I'm leaving the game. Seeing the start of a pattern of voting for stupid reasons, and reminded why I hate Nomics. Hoorah, didn't even manage a whole week.

Proposal: Positive Feedback

Players shall receive one point for every comment posted to their most recent blog entry by non-anonymous individuals, excluding themselves. The Player must add these points to the GNDT within thirty minutes after the posting of a subsequent entry.

Enacted by Kevan, Friday the 20th, 10 Points to Myke, 1 to Kevan

(Giving all 47 Points to Kosta)

Call for Judgement

Kevan placed the Rule "Karma" after the rule "Glossary", despite Glossary being "always at the end of the Ruleset". Glossary should be returned to its proper place, and we should all wag a finger in Kevan's general direction.

Passed and implemented by Kevan, Sunday the 19th

Call for Judgement

Kevan passed Point Fiddling before its voting was complete, and scored it according to the previous scoring method whereas last time a Proposal-scoring method was enacted it scored according to its own method - even after my Call for Judgement. So I call for having consistency, at least - if Proposals are going to alter the ruleset before triggering enaction-events, it should continue to be the case.

Due to awkwardness of the situation, I have to propose remedies in two pieces:
1. If, when this CfJ completes, the original Proposal has sufficient votes to pass, then the points given by Kevan should be removed, and points according to the Proposal's own rule assigned in their place, otherwise
2. If, when this CfJ completes, the original Proposal still has not sufficient votes to be passed, then the points given by Kevan should be removed and the Proposal's state should be reverted to the state that it is supposed to be in according to the votes at that time (either Failed or Pending). The Proposal's effects on the Ruleset should be retracted.

When the Ruleset was changed to add Karma, shouldn't it have been inserted before the Glossary, which is "always at the end of the Ruleset"?

Not that I mind, but isn't Point Fiddling still a vote shy of passing? Ravenblack changed his vote, and one of those is my vote, so we don't have another of those cases. And, with the precedent established from the earlier CfJ, shouldn't the proposal, when it does pass, be scored according to its own rule? Cough.

Proposal : Think Before You Call

[First, a fix - if this proposal fails, we probably should have this part, at least, in another proposal, since "comments of agreement or disagreement" are rather vague, and "more than half of the other players" is a bit of a bastard when there's an odd number of players (5 players, caller not counting, means a total 4-to-1 agreement is required under current rules).]
In the rule "Calls for Judgement", replace "Other Players may append comments of agreement or disagreement to this entry - if more than half of the other Players agree with the call, the Gamestate and Ruleset should be amended as was specified." with "All Players may add comments of agreement or disagreement to this entry, using the FOR and AGAINST icons. If more than half of the Players' opinions (their later votes overriding their earlier) agree with the call, the Gamestate and Ruleset should be amended as was specified."

Append to the rule "Calls for Judgement" the following paragraph:
When a Call for Judgement is resolved, every vote FOR gives 2 Karma to the caller and takes 2 Karma from the accused. Every vote AGAINST takes 2 Karma from the caller, and gives 2 Karma to the accused.

[ie. a Call for Judgement that fails, but just barely, with an even balance, would result in no karma change at all.]

Failed by Kevan, Monday the 20th, -2 Points to Raven's shadow

Proposal : Retraction

[Just noticed that it's possible that two Players might propose the same thing at the same time - especially if it's something they've been discussing. Allowing whoever posted it second to remove it without penalty seems a good idea. Also allowing for "crap, I didn't notice that" corrections, of course.]

Append to the rule "Proposals" the following paragraph:
The owner of a Proposal may cancel it at any time within ten minutes of its creation. This should be done by replacing the bold "Proposal" with bold "Proposal (Cancelled)".

Also in "Proposals", replace "Pending, Enacted, Failed or Expired" with "Pending, Enacted, Failed, Cancelled or Expired"

Failed Kevan, Monday the 20th, -2 Points to Raven were he still here

(giving 4 Points to Myke.)

(Giving 25 Points to Ben.)

Proposal: Point Fiddling

In the rule Points, replaces the sentences "A player gains ten points each time one of their proposals is enacted" and "A player loses two points each time one of their proposals Fails" with "When a proposal ceases Pending, the player who proposed it gains two points for each player who voted FOR it, and loses one point for each player who voted AGAINST it. The proposer's vote is not counted for scoring."

