309. Amend rule 209 to the following:
A player's turn ends when the moderator has posted the results of that player's die roll. If there are no other active proposals, then the next two players' turns begin immediately thereafter. If there is exactly one other active turn, then the next player's turn begins immediately thereafter.
-------------------- Altered by proposer request:
309. Amend rule 214 to the following:
A player's turn ends when the moderator has posted the results of that player's die roll. If there are no other active turns, then the next two players' turns begin immediately thereafter. If there is exactly one other active turn, then the turn of the next player in the determined order who either has or is tied for having the fewest total turns and skips begins immediately thereafter.
This is an easy way for game-ending rule paralysis to occur. If two things pass and the order in which they are passed matters but cannot be determined, the game is over. (Rule 211)
Also, this complicates situations where the outcome of one proposal affects how you would vote on another proposal.
Not true. There will always be a difference in time closed, even if it comes down to seconds and is only shown in the order they are displayed on the forum.
In that case you need to add a part of this rule specifying that the order in which they take effect is the order in which they are proposed rather than passed.
Still, voting for one proposal without knowing whether the other will be passed would be difficult if the function of that one would be influenced by the other.
Umm... won't this give each player two turns the way it is worded?
If we have four players:
1. Apple
2. Banana
3. Cat
4. Dog
It could be both Apple's and Banana's turn. Then Banana's turn finishes and it goes to the next player, Cat. But then when Apple's turn finishes, won't it go to the next player, Banana again, instead of going to Dog as I believe it's intended?
EBWOEMP: I love the idea otherwise; I see no other problems and it will be great for the game.
The wording with "next" is vague; it doesn't explicitly answer "after what." So it can apply to both the problem scenario and the original intent. That's just one more thing for me to ask Binary to fix. It's so tempting just to edit the thread myself... But it will be fixed before the poll is closed, so a yes vote will be for a working version.
The wording with "next" is vague; it doesn't explicitly answer "after what." So it can apply to both the problem scenario and the original intent. That's just one more thing for me to ask Binary to fix. It's so tempting just to edit the thread myself... But it will be fixed before the poll is closed, so a yes vote will be for a working version.
I'll hold my vote until I see what this working version looks like.
I like it. Anything for speeding up the game is good in my book. If there any problems that pop up later, I'm sure we could fit it then. This is a huge step in the right direction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
I do believe this finally works. It's not nearly as elegant as what I originally wrote, but looking on the entire problem, I'm not sure an elegant wording exists.
309. Amend rule 214 to the following:
A player's turn ends when the moderator has posted the results of that player's die roll. If there are no other active turns, then the next two players' turns begin immediately thereafter. If there is exactly one other active turn, then the turn of the next player in the determined order who either has or is tied for having the fewest total turns and skips begins immediately thereafter.
I do believe this finally works. It's not nearly as elegant as what I originally wrote, but looking on the entire problem, I'm not sure an elegant wording exists.
309. Amend rule 214 to the following:
A player's turn ends when the moderator has posted the results of that player's die roll. If there are no other active turns, then the next two players' turns begin immediately thereafter. If there is exactly one other active turn, then the turn of the next player in the determined order who either has or is tied for having the fewest total turns and skips begins immediately thereafter.
That is certainly better; it closes the double turn loophole a bit, now only the last player has a shot at it (though I guess that's a fair balance for going last).
That is certainly better; it closes the double turn loophole a bit, now only the last player has a shot at it (though I guess that's a fair balance for going last).
It could be both Cat's and Dog's turn. Dog's turn could finish, making it Apple's turn. Then Cat's turn would finish, and Dog would be next in the determined order and will be tied for least number of turns and skips taken (all players would have the same number), therefore, Dog would immediately get a second turn. It's a minor issue, and almost seems like fair compensation for the last player.
Hmm... sound like after a while the turns would become seperated from each other. I really don't think that is a big issue though nor do I mind that the last person or two on the list would get their 2nd turn quicker than they otherwise would. I liked the idea from the begining and now that it looks like the kinks have been worked out I'm going to vote yes.
You guys are all about speeding up the game, aren't you? But you've got your eyes so far ahead, on the finish line, and you're not watching your step on the way there.
I (and no doubt others) can see at least one easily exploitable loophole in this rule that I plan to benefit from when my turn finally rolls around - which it will much sooner now, thanks to this proposal. I doubt this rule (or for that matter, the nomic) will still be operational by the time I get to make a proposal, however.
As I cautioned in the last proposal thread, look before you leap.
