EO Epoch1/DiscussionForum

So. EO_Epoch1 has finished, and under Rule 64, we can make some changes to the current ruleset. Propose them here before midnight of Sunday; veto them here between midnight Sunday and midnight Monday.

Currently proposed changes:

55 The exact same combination of Mages may meet a maximum of 1 time in a single heartbeat.
New rule: When a power is voted under, the relevant element is the one that has that power after the pending changes from that heartbeat have been applied to the /WorldState.
61 be changed to: The heart of the world beats at 23:59 on each of Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays.
46 "choose their pawns" = "choose their pawns if possible".

Discussion here is welcome and appropriate.

: I thought that had been "as closely as possible"?

What would people think about changing the HeartBeat? to be 7 days instead of 48 hours?

: I would approve. I am finding it hard to meet - times when I am free for real-time interaction during the week do not generally coincide with times when I can muster the concentration required for EO. - MoonShadow

Some rules which might do with a bit of changing..

"No particular 2 Mages may be at 2 successive Meetings in the same heartbeat."

Problem to be addressed: does this cover original intention of ensuring that each mage must meet with someone else before they re-meet with someone?

: Hologram thinks not.

On this issue, Hologram would also like to see an exception made for the potential case of where *all* the Mages meet together, as currently that would prohibit any further Meetings that heartbeat. (And in fact be impossible unless it was the first meeting of a heartbeat.) Adding a phrase "except for Meetings at which every active Mage attends" would fix this.

: I partially agree with Mage Hologram's point. I would like to see meetings of everyone be possible, and don't think such a meeting (if it happened) should preclude other meetings in the same heartbeat (the current situation), but I would like to see it have special powers. It should happen for a purpose other than the people just happened to be there. Maybe to proclaim the winner of an epoch the 'High Mage' and to inscribe their name on the scroll of ages? (By the way, I would not be adverse to buying an RL silver cup, to be held by the most recent winner and have their names inscribed on it)--/MagePallando

Is a meeting of A-B-C directly followed by A-B-D a problem? If not, we could just make this rule say something about multiple meetings of identical groups of mages not occuring successively. --Kazuhiko

: Won't it give too much advantage to AB pairs who know each other / live together?

"No more than 1 Action of each Power may be initiated at any given Meeting."

Problem to be addressed: Does this stop Primus from breaking more than one tie in a single meeting?

: "It is an action of Primus that..." is not a phrase used to describe Primus' tie-breaking, I believe. Since Action is capitalised, don't see the restriction applying.
: Hologram: Hmmm - but the rules don't specifically define any of the other Powers' actions as Actions either. The intent was for a proposed raise or lowering of a rule to be an Action, but for arbitration over ties not to be. But rules 25-26 don't say this. It would also be a lot of effort to move 25-26 down below 48 and edit them. Any thoughts?

The quarters of the hierarchy

Mages Senji and Inquisitor have proposed increasing the maximum size of the hierarchy. I might suggest that someone lower rule 17 by 3 places, to keep it out of the immovable section.

: Actually, it kind of makes sense that 17 be locked along with 15 and 16. Plus, if that was shifted down, 20 ("8 pawns per mage") would be locked and further discussion on this page would indicate that Mages are considering altering that one. -- /MageKazuhiko

: I was actually wondering whether it mightn't be better to do something like spread new ruleslots across the hierarchy than shoving them in at the bottom when the hierarchy expands, to keep things more stable. Anyone fancy a meeting? Not tonight, though, I'm off to bed.. *yawn* /MageMoonShadow

The Power of Primus

Is clarification required (by adding/amending the Hierarchy) on how Rules Interpretations may be sought and provided in non-Meeting situations?

Should something be added to cover Meeting situations where no Primus is present (such as, in the absence of Primus, Rules interpretations but not ties, are decided by the player present with the highest mana)?

The Balance

I note that the strengths of the elements vary with alarming frequency. Would a little more stability here be appreciated, and if so, what would the best way of achieving that?

Maybe something like 'and element whose strength has been increased may not have it also decreased in the same heartbeat', or maybe 'no element may go up by more than 2 strength in a single heartbeat', or maybe strength should start at 24 and have max and min of 32 and 16?

: The first suggestion would have difficulties due to the queueing of Tertius actions, but that could be worked around by rephrasing. That would be an intriguing modification, though - forcing the Water mages to try to get Water raised before someone else lowers it. And vice versa of course. --/MageHologram
: And it's interesting that you suggest increasing the resolution of elemental strengths, because I've discussed with at least one Mage the prospect of increasing the resolution of pawns - ie give each mage 16, for example, again to slow down the rate at which alignments can shift. Both are fair proposals, but I'd suggest seeing how things go for a couple more heartbeats before trying them out. Both proposals would also have to have corresponding changes to the Winning Condition mana-score rule, or else everyone would simultaneously win each epoch as soon as it started. --/MageHologram
: At this stage I don't see that it's really a problem. True there have been a lot of shifts in the power of pawns, but the overall effect has been relatively small, with only a single net change to date. If we notice over the course of the next 8-10 heartbeats that the elemental strengths are excessively volitile or stable, then at that stage we should look at it. For now it's too early. --/MageKitiara

How about making it that each element may be shifted no more than once per heartbeat, and that shifts must be voted upon (under tertius) ? That would avoid the race condition of seeing who can stay up until after midnight to hodl the first meeting of a heartbeat.

