Talk:Nomic:Game 2005-04-02:Proposal 313
From Carls wiki
Johan: Intresting. I think I will vote no just for the fun of it! (21:33, 13 Oct 2005 (CEST))
- That is indeed a bet you're entitled to make. Just remember that this is Nomic and you might be 50 points behind everyone else in the end. (I was originally planning to rig the rule to self-destruct if someone tampered with it, but I decided it was too complicated. Not that I want to give you any ideas or anything...) — Carl 22:19, 13 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Johan: I'm just curious, would you get 50 extra points if this rule passes? (22:17, 13 Oct 2005 (CEST))
- No, how? — Carl 22:19, 13 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- D'you mean because I have to vote yes? In that case, yes, I get the same extra 50 as anyone else who votes in favour. We all end up 50 points ahead. — Carl 22:23, 13 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- Johan: Ahead? If everyone is 50 points ahead, no-one is. To be ahead you must have someone (or something) to be ahead to, right? (22:57, 13 Oct 2005 (CEST))
- Strange as it may seem, I'm aware of this. Thank you for your concern. — Carl 23:20, 13 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- Johan: You,... postmodern,... thing! (09:12, 14 Oct 2005 (CEST))
Jonas: What are the implications of the wording "disappears"? Does that mean that the rule is no longer applicable or transmutable? How do points disappear? I guess it doesn't affect my sum of points, only the points from this proposition? Does that by the way include points gained from voting on this proposition by rule 202 and rule 206? This proposition states that a player is awarded points, it doesn't say by whom. The rule is completely innocent in granting the points, it only initialises the effect of point granting (by some unknown entity). Thus, the points gained as a consequence of voting on the proposition or proposing transmutaion will never be lost, no matter what. — 17:07, 14 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- Interesting. You bring up many points, I will answer them one by one below. — Carl 09:53, 15 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- What are the implications of the wording "disappears"? Does that mean that the rule is no longer applicable or transmutable? It means that the rule no longer exists in the ruleset. If you can think of a clearer description of this phenomenon than disappears, I'll be happy to change it. — Carl 09:53, 15 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- Does that by the way include points gained from voting on this proposition by rule 202 and rule 206? No, clearly not. — Carl 09:53, 15 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- This proposition states that a player is awarded points, it doesn't say by whom. Since when was this a requirement at all? The points are awarded by the application of the rule, not by a certain person. This is the way all point-giving rules work. If you would like me to clarify explicitly that it actually is the rule that awards points, you might have a (belaboured, but valid) point. — Carl 09:53, 15 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- The rule is completely innocent in granting the points, it only initialises the effect of point granting (by some unknown entity). I don't agree. One might as well reduce the "unknown entity" step of the chain and say that it is the rules themselves that award the points. It certainly looks that way on the Scores page. — Carl 09:53, 15 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- How do points disappear? I guess it doesn't affect my sum of points, only the points from this proposition? When points disappear, it can affect your sum of points. (Quick example: if you have a total of 10 points, 6 of which have been granted by a rule whose points disappear, you will have 4 remaining points after their disappearance.) I don't think there's any real ambiguity here. — Carl 18:44, 16 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- Jonas: So you're saying that the sum of points have a memory of from where it got the points, right? Fine, that solves the problem of the eternal point sum. However, I would like some clearer statement regarding which points that are removed from the game (which by the way is my preference regarding disappearing) when the rule is removed from the game.
- Hmm, isn't this rule contradicting r107? Maybe not... — Jonas 10:56, 18 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- I'm saying that we have a memory of where we got the points. The main thing is that points that are awarded by the application of this rule, can also be removed by the application of this rule. Here's my clearer statement: all points which have previously been granted by the rule in the game (to players voting yes to the proposal, the player who votes for immutability, and the players voting yes to that) will be removed when the rule disappears. If you want to, I can replace disappears in the rule text with is removed. — Carl 14:41, 18 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- Nono, retroactive application would be if those players who voted in favour would be considered to have received the points upon voting yes. This is not the case — the rule even explicitly states Upon acceptance... so there can be no ambiguity here. Assigning points for something that happened a while ago is not retroactive application. — Carl 22:17, 19 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Jonas: Is there a difference between "being awarded", "receiving" and "being granted"? —Jonas 00:54, 23 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- Not according to me. In fact, I wasn't even aware that I had used three different terms for transferring (there's another one!) points to a player. I can unify those three into a single one... if someone besides Jonas thinks that it matters. Otherwise I'll let poetic freedom take precedence. — Carl 09:03, 24 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Jonas: You do know I am doing all this beacause the rule is named "EASY come...", don't you? —Jonas 00:54, 23 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- That's actually funny. :) No, I didn't know that. I guess this shows that the silly names matter after all... — Carl 09:03, 24 Oct 2005 (CEST)
Jonas: Are we voting now, or is Johan just decorating the page? — Jonas 10:59, 26 Oct 2005 (CEST)