Enacted by Kevan, Friday the 17th, 10 Points to Ben, 1 to Kevan

So is everybody going to be posting "Scam scam scam scam ... scam scam scam. Sorry, that was just to get me 50 Points in BlogNomic." on Sunday?

Call for Judgement

The proposal 'Points of Failure' has been enacted by Ben, but it isn't clear that it has passed.
At the moment, there are four comments, three of which are clearly for, but Raven's comment
"Perhaps points shouldn't be given away for successful Proposals. It's a silly rule that encourages trivial Proposals (though I make trivial proposals because without them the ruleset is broken and inconsistent, rather than for the points)." is not a vote for the proposal.
The proposal should be disenacted until the for-votes reach quorum.

Failed with five disagreements, Friday the 17th

Proposal : Recommended Daily Intake

To the rule "Points", add:-

A Player may award themselves five points for the first entry they post to their weblog, for a given day (these points must be claimed within half an hour of the entry being posted).

Enacted by Kevan, Friday the 17th, 11 Points to Kevan

Proposal : Karmarama

Add a new Rule, "Karma":-

Each Player has a Karma score, which may be positive or negative. When a Player joins the game for the first time, they have their Karma set to zero. Players rejoining the game continue at their previous Karma value.

Players are able to award or deduct Karma from other Players at any time, in response to particularly good or bad blog entries, or behaviour within the game (explanatory comments must be given in the GNDT). A single Player may adjust up to 10 Karma points per day.

Upon enaction of this rule, each Player's Karma shall be set to zero. This paragraph will then remove itself from the ruleset.

Enacted by Kevan, Friday the 17th, 11 Points to Kevan

Proposal: For Services Rendered

Append to the rule "Points":

Any player with a positive number of points may give any number of those points to another player, provided it does not take the giving player below 0, by posting a entry to Blognomic declaring they are doing so.

Enacted by Kevan, Friday the 17th, 10 Points to Ben, 1 to Kevan

Proposal: Linear Time

[mostly in response to my recent Call for Judgement, as well as to assist in organization... not to mention the possibility that Players change their mind and enough votes are changed to affect the outcome of a vote]

Append to the rule "Proposals":

Proposals that have not been marked Enacted or Failed by an Admin, regardless of the current number of votes FOR or AGAINST, cannot be referred to in other Proposals. Rewards or Penalties created or altered in a Proposal shall only affect Proposals made after the Time of Enactment as shown on the Blognomic timestamp. Proposals that would affect rules that have been altered after the time the Proposal was posted are to be considered Failed.

In Enacting or Failing a Proposal, Admins shall give priority to the Proposals posted first, as shown by the Blognomic timestamp on the post. A Proposal may be enacted out of posted order only when the earlier Proposal lacks enough votes to consider it Enacted or Failed, and the status of the earlier Proposal(s) must be re-evaluated in between every Judgement of a Proposal.

[that may not have been the most eloquent wording, but I wanted it to be clear that an Admin must look back to the first Pending post in between the Enactment of each post, because in the five minutes between looking at "Proposal A" and moving on, somebody may have cast a deciding vote, in which case it should have priority]

Failed by Kevan, Friday the 17th, -2 Points to Myke

Call for Judgement

RavenBlack posted the Proposal "Tsk, As If It Needs Discussion" referring to the rule "Proposals" as it would exist if the Proposal "Shut Up, Ravenblack!" had been Enacted.
At the time of posting, "Shut Up, Ravenblack" had not been Enacted by an Admin, and is therefore still a Proposal, not an amendment to the Rule.
The Proposal "Tsk, As If It Needs Discussion" should be removed, preventing a point gain in the case of its possible Enactment.

Failed - four Players opposed.

Proposal: Every Vote Counts

When a proposal is Enacted, each Player that voted FOR gains a point and each Player that voted AGAINST loses a point, excluding the Player that proposed it.

Failed by Kevan, Friday the 17th, -2 Points to Myke

Proposal : Tsk, As If It Needs Discussion

In the rule "Proposals", replace "no more than twice per day" with "provided that Player has fewer than two Proposals pending".

