A game written and run by Jonathan Whiting
LET'S MAKE THINGS INTERESTING
For: Alan Stephen
Against: Jonathan Rolpege Ian
Alan used his overriding vote.
PASSED
DICTATOR
Alan: Rolpege Alan Stephen
Jonathan: Jonathan
Ian: Ian
Alan remains the dictator.
Jonathan Whiting proposes:
I propose the following law be added:
All laws except this one that contain the word 'Alan' in any form do not exist, and have never existed.
Alan Hazelden is not a citizen.
Alan Hazelden cannot by any interpretation win the game.
Niall Moody proposes:
The goal of the game is to lose the game. The citizen defined as the loser of the game will be the citizen who, by the end of the last turn, has proposed the most failed motions and who has most consistently voted for motions which were not passed/against motions which were passed.
Ian Snyder submits a grievance:
I believe that our citizen Alan Hazelden is in violation of our laws, and seeks to abuse for the advancement of himself at the disregard of all others.
He has violated multiple laws, which I shall list herein:
Law 1 and Law 13 ("anything not mentioned in our laws is not a part of the game", "Citizens are only among us while a law explicitly describes them" respectively) There is no law stating that Stephen Lavelle is a citizen or is entitled to the same voting rights as a citizen, the grammar of the law clearly treats "Stephen Lavelle" as a position. Alan Hazelden has interpreted this law as meaning that Stephen Lavelle is a citizen and that Alan Hazelden is a separate citizen. (I would also like to make note that the law specifically describes them as a singular entity)
Law 9 ("One vote per citizen") Since Alan is only one citizen, he may only make one vote. He has voted twice in one turn for both dictators and laws.
Law 6 and Law 31 ("Citizens should act in the spirit of our laws", "If ambiguities exists that cannot be resolved with the text of our laws" respectively) Law 31 exists specifically for the situation that arguments about the meanings of laws should arise. No such argument was raised regarding Law 25, yet he still issued forth an interpretation of the law. This interpretation, I add, was created solely for the support of his own controversial actions of dubious legality. No ambiguity existed regarding the law before he created an ambiguity regarding it, an ambiguity that the law gives him the power to solve. The problem with this? This gives him the power to reinterpret any law at will. He could say that he believes the definition of Law 1 is that everyone must buy him chicken on Sundays. This is, of course, ridiculous, but it works with exactly the same logic he applied to this law when he violated it. He did not act in the spirit of Law 31, which was created to deal with actual ambiguities, but instead used it for his own gain.
As punishment, I propose that all his votes and actions taken on the turn in which he violated the law be discounted. Any votes made should be discounted, any laws proposed should be stricken. This is a lenient punishment. For actions of this caliber, he should be stricken from citizenship entirely! Never has anyone acted so completely against these laws under the guise of legality!
Our laws define the games scope.
Anything not defined or mentioned in our laws is not a part of the game.
Each of our laws has an index. A unique positive integer.
New laws are assigned the lowest available index that is higher than all already in play.
When two of our laws contradict, the law with the higher index prevails.
Our game begins at 8pm GMT on Monday 11th July.
Our game ends at 8pm GMT on Friday 29th July.
Our turns last 24 hours.
New turns begin at 8pm GMT on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
When a turn is not in play the game is suspended.
We are the citizens of our game.
Citizens must abide by our laws.
Citizens should act in the spirit of our laws.
An action is a single act made a single citizen.
During a turn citizens submit actions by stating unambigously that they are doing so via the mailing list.
A correction is an addition, repeal or amendment of one of our rules.
A motion is an action taken to propose a single correction.
Our citizens may each submit a single motion during a turn.
Motions should be sent with an email subject indicating that it is a proposed correction, and includes a name for the motion that hints towards its contents.
In the turn following a motion's submission citizens can take an action to vote for or against it.
One vote per citizen per motion.
We require a beneficial dictator at all times.
Our beneficial dictator can make a single overriding vote in each turn.
When the beneficial dictator excercises this right all other votes on that motion are ignored.
At the end of the turn a motion was up for vote the motion will be enacted or discarded.
If the majority of votes are in favour of the motion it is enacted; otherwise the motion is discarded.
At the end of the game the winner is the citizen who has spent least time serving as beneficial dictator.
If multiple citizens tie, the winner is chosen by the current beneficial dictator.
Citizens are only amongst us whilst a law explicitly describes them.
Traitors should be executed by a motion repealing that law.
The beneficial dictator is elected every turn by popular vote, replacing any previous holder of the position.
Each turn, a citizen can make one vote for a new beneficial dictator for the next turn.
In the case of a draw, or if only one citizen has made a vote, the current Beneficial dictator stays in place.
Jonathan Whiting is one of our citizens.
Rolpege is one of our citizens.
Darien Sumner is one of our citizens.
Alan Hazelden is one of our citizens.
Niall Moody is one of our citizens.
Terry Cavanagh is one of our citizens.
Ian Snyder is one of our citizens.
Kyle is one of our ciitzens.
Patrick is one of our citizens.
Damien Landreau is one of our citizens.
At all times we require a Stephen Lavelle. Alan Hazelden is our current Stephen Lavelle.
Robert Yang is one of our citizens.
During the turn it was proposed, a motion may be amended any number of times by the citizen who proposed it. In the following turn citizens will vote on the most recent version of the motion.
Citizens are assessed for their ability to design good laws which carry the support of our community.
The popularity of a motion is defined to be an integer equal to the number of votes for that motion minus the number of votes against.
The popularity of a citizen is defined to be an integer equal to the sum of the popularity of all motions which have been submitted by that citizen.
If ambiguities exist that cannot be resolved within the text of our laws the most popular citizen decides the valid interpretation that we understand to be true. If more than one citizen is the most popular this power is given only to the equally most popular citizen with the alphabetically first last name.
Each citizen may submit one and only one grievance per turn. A grievance is an action accusing exactly one other specific, named citizen of violating the law. In submitting a grievance, the submitter shall identify the specific citizen who has allegedly violated the law, the specific law violated, the specific actions taken that violated said law, and a proposed specific punishment therefore. Submitting a grievance is not the same as submitting a motion, and a citizen may do both in the same turn.
All members who voted for this law win the game. All other members do not win.
Alan Hazelden may end the game at any time by sending an email to the
mailing list with the subject "GAME OVER: ALAN WINS".
Should he do so, Alan Hazelden is declared to be the sole winner. Any
other citizens who would otherwise have won are declared to have
second place.