THE AGORA NOMIC CODE OF REGULATIONS (PART OF THE RULEKEEPOR'S MONTHLY REPORT)
These ACORNs are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ Date of this ACORN: 6 Jul 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table of Contents: Emergency Regulations * Regulation ER5: Allow Delayed Resolution of P9230 Administrative Regulations * Regulation AA0: Obligations on the Arbitor * Regulation AA1: Public exercise of judiciary powers * Regulation AA2: Recommendations for players Subgame Ideas Tournament * Regulation FT1: Suggesting Pre-Proposals * Regulation FT2: Role of the Gamemaster * Regulation FT3: Winning the Tournament * Regulation FT4: General Guidelines ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ======================================================================== Emergency Regulations This section has Emergency Regulations, providing a way to change the gamestate during states of extreme emergency. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regulation ER5/0 Allow Delayed Resolution of P9230 The deadline to resolve the referendum on proposal 9230 ("Agoriculture") is extended to 14 days after the end of its voting period History: Enacted by Mischief, 04 Jul 2025 Annotations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ======================================================================== Administrative Regulations This section has regulations enacted by officers, pursuant to Rule 2630. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regulation AA0/1 Obligations on the Arbitor The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign a case to any person with a clear conflict of interest in its outcome. While there are players interested in judging, the Arbitor SHALL NOT assign cases to any other person. A player is "interested in judging" whenever e has communicated to the Arbitor that e is or will be (syn. "stood up"), provided that, since e last became interested, e has not done any of the following: * Been recused from a case for lateness. * Communicated to the contrary (syn. "sat down"). * Become inactive. * Become deregistered. * Been omitted from a list of interested judges published by the Arbitor, if the list has been continuously undoubted for one week after its publication. The above notwithstanding, the Arbitor MAY always assign a case to emself; to the Referee; or to any person who has communicated to em an interest in judging the case (syn. "favoured" the case). If, but for this provision, this regulation would make it ILLEGAL for the Arbitor to assign a particular case at all, all other provisions of this regulation are null and void with respect to that case. When a judgement is issued that has major implications for the interpretation of a rule, and it is highly unlikely that the rule will be changed to alter the interpretation or the case reopened in the near future, the Arbitor SHALL in an officially timely fashion write a brief description of the implication and communicate it to the Rulekeepor with a recommendation for inclusion in the Full Logical Ruleset. (This duty is immediately discharged if the office of Rulekeepor is vacant.) History: Enacted by Kate, 04 Sep 2024 Amended(1) by Kate, 02 Jan 2025 Annotations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regulation AA1/0 Public exercise of judiciary powers This regulation currently does not provide for players to act on behalf of the Arbitor to exercise eir official powers. History: Enacted by Kate, 04 Sep 2024 Annotations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regulation AA2/0 Recommendations for players It is RECOMMENDED to phrase CFJ statements so that they are possible to parse without outside context. For example, refer to a proposal or rule by ID number, or to a message by distinguishing features like its author and approximate timestamp, instead of writing "this proposal" or "that message". (An exception is self-references: "this CFJ", or "this message" meaning "the message in which this CFJ is called", is unambiguous and in fact traditional.) When calling a CFJ, players SHOULD ensure that the word "CFJ" is present in the subject line of the message, ideally near the beginning and ideally distinct from the rest of the line (e.g. "[CFJ]" or "CFJ:"). This helps ensure the CFJ is not missed. Gratuitous arguments to a CFJ need not be explicitly marked, or even submitted to a public forum (though they may be, for disambiguation). Anything seen by the Arbitor, through any forum, that looks like an argument will be accepted and recorded. (Arguments may even be submitted privately, which might be useful if, for example, anonymity is requested.) For other actions related to the office of Arbitor, such as judgements themselves, recusals, retractions, Motions and Moots, it is RECOMMENDED to draw the Arbitor's attention somehow if they are buried in replies to an unrelated thread. Otherwise, tags of the form "attn. Arbitor" or "@Arbitor" are unnecessary and indeed DISCOURAGED as they clutter subject lines. History: Enacted by Kate, 04 Sep 2024 Annotations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ======================================================================== Subgame Ideas Tournament This section has regulations governing the 2025 "subgame ideas" free tournament. