Peregrin Falcon comments on Rule Change 302: I hereby adopt this moniker in accordance with rules previously submitted.

*301

FatherSnitch hereby adopts the moniker Golden Guernsey Goat in accordance with Rule 2c.
http://www.alexwallace.co.uk/clientpics/BillyGoat.jpg
Aren't I magnificent? ;-)

@Fathersnitch, Golden Guernsey goat isn't a species (too specific), but if you wanted you could chose the domestic goat

Lemon10 hereby adopts the monkier lion in accordance with rule 2c
lion votes yea on rule change 312
lion proposes rule change 313: That rule 2c be change to "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 can be used in place of one's username in all further matters, including but not limited to, future proposals, comments, and votes."
lion comments on rule change 313: I think that this rule would be better if optional personally.

Gamemaster: Human comments on Rule Change 302: I adopt the moniker of "human", the common name for the species homo sapiens.

Human proposes Rule Change 314: That rule 1c be transmuted from immutable to immutable, to be called "rule 2 ". Then, that the sentence "The Gamemaster must preface all of his posts in viewthread=663203 with 'Gamemaster:'" be abolished from rule 2 . Then, that rule 2 be transmuted from mutable to immutable and be once more called "rule 1c".

Human comments on Rule Change: I think this is legal. The order of the changes in 314 is specified, so they should go through fine. And I really want to get rid of this stupid Gamemaster tag.

Gamemaster: well fuck me with a spoon. You know I meant "d" instead of d.

Gamemaster: well fuck me with a fork. d didn't work that time.

Or that time. What?
2 ?
2 ?
2"d"?

Ah. Normality has been restored.

Thank you for your correction, lion. Having researched the issue, I think that the domesticated goat is a subspecies and that the species is merely goat. So I hereby adopt the moniker goat.

Gamemaster, would you be so kind as to explain the vote count for RC 309? By my reckoning Chrispminis and I voted "yea" and lion and Peregrine Falcon and lion each voted "nea". So the vote was quorate and the "yea"s outnumbered the "nay"s. :-D

@Human: Are those instructions about fucking you with cutlery Gamemaster's directions? If so I don't think I want to play any more!

Gamemaster: very correct, goat. I made a mistake there, somehow missing your vote I believe. However, the yeas did not outnumber the nays. They were equal, and as is defined in rule 1l, if the number of yea votes is not greater than the nay votes, the rule change does not pass. Feel free to change your personal copies of the rules, but I'm not posting another one. But go ahead and try to get it through again!

Gamemaster: goat, they are not. As I said, normality has now been restored.

So "nae" counts as a "nay" vote then? It could just as likely be a one-character typo for "yea". What about my "any" vote for RC 303? Or my "yay" vote for 304? I also contend that my "argle bargle" vote for 308 was intended to be a "yea" since it shares more letters in common with "yea" than "nay". Thankfully my non-compliant votes were not decisive this time but my contention is that RC 309 should have been passed 2-0. :-)

errrr... i just didn't read the rules properly i guess, and by nae i did mean nay. According to the rules it doesn't count i guess, but saying it could be a yay (and bringing up argle bargle) is just silly, you gotta use a little bit of common sense.

Rivedo Degoss adopts the moniker Sergeant Major.
Rivedo Degoss expresses an interest in joining this game.
Sergeant Major comments on Rule Change 301: Uh, gamemaster, how do you download from your link? It doesn't work... Oh, could I have adopted an extinct and/or ficticious animal?
Sergeant Major proposes Rule Change 301b: Any player or gamemaster may change his or her moniker at any time in viewthread=663203, and furthermore that all extinct and mythological animals can be adopted as monikers as well.
Sergeant Major votes yea on Rule Change 301b.

Sergeant Major votes nay on Rule Change 309
Sergeant Major votes nay on Rule Change 310
Sergeant Major votes nay on Rule Change 311
Sergeant Major votes yea on Rule Change 312
Sergeant Major votes nay on Rule Change 313
Sergeant Major comments on Rule Change 310: far far too general.
Sergeant Major comments on Rule Change 311: Too gimmicky.
Sergeant Major comments on Rule Change 314: Could you run that by me again? Maybe it's just that I don't see the official rules, but that didn't make sense.

Peregrin Falcon comments on Rule Change 309a: Can I just clarify the current status of this rule?

