hatxx0ration again

Now that my 5 days are up I can enact evil plan B. You foiled me once with grammar quibbles, but no more! I'll show you all how powerful us Mariners can be!

I declare that I use my Elite Skills to change a single instance of an alphabetical character in the Ruleset to a distinct alphabetical character. The character is an X in Rule 15, in the following phrase:

The Captain may, at any time, post to the GNDT declaring that he or she is paying X * 3 Hats to increase his or her BalanceRating by X, where X is a nonnegative integer.

The character has been hatx0rred and is now a Y:

The Captain may, at any time, post to the GNDT declaring that he or she is paying Y * 3 Hats to increase his or her BalanceRating by X, where X is a nonnegative integer.

Furthermore, it is clear that although the ruleset page may be inaccurate, the actual ruleset is changed immediately. There has been precedant for this many times when an admin neglects to update the rules properly following an enactment, for example. So the character is now a Y, though I cannot change it myself, not being an admin.

To make things clear to people, my upcoming post in the GNDT is to do the following: I declare that I am paying Y * 3 Hats to increase my BalanceRating by X, where X is a nonnegative integer. Y is 0, X is 470.

Proposal: Less then 5 Mays, but not as soon as before

In Rule 11, Support Network, replace the following text:

Once all active Players have designated their support, or when 5 Mays from enactment has passed (whichever is sooner),

with:

Once all active Players have designated their support, or when the date becomes June 30th(whichever is sooner),

Also, replace:

On May 10th, an election shall be held

with:

On July 31st, an election shall be held

[This will give us enough time to play around with this interlude, but will let us get back to another dyanasty in time. Someone will probably win before June 30th anyway]

Timed out; failed 5 to 6 by Damanor at 5:16 AM GMT on 5.10.2004. -3 to Royce, +1 to Damanor. -5 to nonvoting slackers Axiallus, Brendan, est, Hobbes, Josh, Kahbn, Udelar, Yagyu_Jubei.

Proposal: Hats Are Not 1337

In Rule 16, change all instances of the word "hatxx0r" to "Breaker". Then institute the following changes.

Change all occurrences of "Hat" in the Ruleset and GNDT to "Ware" (plural "Warez"), and all occurrences of "Player" to "Haxx0r".

Change all occurrences of "BalanceRating" or "Balance Rating" in the Ruleset and GNDT to "CPUSpeed", of "HatsOn" or "Hats On" to "WarezRunning", and of "Wear" to "Run".

Change all occurrences of "trick" to "Sk33l" (plural "Sk33lz").

Change the description of "Top Hat" to read:

.HACK//SIGN: An attempt to improve CPU performance by hijacking a network's computing power. You can only have a number of WarezRunning equal to your CPUSpeed minus 2 when you perform this Sk33l. Make a GNDT entry: ".HACK//SIGN: DICE+[WarezRunning]". If the result exceeds your CPUSpeed, raise your CPUSpeed so it is equal to the result, raise your WarezRunning to equal the result, and give yourself additional Warez equal to the result from the DICE entry.

Change the description of "Pulling a Rabbit Out of a Hat" to read:

Ghost in the Shell: You try to summon the Email Daemon. Sacrifice 10 Warez and make a GNDT entry: "I call upon the power of the Email Daemon! FRUIT" Your reward is determined by the result:
Lemon: Your daemon is yellow and sour, and quickly deletes the Warez you sacrificed. Before it can delete more, you haxx0r it and make it into cyberdust. Add "Lemon Cyberdust" to your Stuff.
Cherry: A six-tun daemon named Mephistopheles appears. How he got six tuns, you will never know, but daemon drink is tasty. Add "6 Daemon Drinks" to your Stuff and increase your CPUSpeed by 6.
Orange: The daemon appears. "Knock Knock." "Who's there?" "Orange." "Orange Who?" "Orange you glad I'm not drunk? Ha Ha Ha." The daemon vanishes. You gain 2 CPUSpeed and add "Wisdom of the ages" to your Stuff.
Hooch: Your daemon is drunk. It mutters something about "I will rean my choom, in exmange for your imsortal clole" before passing out on your monitor. Reduce your CPUSpeed by 2 because of the fragments.
Bar: If one drunk daemon is bad, try a whole bar full of them. They stampede, causing you to lose 4 from your CPUSpeed. On the other hand, everybody now has 10 Daemonspawn Warez. Add 10 Warez to everyone's total.
Kiwi: You have summoned the Email Daemon! The daemon tries to grant your fondest wish, but gives you a wind-up fish instead. Add >:* next to your name in the sidebar. You gain 20 Warez and 20 CPUSpeed, and add "Wind-up Fish" to your Stuff.

