[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:47:48 -0000
--On 15 January 2003 4:58 am -0500 Admiral Jota <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Woah, rule overload.
Indeed. Since we don't have a formal mechanism for dealing with proposed
rule-changes in place yet, I hope this doesn't get too confusing.
>> I. Rules governing rules
>> A. Each rule has a number. Rule numbers start with 1, and each
>> new rule has a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule.
>> B. When two rules conflict, the rule with the greater number
>> overrides the rule with the lesser number [...]
>> C. Rules may not be changed or removed [...]
>> D. No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part of
>> the state of the game, except by making it part of the state
>> of the game.
>> E. Changes to the rules do not take effect until midnight
>> GMT following their adoption. (Commentary: I'd be happy to
>> accept something else here. I just want it to be clear exactly
>> when rules go into effect.)
> Most of this seems fairly unecessary. The conflicting rules thing can be
> dealt with when it comes up, IMO. I'd only keep the last one, part E.
> Although, perhaps rules ratified between 2300 and 0100 GMT should be
> delayed until the following noon, to prevent any disagreement over clocks?
I've already voiced my disagreement with I.C here. I.A I think we should
have just for ease of reference in discussing the rules. I.B is perhaps not
necessary since a proposed rule can be phrased to take account of the rules
existing at the time (assuming there's nothing here which causes a problem
with rules which state they override other rules). I guess it might be
useful for resolving conflicts in the rules which aren't noticed when the
rules are originally passed. I still disagree with I.E, since Jota's
suggestion doesn't change anything: people can still disagree about whether
a rule was passed before or after 2300. I'm still in favour of having rules
come into effect when the original proponent announces that the rule has
>> II. Decision making procedures
>> A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at
>> email@example.com. (Commentary: At this point, the list is
>> still not part of "the state of the game". I have taken
>> care to make sure that the following rules comply with
>> I.D. - although posting is a big part of the game under
>> these proposals, no one is ever required to post anything.)
> In that case, how about these rules:
> Scoring: Each player in the game will have one or more point tallies
> associated with him or her, as a part of the game state. These will have
> (signed) integer values. Initially, each player will have tallies referred
> to as "Brownie" points and "Penalty" points, which both start at 0. Later
> rules may add new tallies, remove existing tallies, change the current
> values of tallies, or describe methods for doing any of those three
Are you withdrawing this suggestion in favour of baf's demerits?
> The Mailing List: The mailing list at firstname.lastname@example.org will be considered
> a part of the game state, and will be refered to as The List. To "post"
> something is to send it to the list. Any player who does note post for a
> week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest
> post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one
> penalty point. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest
> invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional penalty point.
I'm still not convinced that it's desirable that the content of the mailing
list be considered part of the state of the game.
>> B. "Unanimous consent" refers to the following process:
>> A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit
>> to be decided by unanimous consent.
>> If all other players post a reply to the proposal
>> indicating agreement by using the word "aye",
>> the proposal goes into effect.
> Sure. But I'd suggest rewording this to define both "aye" and "nay"
> respectively in this rule.
Actually, I'm not agreeing to this yet; I think it would be simpler to use
Jota's passive dissent rule below to determine when a unanimous agreement
has been reached and use that for all decision-making.
>> C. "Passive consent" refers to the following process: [...]
>> D. "Majority rule" refers to the following process: [..]
> Nah, I don't care for much of that, personally. How about...
> Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay".
> Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the
> voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial "aye" (but
> may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a
> proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted "aye", but may
> change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified or vetoed.
This would be simpler, and I'd be content for it to replace all three of
baf's proposed ruling methods. The only actual difference would be that, as
Jota says, three players couldn't force through a proposal the fourth
player is opposed to, and I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.
> Section III is mainly about majority decisions, which I'm not in favor of,
I'd suggest that the suggestion outlining the "Active Dissent" process be
reworded to the effect that, if no-one vetoes the suggestion,the players be
deemed to have reached unanimous agreement. In that case, this mechanism
can be used to change the rules according to the existing Rule 6, removing
the need for baf's proposal III.A.
With regards to III.B, I suggest a new rule: "Players may be added to the
state of the game by unanimous agreement", assuming again that we employ
Jota's suggestion for determining when unanimous agreement has been reached.
[rule-breaking discussion snipped]
[endings discussion snipped]
>> VI. Let's give this game some content other than itself already.
>> A. The state of the game contains a map, consisting of rooms.
>> The map contains a room called "the Lounge". All players
>> have a location on the map. The Lounge is the initial
>> location of every player.
> Playgurizm! Er, I mean, how about a map not initially based on ifMUD?
Just calling the initial room "the Lounge" hardly means that the whole map
has to be based on the MUD. Do you have an alternate suggestion?
> (Note that the only proposals I've formally voted against are IIC and IID.
> The only ones I've formally voted in favor of are IIB, VA and VB. The
> others I haven't formally voted on, but the rule of unanimous ratification
> should still be in effect, so.)
So, VA and VB have been ratified by everyone except Roger ... nothing else
seems to be in danger of passing just yet.