Gamemaster: Sergeant Major, I don't think that's a common animal name... And here's the link to a place where you can download the current set of rules as a .txt file.

http://www.filedropper.com/nomicwebdipdecember22

Find, dang nabit. Grammar nazis, the lot of you ;)

Human proposes Rule Change 315: That the sentence "Any phrase that is understood by the Gamemaster to mean either "yea" or "nay" will be tallied as a "yea" vote or a "nay" vote respectively.

Human comments on Rule Change 314: Basically, it gets rid of the "Gamemaster:" that I have to add to the beginning of each post. It's getting sort of annoying, I must say.

309a currently has one vote, from goat. Aren't you going to vote on it, Peregrine Falcon?

Human proposes Rule Change 315a: That the sentence "Any phrase that is understood by the Gamemaster to mean either "yea" or "nay" will be tallied as a "yea" vote or a "nay" vote respectively." be added to the end of rule 1j.

Human comments on Rule Change 315a: This one should be voted on instead of 315. I made a mistake.

Lemon10 voted yea on rule 315a
Lemon10 votes yea on rule 314

@Tbroadley, amusingly you are wrong, seargeant major is the (common) name of a tropical fish according to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_major_(fish)
so there :P. (They're neat fish really).
Sergeant Major votes yea on Rule Change 315a
Sergeant Major votes yea on Rule Change 314
Sergeant Major comments on Rule Change 301b: Should I have made it 301a? And, should it have been a separate rule entirely instead of a subsection? I was afraid I broke a rule on the very first post :).
Sergeant Major comments on Rule Change 315a: I'm just going to ignore it anyway :).

*gasp* Lion, surely you mean "Lion" and "Human"!

Gamemaster: gasp! I apologize gravely Sergeant major.

More gasp! Lion, you know what the rules say...

But don't worry. Hopefully they will get changed before you have to post an audio file of that sentence.

Human, what is this beef you have you got against rule 2b? It was adopted unanimously! I trust that nobody will vote for any amendment to it at least until we have heard Lion's dulcet tones.

I would also like to point out that RC 315a is redundant since that is how you interpreted the voting on RC 309 anyway. To be consistent I would suggest that you need to either pass 309 and propose 315a, or reject 309 and leave the rules as they are. I'm not trying to be an arse here but ballot interpretation is a fundamental aspect of any democratic process and "nea"s have the potential to be our hanging chads. We wouldn't want a constitutional fuckup on the scale of Bush vs. Gore, would we? :-D

Human: I also note your informal tally on RC 309a with interest. If you considered Lion's "nea" to be a "nay" for 309, surely you have to count his "nae" for "Rule Change 309 amendment" as a "nay" for RC 309a too, don't you?

My point in all of this is that votes have much more certainty and these ridiculous arguments are avoided if a strict reading of the rules is used to determine vote validity. So Goat votes nay on Rule Change 315a.

Gamemaster: goat, you're correct about the vote tally. Sorry, it is 1-1 for 309a. Very astute of you, goat! ;D

It would be consistent to say that "nea", "nay" and such terms can be counted if I recognise them for what they are (as I have in the case of 309), while putting this into effect officially with 315a. And I hardly think 315a is redundant, as you have proved by challenging my interpretation of the votes.

Only four people voted on 309. Two voted "yea". Two voted "nay". Therefore, 309 did not pass.

Passing or rejecting 309 has nothing to do with proposing 315a.

Goat votes nay on Rule Change 312
Goat votes nay on Rule Change 313
Goat votes yea on Rule Change 314
Goat votes nay on Rule Change 301b

Goat comment on RC 312: Adoption of this rule change is a very serious step. We sensibly removed Human's discretion to punish us with instant death for rule breaches, and now the megalomaniac is trying to reintroduce that power in spades. On the basis that he could determine that revoking of a player's status is the worst thing that could possibly happen in the whole world (and he has already demonstrated his flexibility in interpretation of the rules), the new rule would allow him to torture us and then kill us. I am keen to avoid this. So I urge you all to strike down this fascist proposal. This is how Hitler started, you know!

Goat comment on RCs 313 and 301b: If you want the animal moniker requirement to be optional, it would be cleaner to simply strike the rule entirely and state your preference of how you wish to be addressed on this forum. Cluttering up the rulebook with redundant fluff will just lead to an incomprehensible rulebook.