Delete the description of Bartholomew Cubbins in Rule 14.

Revise the list of Titles in Rule 2 to read:

~: The Haxx0r with the tilde has won the Thomas A. Anderson award of Haxx0ring Excellence.
^: The Haxx0r with the carat is known as the Mad Haxx0r.
>:*: The Haxx0r or Haxx0rs with the angle bracket-colon-asterix are known as the Amazing Email Daemon Summoners.

Replace the phrase "Bowler Derby" with "Melissa Virus" wheresoever it appears in the Ruleset. Replace the phrase "Birthday Hat" with "Firewall", "Birthday Player" with "Firewalled Haxx0r", and "Birthday Cat" with "Firecall". Replace the phrase "Sailor Hat" with "Swimware", "Tailor Hat" with "Stimware", and "Captain's Hat" with "Headware". Replace the phrases "Eat Your Hat" and "Hungry Hat" with "Trace".

Repeal Rule 17.

Replace the phrase "The Hat of Buster Keaton" with "KaZaA".

Replace the phrase "Hot Hat" with "Lovebug Virus".

Derived forms of all words to be changed above should be changed as well, to the appropriate derived forms of the words they are changed to. For instance, replace "Wearing" with "Running", and "Hats" with "Warez".

Timed out; passed 8 to 5 by Satyr Eyes at 12:50 AM GMT on 5.10.2004. +12 to Satyr Eyes. -5 to nonvoters ChinDoGu, est, Hobbes, Kahbn, Octave, and Udelar.

Proposal: I am protected (trivial)

Append to the end of rule 4, proposals:

A Player may not, through editing of the blog, change a non-proposal post into a proposal.

I only say this because of SatyrEyes' sneaky proposal near the bottom of this page, titled omg zerg rush kekekeke or something, which has no votes on it except mine, and I don't remember it. I'm assuming this is how he made this proposal, and it seems rather odd to be able to edit some post from months ago to be "Proposal: LALALA... I win," get one other player to vote on it so it times out, and win the dynasty.

Passed 13 to 1 by Brendan at 6:26 am GMT on 5.9.2004. +2 to Cayvie, +1 to Brendan.

Speculation

According to Rule 3, "No Player may voluntarily create an effect which requires them to lose more Hats than they have." I was about to deduct Kahbn 6 Hats for two failed proposals before I realized that he doesn't have any. In a way, he created an effect which required him to lose more Hats than he had; one interpretation would be that those proposals were illegal to begin with.

I pose these questions to the blog: is there already a precedent for this? If not, should that sentence apply to Proposals? Either way I think it should be clarified, but I don't really know which it should be.

Hatxxored - Taking them down from the inside

Change

Each Player with more than 20 Hats may...

from the first line of Rule 16: Elite Skills, to read

Each Player with more than 20 Hate may...

- changing the 's' in 'Hats' to an 'e'.

Call for Judgement: May may may may may may

As May is not defined in the glossary, this call for judgement is simply to ascertain the precise conditions under which an election shall take place. A vote of , i.e. if this CfJ passes, means that 'May' is taken to mean the word 'may', and thus rendering the title of this CfJ a fulfilment of the rule. A vote of , i.e. if this CfJ fails, means that 'May' refers to the month of may, in which case elections shall in all probability never take place.

I would like to point out that, as the term 'may' is undefined, legally speaking the justification is probably more likely to be correct. As the term 'may' is physically present in the rule, there is a case to be made that the physical term was what the rule is refering to. However, this CfJ is more to let the people of BlogNomic decide which they prefer, not inflict some shady interpretation of the rules.

Remember: for elections now
for no elections at all.