: That slows down the shifts of elements quite a bit - although does, admittedly, go a long way towards removing serious rewards for holding lots of meetings. Not sure it quite does the job, though. I don't like the lag.

An issue raised by maintaining the Records over the first /HeartBeat:
What to do if, for example, we have Primus=W=11, Secundus=F=10, Tertius=E=10; and after next /HeartBeat we have W-1, E+1. So E becomes Primus on 11, but what's Secundus? F, because E and W swapped? Or W, because it was higher than F last heartbeat?

: My belief is that Water would become Secundus in the above example. If at some point element W and element F are arrive at the same strength, and previously W has had the higher rank, W will retain having a higher rank than F. If W later went down to 9, then back to 10, F would have the higher rank. -- /MagePallando

A few issues raised by the /ActiveVotes page, and in particular, by the way that all votes are visible to all:
Are votes changeable?
If so, then casting them early effectively means nothing, and we oculd potentially have lots of EditConflicts? at 11:55pm before the conclusion of voting.
If not, then casting them early just disadvantages you compared to those who cast them late, and we again end up with everyone editing the /ActiveVotes page at 11:55pm before the conclusion of voting.

Any thoughts what to do about this issue? --/MageHologram

I believe votes are changable. Whether this should remain the case is a good question, and one that once discussed could then fixed with adding a rule with Secundus.

: Hidden voting using the ToothyWikiInternals/SignatureServer seems the obvious solution. A bit more useful than using it for RockPaperScissors, anyway. --Vitenka

In nomic, I believe votes were public, and changable - but one was penalised for making more than one change (also, I think they were unchangable for the last 12 hours of a turn). At the end, anyway. That was worse, since you did rather well by voting against proposals which passed. Having the option, but not obligation, to make hidden votes, with public votes being fixed, strikes me as a good balance between diploming, sanity, and convenience. I may well make a proposal to this effect. -- /MageInquisitor

How would you ensure that the Keeper of the records could determine the outcome of the vote, and so modify things appropriately, in a timely manner? --/MagePallando

: Good point. As a side note to everyone, I failed to make several votes on Saturday morning, as the wiki was down at the only time when I could get online. Oops. -- /MageInquisitor

Applying rule changes to /TheHierarchy

Start with 55 rules. The following rules are passed:

Alex as Keeper of records
Lowering of 36 to 44
Addition of rule "No lengthy discussions before meetings"
Rule 56 ("-PENDING-") becomes ("In the event of a meeting comprising strictly more than 2/3 of the number of mages within the world...")
Rule 56 raised to 55

Now, to my mind this either results in:

55 - In the event of a meeting comprising strictly more than 2/3 of the number...
56 - No particular 2 Mages may be at 2 successive...
57 - -PLACEHOLDER-

("No length discussions..." has been turned into "In the event of..." before movement)

: OR

55 - "No lengthy discussions..."
56 - No particular 2 Mages may be...
57 - -PLACEHOLDER-

(Change to rule 56 fails since the rule no longer reads "-PENDING-", or, in fact "-PLACEHOLDER-")

I realise that I am not going to be able to convince people to make a change to the rules at this point but could we please codify the rules regarding the order that things are activated sometime soon? -- /MageKazuhiko

Your assessment of what would happen if I went through literally applying each change as it happened is correct. I decided to allow, this time, the voted-in changes to occur as their spirit implied rather than as their letter did. I decided it was fair for me (as Keeper) to allow the two rules being added to be added in either order. And more to the point, ElementalOblivion is aimed to be rather less pedantic and nitpicky a game than most nomics; although not entirely banishing those elements, it's good to avoid making them the be-all and end-all.

: I happen to agree with Mage Hologram's interpretation of the Sprit of the World here, but realise others might disagree. If you do disagree, the thing to do would be to raise a proposal as Primus stating how you think he should interpret the relevant rulings in future, and put your proposal to a vote under primus. --/MagePallando

However. I would request that in future, people refrain from referring to empty cells of /TheHierarchy as "rules", or to "changing" their (undefined) text. In particular, referring to numbers of yet-to-be-enacted rules is hairy. Give your to-be-enacted rule a name if you really want to refer to it in another concurrent proposal. I may not be able to determine (or agree with) the Spirit of badly-worded proposals in future :) --/MageHologram

: Sage Advice indeed. --/MagePallando