View Topic

I vote for. I also call upon the next person to change 105 to not require everyone to vote.

Rather, transmute 105 so that the person after that can change it.

I'll vote for this and 2nd Hugsim's motion.

Of course, Tau. Transmute, then change.

Please vote @BraveSirRobin so we can continue to the next turn.

I vote yea.

I believe it is now the turn of @Emoticonius.

Current Points (I think)

BraveSirRobin: -9
Eldarion: 11
Emoticonius: 0
Gerrick: 0
Hugsim: 0
Pengu: 0
Rasdanation: 0
taulover: 0
xXTheHydraXx: 0

I motion to make rule 116 mutable.

I motion to make rule 116 mutable.

116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

What would that accomplish?

I hope to amend it in order to restrict us exclusively to the confines of the rules. Ideally, we should be, even if the rules are ever changing.

Plus I'd like to make creativity a necessity for this game. I have some fun ideas in mind.

Ah, I see. Then I vote for Proposal 303.

I vote Against motion 303

I hope to amend it in order to restrict us exclusively to the confines of the rules. Ideally, we should be, even if the rules are ever changing.

Plus I'd like to make creativity a necessity for this game. I have some fun ideas in mind.

Confining actions in this game to purely what is mentioned in the rules makes little sense to me. For example, the rules don't mention discussing proposals at all. If I'm interpreting your plan correctly, it would mean that Gerrick's question to you and your subsequent response would be against the rules, which IMO is counterproductive.

Hence, I vote against proposal 303.

Also, could you elaborate on your second paragraph and how it's related to Rule 116? I might change my vote if I understand it a little better.

Confining actions in this game to purely what is mentioned in the rules makes little sense to me. For example, the rules don't mention discussing proposals at all. If I'm interpreting your plan correctly, it would mean that Gerrick's question to you and your subsequent response would be against the rules, which IMO is counterproductive.

Hence, I vote against proposal 303.

Also, could you elaborate on your second paragraph and how it's related to Rule 116? I might change my vote if I understand it a little better.

Eh, Rule 111 allows for debate.

Confining actions in this game to purely what is mentioned in the rules makes little sense to me. For example, the rules don't mention discussing proposals at all. If I'm interpreting your plan correctly, it would mean that Gerrick's question to you and your subsequent response would be against the rules, which IMO is counterproductive.

Hence, I vote against proposal 303.

Also, could you elaborate on your second paragraph and how it's related to Rule 116? I might change my vote if I understand it a little better.

Eh, Rule 111 allows for debate.

True, I chose a bad example. However, it's ambiguous on debate during the voting, which we are currently doing.

However, it does appear that we may actually be breaking Rule 111, now that I am rereading it.

111. 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. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

Well if that's the case, then I vote for this proposal, we should make the game a bit faster, since we are running out of time.