Proposal: All the Nomic’s a stage…

Enact a rule named “Hey, y’all! Watch THIS!” that reads:

All Players are performing before a large crowd of spectators.

Each player has an Audience representing how many spectators are concentrating their attention solely on them at any given time. A player’s approval rating is equal to their HatsOn times their Enjoyability (rounded down). Both Audience and Enjoyability are tracked in the GNDT.

A player’s Audience will always be an integer greater than zero. If the total Audience of all players would exceed 5000 at any time, all players’ Audience will be reduced equally until the total is again less than or equal to 5000.

Enjoyability may be any number greater than or equal to zero with no more than two decimal places. Certain techniques may alter the Enjoyability of the player performing them or of another player. As methods are devised, they should be appended to the end of this Rule in the following format:

Name of Technique. Cost: X
This Technique has certain effects, etc.

Passed 8 to 6 by Brendan at 6:19 am GMT on 5.9.2004. +10 to Ornithopter, +2 to Brendan.

Proposal: What Emperor? (trivial)

Votes for this proposal should also specify which of “impartial,” “implied,” “impressionable,” and “imprimatur” is preferred.

[imprimatur – n. 1. Official approval or license to print or publish, esp. under conditions of censorship. 2.a. Official approval; sanction. b. A mark of official approval. (source: American Heritage College Dictionary, third ed.)]

Change all references to “deferential” and “imperial” votes to whichever of the terms listed in the first paragraph achieve a plurality or the vote. In the event of a tie for the lead, the new term will be randomly chosen from those tied.

This keeps the “IMP” from the icon, but removes the outdated imperial terminology.

Timed out; failed 6 to 8 by Satyr Eyes at 3:03 AM GMT on 5.9.2004. -3 to Ornithopter, +1 to SatyrEyes.

Proposal: 5 Mays from enactment [Trivial]

In Rule 11 - Support Network, change the election date from May 10th to May 27th in all places where it is mentioned.

If the phrase "when 5 Mays from enactment has passed (whichever is sooner), the two Players with the highest number of supporters become Canditates" in rule 11 is changed by hatxx0rati0n before this proposal is enacted, change it back to the wording mentioned above.

If any hats would be forfeited by Damanor because of his total rising above 200, give the extra hat or hats to the player with the lowest unique number of hats who is not the admin enacting this proposal. (If two or more players have zero hats, two or more have one, and only one player has two, give the hats to the player with two hats. And the admin who enacts this can't receive any excess.)

As entertaining as the hat theme is, I think it's time to get elections going.

Failed 2 to 10 by Brendan at 3:01 pm GMT on 5.7.2004. -3 to Damanor, +1 to Brendan.

Hey guys.

This is Squirrel, and I seem to have internet access again, so I'd like to rejoin.

However, I'd like to be Ornithopter instead of Squirrel, just for the sake of consistancy.

There are no rules for name changes, and it would probably be a bad idea to encourage them, so I was thinking I'd join as a new player.

I'd be using the same blogger account, and would change my blogger name to match, but someone would have to remove Squirrel from the list of idle players.

Any better ideas or problems with this one?

Call For Judgment: Disobeying the Spirit of the Law

Ok, so I tried to increase my BlanceRating by 470 based on the wording of Rule 15, Sailor/Captain Hat sections:

The Captain may, at any time, post to the GNDT declaring that he or she is paying X * 3 Hats to increase his or her BalanceRating? by X, where X is a nonnegative integer.

The way I see rules like this working is as a two-part process. First there is a condition which must be satisfied, then an effect that must or may happen when that condition is satisfied. So for example:

Each Player with more than 20 Hats may, not more than once every five days, make a post to the Blog declaring that he or she uses his or her Elite Skills to change a single instance of an alphabetical character.

If A then B. If you have 20 hats, you may make a post...

Should a Candidate go Idle during the course of a campaign, or drop to 0 Hats, the Running-Mate becomes the new Candidate

If A then B. If a candidate goes idle, the Running mate.. etc.

So I treated Rule 15 in a similar way:

The Captain may, at any time, post to the GNDT declaring that he or she is paying X * 3 Hats to increase his or her BalanceRating? by X, where X is a nonnegative integer.