Enacted by Kevan - Friday the 17th - 10 Points to Raven, 1 to Kevan

I think we should ease up on the proposals a bit until some of the pending ones get resolved. Actually, that might make a good rule. New proposals can't be made if there are already X pending. Rather than proposing it offright, and hopefully setting a precedent for discussion of future proposals before proposing, so we don't need conditional votes and the like, I'll ask... would people agree? What would they like to see as a whereabouts for X? I was thinking five, myself, but if more people would prefer a slightly higher (or lower) number, that would be fine as well. Maybe instead make it so that a player can't propose something if they have a certain number of proposals still pending, rather than the set "two per day" limit. Hmmm. Thoughts?

Proposal : Points of Failure

[The rule "Points" continues to reference Quorum for Proposal-failure, whereas "Enactment" probably does not by the time this Proposal hits. I propose this correction...]

In "Proposals", replace "Pending, Enacted or Failed" with "Pending, Enacted, Failed or Expired".

In "Time Out", replace "failed due to Time Out" with "Expired", and "Failed" with "Expired".

In "Points", replace "fails by gaining a number of votes AGAINST equal to or greater than quorum, rather than timing out" with "Fails".

Enacted by Ben - the usual points awarded.

Proposal : Make Money Fast

When this Proposal Enacts, every Player who voted in favour of it shall receive 20 Points.

Failed, Friday the 17th, -2 to Kevan

Proposal : Louder Calls for Judgment

[ Altering CfJs so that they take effect with whatever majority they've gotten, after twenty-four hours, rather than sitting around waiting for Quorum. ]

In Rule 7 (Calls for Judgment), replace:-

"Other Players may append comments of agreement or disagreement to this entry - if more than half of the other Players agree with the call, the Gamestate and Ruleset should be amended as was specified."

with:-

"Other Players may append comments of agreement or disagreement to this entry. The CfJ remains open for 24 hours, or until the agreements equal Quorum, whichever is sooner - if more comments are in favour than against, when the CfJ closes, then the Gamestate and Ruleset should be amended as was specified."

Failed, Friday the 17th, -2 points to Kevan

Proposal : Another Foaming Pipe Snake

[A bit of a glitch in Enactment - Admins can update the Ruleset, but not the gamestate. Also, a small modification to expedite little "fix the player list" sort of proposals which won't ever be dependent on earlier proposals]

Replace the following paragraph in Enactment:
If a pending Proposal's FOR votes exceed or equal Quorum, and if no earlier Proposals are still pending, then any Admin Staff may update the Ruleset to include the specified effects of the Proposal, and mark that Proposal as Enacted.

with:
If a pending Proposal's FOR votes exceed or equal Quorum, and if either no earlier Proposals are still pending, or the Proposal makes no changes to the Ruleset, then any Admin Staff may update the Ruleset and/or gamestate to include the specified effects of the Proposal, and mark that Proposal as Enacted.

Enacted by Ben - Friday the 17th - +10 to Ravenblack, +1 to Ben

Proposal : Clarity Again

[I think this version is better and more useful than the previous attempt - generalising rather than forcing jargon]

Replace the rule "Jargon" with the following rule, entitled "Glossary":

This Rule is always at the end of the Ruleset. Its only effect can be to clarify ambiguity. When a Call for Judgement is resolved, any Admin may make an appropriate addition or alteration to this rule based on the result of the Call for Judgement.
* The terms "weblog", "blog" or "journal" shall be taken to mean "weblog or journal" throughout the Ruleset.
* References to "a day" (as an entity rather than a duration, eg. "Sunday") refer to that day in the timezone to which the Player's blog conforms, if blog-related; otherwise to the timezone of the BlogNomic blog.
* Any Rules based on the text of a blog entry refer only to the always-visible and non-automated text, ie. excluding mouseover text, datestamps, comment links and similar constructions.