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regulation FT1/0 Suggesting Pre-Proposals A Pre-Proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and other attributes. A player CAN suggest a Pre-Proposal by announcement, specifying its text and an associated title. When a Pre-Proposal is suggested, the player that suggested it becomes one of the authors of that Pre-Proposal. An author of a Pre-Proposal can make another player become an author of that Pre-Proposal by announcement. History: Enacted by initiation of Subgame Ideas by snail, 26 Mar 2025 Annotations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regulation FT2/0 Role of the Gamemaster Snail is the Gamemaster for this tournament, and shall publish a list of all Pre-Proposals and their authors each week, though e may leave out Pre-Proposals made obsolete by newer versions of themselves. The Gamemaster can amend these regulations with 2 Agoran Consent. Any player can amend these regulations with 3 Agoran Consent. The Gamemaster shall resolve any ambiguities in these regulations in the direction of properly rewarding any players that substantially contributed to the creation of future subgames. History: Enacted by initiation of Subgame Ideas by snail, 26 Mar 2025 Annotations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regulation FT3/0 Winning the Tournament A Pre-Proposal can be Finalized with 3 Agoran Consent. When the tournament concludes, each author of a Finalized Pre-Proposal wins the tournament. The tournament can be concluded with 3 Agoran Consent, and SHOULD be concluded after two Pre-Proposals have been Finalized unless Pre-Proposals are still being actively created. Finalized Pre-Proposals SHOULD be submitted as proposals when appropriate. History: Enacted by initiation of Subgame Ideas by snail, 26 Mar 2025 Annotations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regulation FT4/0 General Guidelines This regulation only contains general guidelines that SHOULD be followed during the course of this tournament. Pre-Proposals should be suggested with the input of multiple players and attempt to embody the Agoran Subgame Principles (listed below). Heavy iteration is encouraged, and all players should voice their likes and dislikes of certain mechanics and gameplay loops in each Pre-Proposal. Finalizing should be attempted on any Pre-Proposal that lacks criticism for a week. Such criticism should focus on gameplay effects rather than specific wording, as proofreading can be done at the conclusion of the tournament. The tournament is a place for brainstorming a large amount of varying ideas and cutting away at anything that wouldn't work in service of finding viable ideas that also interest the Agoran population. Agoran Subgame Principles (including the work of ais523): * Nomic is a game of changing rules at its core. Subgames should include the proposal system and potential rule changes in their gameplay loop. * A subgame should be intuitive for new players to understand. Getting bogged down by complicated rules detracts from the experience. Don't forget this principle when it comes time to finalize wording. * Have a hook! Some kind of game, genre, or theme for the subgame to build around as it changes. There should be clear places to add on but no indication of exactly what should be added. Let players direct their creativity into the subgame. * A subgame shouldn't be too fast or too slow. The generally accepted agoran participation minimum is once a week to keep up with everything. This isn't to say gameplay must be limited to once a week or can't be less frequent, but it is a good starting point to base any time constraints on. * Utilize existing mechanics (Radiance, Stamps, Tabled Actions, the boulder.) Having the subgame be interconnected with the rest of the rules gives players more reasons to care about it. * A subgame should be straightforward for an officer to track. The ideal amount of officer work is zero, but if a subgame is poorly optimized, an officer might have to take an hour to make a report. Consider example gameplay for officer workflow, and include intuitive mechanics that only need a few things to be tracked. * Avoid "grindy" subgames. Having to take an action every week can cause players that miss a week to fall behind and lose interest. New players should be able to engage with subgame without feeling hopeless. * Start simple. The subgame can get more complex as rules are added and dominant strategies are discovered and changed. Making a complicated subgame immediately will make it harder for players to engage. Lean on easily understood gameplay loops and existing mechanics if you must include something complex. The average agoran should be able to grasp the subgame within a few minutes of reading the rules. * Aim for emergent gameplay. If the optimal move is easy to calculate, there's not much point in playing a game. The uncertainty of proposals in your subgame can help remedy this. * See if you can include burst-style gameplay in your subgame. Planning out the perfect move and then executing it is a tried and true Agoran gameplay loop. Give players things to plan for and think about in advance, and allow for explosive combos. * Consider if you want the subgame to be competitive or not. Losing progress on a win has to feel fair. Determine how often a player can win your subgame. If wins happen more than once a quarter it may make wins less valuable. Strike a balance that makes the win hard, but achievable by perhaps a few players. Don't leave out players that are behind in a subgame. * Make your subgame accessible for players that have to become inactive, or can't be available certain days. If players have to miss important events, they should be able to play despite that. Avoid timing scams. * Think outside the box! Don't be afraid try something that wouldn't fit in the current Agoran framework. It's changed before, after all. Emphasize creativity, originality, and fun above all else! We'll find a way to implement it if players want it. Players are encouraged to form committees for coming up with great ideas in order to win the tournament. Group chats for quick brainstorming and rapid-fire ideas are recommended. History: Enacted by initiation of Subgame Ideas by snail, 26 Mar 2025 Annotations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