If A then B. If I declare I am paying hats, I may increase my balance rating by X. I suppose you could read the rule as one whole declaration phrase. In this reading, it's not a two-part condition and effect rule like most of the others, but a statement of possibility, telling me what I can declare. It might be easier to think of a rule like this punctuated as follows:

The Captain may, at any time, post to the GNDT declaring that "he or she is paying X * 3 Hats to increase his or her BalanceRating? by X, where X is a nonnegative integer."

I contend that this is not what the rule means. If it did, it would be meaningless; the Captain is entitled to declare anything he or she wants legally anyway. So, I suggest that it is a normal, two-part condition and effect rule. Since I can satisfy the condition (declaring I am paying hats), I should be allowed to fulfil the effect. It does not say anywhere that I need to actually pay the hats.

Failed 3 to 12 by Brendan at 3:01 pm GMT on 5.6.2004.

Proposal: This really shouldn't be a legal proposal

Re-proposing this with corrected typo.

Amend Rule 4, the section that reads:

No ostensible Proposal shall be legal if, at the time of its posting, its poster already had two non-Trivial Proposals' worth of Proposals pending -- that is, 2 non-Trivials, 4 Trivials, or 1 non-Trivial and 2 Trivials.

To read:

No ostensible Proposal shall be legal if its posting leads to its poster having more than 4 Trivial Proposals worth of Proposals pending. The legal maximum is, therefore, 2 non-Trivials, 4 Trivials, or 1 non-Trivial and 2 Trivials.

Passed 12 to 0 by Brendan at 2:53 pm GMT on 5.6.2004; since 6 Trivial votes doesn't qualify as "most," that's +10 to Hobbes and +2 to Brendan.

proposal: the dreaded dunce cap

Create a new rule, "the Dunce Cap", with the following text:

At the cost of 20 hats, a player may place the Dunce cap on any other player by adding the text 'dunce cap: VOTE' to their wearing field, where 'VOTE' is either 'FOR', 'AGAINST', or 'IMPARTIAL'. That player is then given the title of "the dunce", to be denoted by a "%" by their name on the side bar. It is then assumed that the dunce has automatically cast their vote on any pending proposals according to the cap. If the dunce has already cast a vote for a pending proposal before having the dunce cap put on them, their pre-cap vote stands.

Any player may remove the dunce cap from the dunce for the cost of 5 hats, with the exception of the dunce and the player who placed the dunce cap on them. The player who placed the dunce cap onto the dunce may remove it for free. Once the dunce cap is removed, the player who was wearing it no longer holds the title of dunce, and may vote freely again. However, they may not change any votes cast while wearing the dunce cap.

Only one player may wear the dunce cap at a time. no one may place a dunce cap on anyone as long as there is a dunce.

Add the following to the list of titles:

%: the player with the percentage sign is known as the dunce.

Failed 4 to 10 by Brendan at 2:49 pm GMT on 5.6.2004. -3 to Kahbn, +1 to Brendan.

Proposal: a use for wisdom

Create a new rule, "wisdom of the ages", with the following text:

Those who have studied long and hard, meditated for years on the subject of life, or been lucky enough to pull an orange rabbit out of a hat possess Wisdom of the ages. This allows them to perform tasks thought to be impossible to unenlightened men.
A player who possesses "Wisdom of the ages" may, at the cost of three of their hats, increase any players balance rating by one. players may not decrease their hats below 5 by using this.
In addition, any player who possesses "Wisdom of the ages" may, at the cost of 1 off their balance rating, increase any player's hats by two. players may not decrease their balance rating below their HatsOn value by using this.

I figured I may as well take advantage of having no hats, and therefore having nothing to lose.

Failed 2 to 9 by Brendan at 2:40 pm GMT on 5.6.2004. -3 to Kahbn, +1 to Brendan.

U hAv3 b33N hAtXx0r3d

D00d! I uZe My L33t Sk33Lz 2 hAtXx0r tH3 R001Z aZ f0110Wz:

Change the 'a' in the second instance of "Hats" in the first sentence of rule 12 (Symbiosis) to a 'u'.