Enacted by Ben - Friday the 17th - +10 to Ravenblack yet again, +1 to Ben

Proposal : Point Equality

[ When a game has points, it's always unfair that late-joining players have to start at zero and catch up. Better to start them in the middle, wherever the middle is. ]

In Rule 12 (Points), replace:-

"All players start with zero points. Scores may be either positive or negative."

with:-

"Each Player has a number of Points, which may be positive or negative. When a Player joins the game for the first time, they have their Points set to the average of those of all other Players (rounding up). Players rejoining the game continue at their previous Points value."

Failed by Ben - Friday the 17th - -2 points to Kevan

Proposal : Wand of Cancellation

[We currently have a Proposal with 3 AGAINST Votes, enough to make it impossible to Enact, but which is still blocking progress onto the next Proposal. It seems to me that instead of referencing Quorum (X) again, it makes sense to use (T-X) for the alternative result - it'll make any changes to the conditions of acceptance easier, too. Also encompassing "proposer can veto their own proposal", since it belongs in the same paragraph, and would also help in hurrying up such needlessly halted situations. Hence...]

Replace the paragraph of the rule "Enactment", which reads as follows:

If a pending Proposal's AGAINST votes exceed or equal Quorum, or if all Players have voted on a Proposal and its votes are tied, then any Admin Staff may mark that Proposal as Failed.

with the following paragraph:

If a pending Proposal has enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of them being changed, or if all Players have voted on a Proposal and it still cannot be Enacted, or if the Player whose Proposal it was has voted AGAINST it, then any Admin Staff may mark that Proposal as Failed.

Enacted by Ben - Thursday the 16th - +10 to Ravenblack, +1 to Ben

Proposal : Recruitment Drive

[ Some incentive to recruit new players... ]

To Rule 12 (Points), add:-

A Player may, once per game, award 10 Points to the Player (other than themselves) who they feel was most responsible for them joining BlogNomic. Upon doing so, the awarding Player gains 10 Points.

Failed - Thursday the 16th - -2 to Kevan

Proposal : Shut Up, RavenBlack!

[I think I doth Propose too much]

In the Rule "Proposals", replace "Any Player may propose a change to the Ruleset or gamestate" with "Any Player may propose a change to the Ruleset or gamestate, no more than twice per day,"

Enacted by Ben - Thursday the 16th - +10 to Ravenblack, +1 to Ben

Proposal : Default Voting

[I keep forgetting to vote on my own things]

Append to the rule "Voting": If the Player who made a Proposal has not cast a Vote on it, their Vote is counted as FOR.

Enacted by Ben - Thursday 16th - +10 points to Ravenblack, +1 point to Ben

Call for Judgement

Kevan assigned points to himself and Ben for the enactment of the rule "Points". However, the rule "Points" did not exist in the Ruleset until after it was enacted, so no points should have been awarded at that time. The points in question (10 to Ben and 1 to Kevan) should be removed.

Passed by Kevan, assuming that Myke was agreeing with the CfJ (I think he must have been)

Proposal : Conditional Acceptance

In the rule "Voting", append the following to the first paragraph: A Vote may also be CONDITIONAL (represented by a question-mark icon) - see the Rule "Conditional Votes".

Enact a new Rule, "Conditional Votes":

When a Player casts a CONDITIONAL Vote, it is initially treated as an AGAINST Vote. The Player must specify, with the Vote, a Change to the Proposal which, if made, would change their Vote to a FOR Vote. Each Player may then cast one additional Vote on this Change (using sub-comments), which must be either FOR or AGAINST, and should not use the voting icons. The Player who cast the CONDITIONAL Vote is automatically considered to have voted FOR the Change.

If a CONDITIONAL Vote's Change achieves FOR votes equal to or greater than Quorum, before the Proposal is enacted, the CONDITIONAL Vote counts as a FOR Vote. If a Proposal is Enacted with a CONDITIONAL Vote counting as a FOR, the associated Change is included in the update.

FAILED - (By Ben) - -2 points to Ravenblack

Proposal : The Corrections

[ The Points rule says "proposals in enacted" rather than "is". I went with the obviously intended meaning and gave Ben his ten points anyway - if anyone disagrees with this, raise a CfJ. It'd be useful if Admin could fix this stuff as and when people noticed it, though, so... ]

To Rule 1 (Ruleset and Gamestate), add the following paragraph:-

Admin Staff may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in the Ruleset at any time. Undesired corrections may be challenged through a Call for Judgment.