I'm going to have to vote no on this proposal. It is a poorly worded rule with many possible loopholes already in it, not even getting into what loopholes could be created by it later in conjunction with other rules.
I like the idea, and I'll look into how I think it should be worded better, but as is I have to vote against.
I'm going to have to vote no on this proposal. It is a poorly worded rule with many possible loopholes already in it, not even getting into what loopholes could be created by it later in conjunction with other rules.
I like the idea, and I'll look into how I think it should be worded better, but as is I have to vote against.
I spent parts of the previous three days trying to decide how this could work. I spent about 12 hours (had to sleep 8) trying to write it out, and even that was horribly flawed. Obviously, this is far from perfect. If you can finally figure out how to get this blasted thing flawless with just one proposal, please do.
Perhaps I should have just stayed safe and made 304 immutable. But making some people wait a full month for their turn....I just needed to fix that. Even if this is just a temporary stopgap, it's worth it.
Completely editting my post due to a stupid error.
This is what I recommend the rule be changed to: 214. A player's turn ends when the moderator has posted the results of that player's die roll. The next player's turn begins immediately thereafter. Additionally, if there are fewer than 2 active turns, the next player after that may begin his or her turn once all other active turns have moved to the proposal stage.
The first two sentences are too critical to how the turn order works to change in any satisfactory way. This wording does slow things back down a little, since it gives players the leeway to start their turns at will any time between the proposal of the player before them and the dice roll, rather than have it start automatically, but I think that's probably a good thing.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
@CP: I don't think this eliminates The Foo Fish's loophole about players taking two turns in a row due to the second player finishing their turn before the first player.
I think a better amendment (or new rule) would be "Up to two players may take their turns simultaneously. A player can only take their turn if every player before them in the order has either already taken their turn for the round or is currently taking their turn for the round. A player may only make one proposal per round. A round is defined as the time it takes for each player to make a proposal and have it voted on. A new round begins from the top of the order after each round finishes."
Edit: There are still some wording issues with it, so don't take this to be a finalized version. I'll work on resolving the problems myself to post in thread, but if anyone is interested in proposing a similar rule, feel free to pm me, and we can try to work out the details that way.
@CP: I don't think this eliminates The Foo Fish's loophole about players taking two turns in a row due to the second player finishing their turn before the first player.
Well, it won't under the current system, actually. It only will if we implement a rule to say that a turn can end before the 24 hour proposal stage has passed.
As long as we're aware of that, it won't be a problem.
Regardless, I'm not totally averse to having two different sets of turns moving around the board at their own pace, which is what FT's current rule would eventually accomplish.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Well, it won't under the current system, actually. It only will if we implement a rule to say that a turn can end before the 24 hour proposal stage has passed.
It can if the second person posts their proposal before the first person does, so their turn goes by before the first person's does.
As long as we're aware of that, it won't be a problem.
Regardless, I'm not totally averse to having two different sets of turns moving around the board at their own pace, which is what FT's current rule would eventually accomplish.
I would not be against that either, but it was not the intent of the rule, nor does this rule actually make turns go around the board at their own pace.
I agree with Jedit's point about rule 213, and further submit the following rules for your consideration:
Quote from immutable rules »
107. Rule-changes are proposed by creating a post in a new thread. This post may not be edited by the player who proposed it after its creation. If the rule-change is adopted, it shall guide play in the form in which it was voted on.
112. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on.
It is my argument that editing the OP after it has been voted upon is a violation of rule 107, which seems evident, and furthermore is in conflict with rule 112, wherein is stated "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on." According to that section of the rule, FT has the right to determine what form of his proposal he considers the "final form" but since people have already voted, it would appear the original form of the rule should by default be considered the "final form."
The vote on this proposal has been corrupted, and I now motion that it be declared null and void on grounds of rule conflict.
309. Amend rule 209 to the following:A player's turn ends when the moderator has posted the results of that player's die roll. If there are no other active proposals, then the next two players' turns begin immediately thereafter. If there is exactly one other active turn, then the next player's turn begins immediately thereafter.
--------------------
Altered by proposer request:
309. Amend rule 214 to the following:
A player's turn ends when the moderator has posted the results of that player's die roll. If there are no other active turns, then the next two players' turns begin immediately thereafter. If there is exactly one other active turn, then the turn of the next player in the determined order who either has or is tied for having the fewest total turns and skips begins immediately thereafter.
Also, this complicates situations where the outcome of one proposal affects how you would vote on another proposal.
3CB and 4CB5CB!@ silas - Yes. 214. Stupid mistake, that.