Before:

A Player may freely transfer any amount of their own Hats to another Player, provided that the transfer leaves neither Player with less than 10 Hats.

After:

A Player may freely transfer any amount of their own Hats to another Player, provided that the transfer leaves neither Player with less than 10 Huts.

BlogNomic History

Just to mention that I've updated the Dynastic History archive, making it look a bit better and more coherent, doing some content editing, and quoting the Ascension Addresses rather than just linking to them. (It might be worth linking directly to the history pages from the sidebar, really.)

We're still missing a few Dynasties, if anyone feels like digging through the archives and writing them up...

Proposal: This should not be a legal proposal

I posted my last proposal when I had one trival and one non-trival proposal pending, which is apparently legal. Cayvie has since enacted Eat Your Hat which puts me back to three non-trivial's worth, but even on five this proposal, and however many more I care to make, would still be legal. Therefore:

Amend Rule 4, the section that reads:

No ostensible Proposal shall be legal if, at the time of its posting, its poster already had two non-Trivial Proposals' worth of Proposals pending -- that is, 2 non-Trivials, 4 Trivials, or 1 non-Trivial and 2 Trivials.

To read:

No ostensible Proposal shall be legal if its posting leads to its poster having more than 4 non-Trivial Proposals' worth of Proposals pending. The legal maximum is, therefore, 2 non-Trivials, 4 Trivials, or 1 non-Trivial and 2 Trivials.

Failed by Brendan, 2 to 10, at 6:05 pm GMT on 5.4.2004. -3 to Hobbes, +1 to Brendan.

Making sure my Hatxx0rati0n works correctly.

I fixed a place in the GNDT where keitalia bowler derbied me for 1 while I was wearing the Birthday Hat.

She took away a Hat, instead of deleting "Birthday Cat" from my GNDT. However, as "Birthday Cat" appears nowhere in my GNDT, nothing should happen, correct?

hatxx0ration

In Rule 15, change the phrase

"Upon employing this Automatic Attack method, a Player must add the text "Sailor Hat" to his or her Wearing field. So long as a Player is wearing a Sailor Hat, he or she is considered a Mariner."

So that it now reads

Upon employing this Automatic Attack method, a Player must add the text "Tailor Hat" to his or her Wearing field. So long as a Player is wearing a Sailor Hat, he or she is considered a Mariner.

I hereby change my name back to "Kevan".

Proposal: Weird meanings for Old Words

Rule 15, Hat Combat, is strange:

Players may be affected by multiple Automatic methods, but no Player may declare more than one Automatic method on a given Player.

It doesn't say we can't declare them all at once, or now within a certain time frame, but rather simply forbids it, ever. This means I can't get a Mariner hat and then a Captain hat as I would like to do. This cannot be the intention of the rule, since Captain's hat can only be put into effect by a player who has already given himself or herself a Mariner's hat. I don't really know what the intnetion of the rule is anyway.


Amend the section of rule 15 that reads

Players may be affected by multiple Automatic methods, but no Player may declare more than one Automatic method on a given Player.

to read

Players may be affected by multiple Automatic methods.

also Hobbes is to be given a Captain's hat and lose 10 hats as soon as it's legal to do so.

Passed 4 to 2 by Brendan at 4:06 pm GMT on 5.4.2004. +10 to Hobbes, +2 to Brendan.

Bid For The Hatter

This all very confusing. Therefore, let it be known, that I (being a very Mad Hatter) do leave it up to the masses to whom the title of Mad Hatter belongs.

If Rule 15 under the second paragraph rings true... Then I should be awarded with Hatterdom. If not then oh well.
Cayvie can have it if he really wants it.

So let your opinions shine through my terrible foggy state of confusion by a vote of FOR or a vote of AGAINST. If AGAINST, then my bid is illegal, Rule 15 is misinterpreted and Cayvie will be bequeathed Hatterhood. If FOR, then things are well with the world of Nomic (at least as far as the Hatter is concerned) and I keep my ace of spades crowned glory.

Titles.

Damanor, with the help of Keitalia, has (actually not, i misread) been awarded the Bartholomew Cubbins award of Hat Balancing Excellence.

I have become the Mad Hatter. A very merry unbirthday to all of the rest of you.