pimotte/nomic

nomic's Issues

Moving part of a rule to a new rule

Is it possible within the current rules to move part of an existing mutable rule to a new mutable rule within a single PR?

Personally I do not think so as this would require the modification of a rule and the introduction whereas rule 103 uses "or" a lot,but perhaps I am misreading something.

Which player?

If a Judgement process regards the interpretation of a rule, who is "a player" in the following context:

When Judgment has been invoked, a player may not begin a turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

• Rule 305

What is lying?

Since we are now in the process of a trial (#34), I was wondering about the following phrase in rule 311:

Lying during a Trial is an offensive for which a player can be put on Trial.

If a Jury decides the defendant is Guilty, but the defendant pleaded Not-Guilty, perhaps backed up by some arguments, is the defendant lying?

To make it more concrete:

1. What is our definition of a lie?
2. Can a player lie without knowing it?
3. If not, how do other players know if the player in question was aware of his/her lie or not?

Claiming my Trophy

Rule 327 grants the points upon proposition of the pull request. Hence, the proposing of 1900 rule changes including quotes would win me the game. The only thing preventing me from doing so is that Github will kick me out for spam. Hence, rule 329 allows me to describe my intended course of actions instead. Uniqueness is not required, just encouraged. Hence, the proposition of my rule changes will be to change the number of required points to win to 201-2101, respectively. Since the points are awarded on proposition, not on merging, this will lead to me getting 190 points, hence, winning the game.

The accompanying PR text would say:

Proposing random shit to win the game.

"It's over nine thousand!" - Vegeta (Dragon Ball Z, episode 28, "Goku's Arrival")

I'm claiming 0.1 point for above quote.

Please vote on the validity of this method to win the game, @MrHug, @jdonkervliet, @arthurbik.

Proceedings in the game during a Trial

I believe it is currently not specified whether or not changes to the gamestate are allowed during an ongoing Trial. This is the case for Judgement (the gamestate is frozen).

As this means it is possible for the gamestate to change during a Trial, this could be disastrous, right?

I'll be Back!!!

I am on hiatus.

I will be back!!!

I don't really have the time to keep up with everything while writing my thesis. Would it be possible to join again when I have time? (I imagine that each vote being effectively a unanimous vote is not ideal)

Calling forth player @jdonkervliet

As outlined in rule 351, I hereby call forth @jdonkervliet

Judgement

Who can label an issue as 'Judgement'?

The people vs @pimotte 1

I hereby charge @pimotte with a violation of rule 333 in his merging of #55 and #57.

He has added 0.1 point to his score, without explicitly mentioning this in his PRs. Due to the similar nature of the offenses, I would like to have a joint Trial for both violations. Although the rules do not explicitly allow this, rule 116 ("Chaos is allowed") allows me to do so.

In accordance with rule 324 I hereby dub myself the prosecutor of this Trial.

Am I violating a rule?

Maybe? Something about concurrent turns.

Labels

Can we make GH labels like "amendment", "abolition", "new rule" etc to label PRs?

The people vs @jdonkervliet 1

I hereby charge @jdonkervliet with corrupting the game State by merging #12 which did not include a point update.

In accordance with rule 324 I am hereby the prosecutor in this Trial.

Calling forth player @ManInTheGitHub

As outlined in rule 351, I hereby call @ManInTheGitHub to action.

Oops. Failure to maintain game state.

I just merged #22 , which did not include a point total update, which I found out when inspecting #21. In my opinion I have violated rule 309, by submitting (and merging) a pull request that did not accurately reflect the game state. Given how #311 has not passed yet, and as of now, the rules are unclear on how to resolve this. Hence I am invoking Judgement to request an answer to the following question:

How should the current situation be resolved?

By rule 305, @MrHug will be the judge.

The people vs @MrHug 1

I accuse @MrHug of having violated rule 309 in his submission of pull-request #32.

This makes @MrHug the defendant of this trial, and me the prosecutor. I will split my actions in this role to a separate comment.