316. Elimination

[Thomas David Baker]

Kaboom! Panic! Fear! I wasn't expecting that. Duh!

I don't want to jinx the game so let's quash my previous proposal. Let's rewind. Let's heal the scars. I was a bit stunned by the reaction so let's undo my proposal and hush the dissenters. Let's call a truce. Can we revive the game? And remove the hatred?

Thomas Baker is officially known as "The Pariah". Other players in the game may spit at or curse him. He is banned from playing Flux with Dan. He may be arrested.

Hopefully that's better karma. My previous proposal is negated. Hopefully that can rescue the game. I insist that we repeal and remove the previous version of my proposal. It seemed to sicken you all and failed to nourish morale. I now have the insight to foresee that this would smother the bargain and is a misstep. I am a dumb ass. Apologies for the disorder and upheaval. Don't lose hope or retaliate but give me your blessing and let's eradicate this incendiary turn from our minds. I'm sure Ben and Kieran will get the last laugh. That's my conviction on which I stand firm. Back to tranquility!

Sorry.

Players named Ben Titmarsh or Kieran Symington cannot win the game, may not vote and may play no other part in the game.

[Thomas David Baker]

Come on, get ruthless! Serves them right for having the most points.

[Kieran Symington]

Not that I'm in any way trying to save myself from elimination, but I don't see how this counts as a rule as it doesn't in any way affect how the game is played. It's really just a statement that me and Ben are out. What if it got repealed later? Would we be back in the game? In which case, would we still count as players while eliminated because we could theoretically come back later? I demand a ruling on this!

[Thomas David Baker]

I reworded it. Does it sound more like a rule now?

It was nicer when it just said "Ben Titmarsh and Kieran Symington are eliminated." But I guess this version is "better" for comprehensibility.

You should vote yes, btw, that would be hilarious.

[Gary Lynch]

:)

I vote yes

Thomas David Baker said:

I reworded it. Does it sound more like a rule now? It was nicer when it just said "Ben Titmarsh and Kieran Symington are eliminated." But I guess this version is "better" for comprehensibility.

You should vote yes, btw, that would be hilarious.

[Thomas David Baker]

That's the spirit! 3 more yeses required and we're down to 6 :)

[Ben Titmarsh]

Well thanks Tom.

Not that this game is particularly fucking amazing or anything, but considering the effort that both Kieran and I have put in it seems overly harsh to just arbitrarily eliminate us. I didn't even realise I was in the lead, and wouldn't really have cared if my score was reduced to zero rather than being eliminated. Isn't the whole point of Nomic that you get enjoyment out of the organic growth of something unique, rather than being the first to 100? In fact I quote:

"this rule is deliberately boring so that players will quickly amend it to please themselves."

Clearly, you've pleased yourself on this one and for the sheer audacity of this shit, selfish proposal, I vote yes and look forward to not having to partake in this bollocks from now onwards. Have fun racing to 100.

[Thomas David Baker]

I emailed Ben privately about this. I don't want to fall out with anyone over a game of Nomic! It's nothing personal to the two players named, it's just an experiment in internecine warfare :) It seems to be succeeding too well so far!!!

(Unless this was a superb bit of proposal politics from Mr. Titmarsh ultimately resulting in the defeat of my motion ...)

[Tiff Leek]

I'm assuming that Ben is getting in with the spirit of the thing, as that pleases my brain more.

However, I am going to vote no for other reasons. Which are SECRET SQUIRREL.

[Dan Barrett]

This is like the custom "Dan wins" card i added to my Fluxx deck - in principle it's amusing, but whenever it comes up it just annoys everyone.

Vote no.

[Kieran Symington]

Edit: Having re-read the rules properly, this wouldn't actually work! As this was my only reason for wanting it reworded, you may as well change it back so I can vote to eliminate myself......

Kieran Symington said:

Looks like my plan is working. Thanks to the rewording, when it comes to my turn (which technically still happens as I'm still a player - see rules 201 and 202) I both have to propose a change and am unable to propose a change, resulting in a win from being unable to continue the game (rule 213). This rule (316), however, stops me from winning. Except that the two rules conflict (I win the game and don't win the game) and so the rule with the lower number takes precedence (rule 211), which is rule 213 - the one that says I win from being unable to take my turn.

Pretty sure this is right. Though just in case I think I'll hold off on voting yes for a while......

[Thomas David Baker]

Alright, alright. I withdraw this proposal! And you can bet my next proposal will be Group Hug-style!

Apologies to Kieran and Ben if they felt personally victimized.

I've changed the wording on my proposal please re-vote if you've already voted and want to change your vote.

Dan Barrett said:

This is like the custom "Dan wins" card i added to my Fluxx deck - in principle it's amusing, but whenever it comes up it just annoys everyone.

[Kieran Symington]

I'm so glad I was online to vote first on this new proposal! I say yes to whatever the hell is actually being proposed here, but the important thing is my claiming of no less than 45 points for spotting the following Magic cards:

1. Kaboom!
2. Panic
3. Fear
4. Duh
5. Jinx
6. Quash
7. Proposal
8. Rewind
9. Heal The Scars
10. Scar
11. Stun
12. Undo
13. Hush
14. Truce
15. Revive
16. Hatred
17. Pariah
18. Arrest
19. Karma
20. Negate
21. Rescue
22. Insist
23. Repeal
24. Remove
25. Sicken
26. Nourish
27. Morale
28. Insight
29. Foresee
30. Smother
31. Bargain
32. Misstep
33. Dumb Ass
34. Disorder
35. Upheaval
36. Lose Hope
37. Retaliate
38. Blessing
39. Eradicate
40. Incendiary
41. Last Laugh
42. Conviction
43. Stand Firm
44. Tranquility
45. Sorry