Still, voting for one proposal without knowing whether the other will be passed would be difficult if the function of that one would be influenced by the other.
3CB and 4CB5CB!If we have four players:
1. Apple
2. Banana
3. Cat
4. Dog
It could be both Apple's and Banana's turn. Then Banana's turn finishes and it goes to the next player, Cat. But then when Apple's turn finishes, won't it go to the next player, Banana again, instead of going to Dog as I believe it's intended?
EBWOEMP: I love the idea otherwise; I see no other problems and it will be great for the game.
I'll hold my vote until I see what this working version looks like.
But I'm leaning yes.
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
309. Amend rule 214 to the following:
A player's turn ends when the moderator has posted the results of that player's die roll. If there are no other active turns, then the next two players' turns begin immediately thereafter. If there is exactly one other active turn, then the turn of the next player in the determined order who either has or is tied for having the fewest total turns and skips begins immediately thereafter.
That is certainly better; it closes the double turn loophole a bit, now only the last player has a shot at it (though I guess that's a fair balance for going last).
I'm sorry. What do you mean by this post?
Avatar by Grey. Banner by spiderboy4 from High~Light Studios
If we have four players
1. Apple
2. Banana
3. Cat
4. Dog
It could be both Cat's and Dog's turn. Dog's turn could finish, making it Apple's turn. Then Cat's turn would finish, and Dog would be next in the determined order and will be tied for least number of turns and skips taken (all players would have the same number), therefore, Dog would immediately get a second turn. It's a minor issue, and almost seems like fair compensation for the last player.
I think I'll vote yes anyway.
I (and no doubt others) can see at least one easily exploitable loophole in this rule that I plan to benefit from when my turn finally rolls around - which it will much sooner now, thanks to this proposal. I doubt this rule (or for that matter, the nomic) will still be operational by the time I get to make a proposal, however.
As I cautioned in the last proposal thread, look before you leap.
"...a talisman against all evil, so long as you obey me."
I like the idea, and I'll look into how I think it should be worded better, but as is I have to vote against.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
I spent parts of the previous three days trying to decide how this could work. I spent about 12 hours (had to sleep 8) trying to write it out, and even that was horribly flawed. Obviously, this is far from perfect. If you can finally figure out how to get this blasted thing flawless with just one proposal, please do.
Perhaps I should have just stayed safe and made 304 immutable. But making some people wait a full month for their turn....I just needed to fix that. Even if this is just a temporary stopgap, it's worth it.
This is what I recommend the rule be changed to:
214. A player's turn ends when the moderator has posted the results of that player's die roll. The next player's turn begins immediately thereafter. Additionally, if there are fewer than 2 active turns, the next player after that may begin his or her turn once all other active turns have moved to the proposal stage.
The first two sentences are too critical to how the turn order works to change in any satisfactory way. This wording does slow things back down a little, since it gives players the leeway to start their turns at will any time between the proposal of the player before them and the dice roll, rather than have it start automatically, but I think that's probably a good thing.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
I think a better amendment (or new rule) would be "Up to two players may take their turns simultaneously. A player can only take their turn if every player before them in the order has either already taken their turn for the round or is currently taking their turn for the round. A player may only make one proposal per round. A round is defined as the time it takes for each player to make a proposal and have it voted on. A new round begins from the top of the order after each round finishes."
Edit: There are still some wording issues with it, so don't take this to be a finalized version. I'll work on resolving the problems myself to post in thread, but if anyone is interested in proposing a similar rule, feel free to pm me, and we can try to work out the details that way.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Well, it won't under the current system, actually. It only will if we implement a rule to say that a turn can end before the 24 hour proposal stage has passed.
As long as we're aware of that, it won't be a problem.
Regardless, I'm not totally averse to having two different sets of turns moving around the board at their own pace, which is what FT's current rule would eventually accomplish.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
It can if the second person posts their proposal before the first person does, so their turn goes by before the first person's does.
I would not be against that either, but it was not the intent of the rule, nor does this rule actually make turns go around the board at their own pace.
If he can change his proposal, I see no reason why you can't change your vote by stating such in thread.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
It is my argument that editing the OP after it has been voted upon is a violation of rule 107, which seems evident, and furthermore is in conflict with rule 112, wherein is stated "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on." According to that section of the rule, FT has the right to determine what form of his proposal he considers the "final form" but since people have already voted, it would appear the original form of the rule should by default be considered the "final form."
The vote on this proposal has been corrupted, and I now motion that it be declared null and void on grounds of rule conflict.
"...a talisman against all evil, so long as you obey me."