Enacted by Kevan - Thursday the 16th - 11 Points to Kevan

Proposal : Clarity In All Things

Enact a new rule, "Glossary of Terms":

This rule is always at the end of the Ruleset, and defines game terms for the sake of clarity and conflict resolution.

Text Content of a blog entry consists of the text that is visible within that entry when viewed in an ordinary browser, including titles, but ignoring mouseovers, HTML tags, timestamps and comment links.

Image Content of a blog entry consists of the images that are visible within that entry when viewed in an ordinary browser.

Links within a blog entry consist of any clickable links that open a different HTML page, excluding links to comments.

Failed - Thursday the 16th - -2 Points from Raven

Proposal: Arbitrary Alliteration

Enact a new rule, "Alliteration Sundays":

For the first 50 words blogged each Sunday, by each player, after this rule is enacted, the blogger scores one point for every word that begins with the same letter that the first word does, and loses one point for every five words that do not.

Enacted by Kevan - Wednesday the 15th - 10 Points to Raven, 1 to Kevan

Proposal: Obligatory Positive Reinforcement

Enact a new rule, "Points":

All players start with zero points. Scores may be either positive or negative.

A player gains ten points each time one of their proposals in enacted.

A player loses two points each time one of their proposals fails by gaining a number of votes AGAINST equal to or greater than quorum, rather than timing out.

An admin gains one point each time he or she enacts a proposal.

Enacted by Kevan - Wednesday the 15th - 10 Points to Ben, 1 to Kevan

Proposal : KISS
Enact a new Rule, "KISS":

If, at any time, the number of Rules in the Ruleset is larger than three times the number of Players, no new Rules can be enacted.

Enacted by Kevan - Tuesday the 14th

Proposal : Data Tracking

[ Hmm, if we want to have Points or Buttons or Hit Points or anything, we might as well use the dusty old data-tracker thing I wrote a couple of years ago - it allows players to track their own game status, in a visibly logged format. If we don't want to have Points or anything, though; fair enough. ]

Enact a new Rule, "The GNDT":-

Specific parts of the Gamestate data shall be tracked by the Generic Nomic Data Tracker at http://kevan.org/generic?nomic=blog. Any Player may update any Player's data via the GNDT, whenever the Ruleset permits it.

All updates to the GNDT are logged - if a Player feels that an alteration goes against the Rules (as they were at the time of the
alteration), he or she may simply undo the effects of that alteration. If such an undoing is disputed, a Call for Judgment should be raised.

Players shall be assigned a password for the GNDT when they join the Nomic. (Existing Players shall be assigned passwords as soon as is possible after this Proposal passes. This bracketed text will then remove itself from this rule.)

[ If you want to see what the GNDT looks like when in use, DocNomic was using it, a year or two ago. ]

Enacted by Kevan - Tuesday the 14th

Proposal : Vote Singularity and/or Alteration

Append to the Rule "Votes":
If there exists more than one Vote from a single Player on a single Proposal, only the most recent of those Votes is counted.

Enacted by Ben - 1/13/03

Proposal : Time Out

To help prevent deadlock, create a new rule "Time Out", with the following two paragraphs:

If a Proposal has been pending for a week, any Admin Staff may mark that Proposal as Failed.

If three Proposals in a row have failed due to Time Out, Players who failed to vote on any of the three Proposals are no longer considered Players, and should be removed from the Player Roster as soon as possible.

Enacted by Ben - 1/13/03

Proposal : Iconic Clarity

In the rule "Voting", append to "Valid votes are FOR and AGAINST" the additional text "which may be represented by appropriate icons".

(Appended later - is there some way to detect proposal-tampering or are we going on honour-system? I'm tempted to change this one to "are" rather than "may be"...)

Enacted by Ben - 1/13/03

Proposal : Kick the Idle

If, at a given moment, a Player has posted no entries to his or her weblog during the previous week, he or she shall no longer be considered a Player, and should be removed from the player roster as soon as is possible.

Enacted by Ben - 1/13/03

Right then, everything seems to be in order - BlogNomic is hereby declared open and active. Refer to Rule 3, to join the game.