule Change 305:

Sorry accidentally hit the post button
Lemon10 Comments on Rule Change 305: is that the right way to change a rule from immutable to mutable?

Gamemaster: that's perfect lemon10. I assume you want to be able to change your vote after voting... or maybe you have designs on absolute power? =D

Perfect! We're already at quorum.

Gamemaster: there is one minor annoyance. Rule Change 303 won't come into effect until the next execution of the vote tallies, which is 12:00:00 AM UTC, Saturday December 25. That means I can't tally votes on the Wednesday coming up.

So, I propose (informally) to edit 1b to include "The Gamemaster can change the vote-tallying and rule-changing times." Then I'll change 2a.iii to include Rule Change 303 and revert 1b back to its original state. Is that cool?

Gamemaster: weeeell... it's already happened. So sue me.

Lemon10, may I ask to what part of Rule Change 301 you object? Are there any amendments that could be made to sway you?

I don't really feel like the whole rule. I could be swayed pretty easily though, but as it stands, it is impossible to change my vote, i might change my vote next round we will see.
Lemon10 comments on rule 305: Which is why i proposed rule 305, so that votes could be changed depending on what rules are suggested at the time.

Gamemaster: lemon10, you can always propose another rule change that makes the amendments to 305 that you want.

FatherSnitch expresses his interest in becoming a player of the Webdiplomacy game of Nomic.

FatherSnitch votes yea on Rule change 301
FatherSnitch votes yea on Rule change 305

FatherSnitch proposes Rule Change 306: That Rule 2b be modified to read:
"The punishment for breaking any of the rules is to post in viewthread=663203 a valid link to an uploaded audio file in a generally accepted format of the player stating "I, [username] am a silly twonk for breaking Rule Number [rule number] on [date]" no later than the second vote tally after the rule breach, [username] representing the Webdiplomacy name of the player, [rule number] representing the rule which the player broke and [date] representing the date on which the player broke the rule."

FatherSnitch comments on rule change 306: Instant death seems too lenient, hence this draconian punishment.

TBroadley: In the absence (so far) of clarification in the rules, will you be tallying a "yea" vote by the proposer of each Rule Change?

Figlesquidge votes yea on Rule Change 306
Figlesquidge comments on Rule Change 305: Is there any point in having rules as immutable in the first place? Since any rule can be transmuted anyway, they are all effectively mutable, just that some require two voting phases to change and others one. Still

Figlesquidge votes Ney to Rule Change 305

Figlesquidge comments on Rule Change 305: I don't have a problem with this rule in general, more an issue with the lack of disagreement among players with regards to the currently proposed ruleset.

Chrispminis votes nay on Rule Change 302
Chrispminis votes yea on Rule Change 304
Chrispminis votes nay on Rule Change 305
Chrispminis votes yea on Rule Change 306

Chrispminis comments on Rule Change 302: This is clearly motivated by self preservation.

Chrispminis comments on Rule Change 305: Tit for tat. =P

Chrispminis comments on Rule Change 306: This is a punishment much more befitting such a heinous crime.

Gamemaster: 306 +1 (of course informally, considering I can't vote.)

@Figle: the creator of the game intended it to be a legal simulation. In law, some laws are reinforced by precendents and have stood the test of time, and therefore are harder to change. This is the reason for immutable rules. Of course, you could always get rid of rule 1e...

@Snitch: Since no rule has been specified as of yet saying such a thing, no, you must vote for your own motions. But I shall put one forward.
TBroadley proposes Rule Change 307: That Rule 1m be created and read: "A proposer of a rule change automatically votes "yea" for that rule change unless otherwise specified."

Also: I've noticed that some of you aren't using proper syntax =O Of course, this means instant death (at least until we change the rules). But I'll be lenient on that rule.

Gamemaster: TBroadley proposes Rule Change 308: That rule 1k be transmuted from immutable to mutable.

TBroadley comments on Rule Change 308: So that we can increase quorum if more people sign up.

Lemon10 votes yea on Rule Change 305
Lemon10 votes yea on Rule Change 306
Lemon10 votes nea on Rule Change 307
Lemon10 votes yea on Rule Change 308

@Chrispminis, that is really quite petty you know.

Chrispminis votes yea on Rule Change 307

Chrispminis comments on Rule Change 308: Why is this necessary if the quorum increases to half the players rounded up to the nearest integer already?

@lemon, haha, that was a joke. I want people to have to be very sure of their vote before they cast it. It's a lot easier to keep track of votes as well.

Chrispminis proposes Rule Change 309: That future rule change proposals must be formulated such that the portion directly following the ":" must be comprised of a prime number of words. Word count disputes will defer to the count provided by this url: (http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/countwords.shtml). This proposal has 43 words.

Gamemaster: Gobbledydook votes nay on Rule Change 309.

Gobbledydook proposes Rule Change 310. That the updated rulebook must be uploaded in .doc, .pdf, .txt, .rtf, or .html in order to facilitate compatibility.

Oh right, forgot that proposals don't count as votes.

Chrispminis votes yea on Rule Change 301
Chrispminis votes yea on Rule Change 309

Gamemaster: Sorry Gobbledygook. I'll see what I can do about it. It doesn't really need to be a rule change methinks.

TBroadley comments on Rule Change 308: Actually, you're right. That rule change is redundant. Don't vote on it please!

Gamemaster: Here's the new link to the rules.

http://www.filedropper.com/nomicwebdip

They're in .txt format.

FatherSnitch votes nay on Rule Change 302
FatherSnitch votes yea on Rule Change 306
FatherSnitch votes yea on Rule Change 307
FatherSnitch votes yea on Rule Change 309

I am not currently voting on Rule Change 310 since the need for it seems to have been superseded and in any case it appears not to have been validly proposed, Gobbledook not being a player yet. ;-)