[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 06:13:33 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
> 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.
OK. I'll vote aye on I.A.
> 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
> been ratified.
Mrm. That still leaves people operating under rules they have no
reasonable way of knowing about yet, though. It seems to me that *some*
kind of delay would be of value, even if it's just 'one hour from
announcement/ratification/whatever' -- even if people disagree about when
the hour's up, anyone who's taking game actions near that time would have
no excuse to not know that the rule was about to come into effect, and
would be acting at their own risk.
> Are you withdrawing this suggestion in favour of baf's demerits?
Yeah. I can propose brownie points separately.
> > The Mailing List: The mailing list at email@example.com 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.
Not the *content* of the list, necessarily. Just the list itself, as a
notional entity that one can act on (or fail to act on).
> 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.
OK, how's this:
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. If at any point, all players have voted in favor
of on a particular proposal (either by actively voting "aye", or by
failing to vote "nay" within the alotted 72 hours), the proposer of
the rule may officially declare it to have been ratified by unanimous
> 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.
I'll vote for that.
> > 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?
Nah, just feeling contrary. I retract my complaint, and vote aye :)
> > (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.
And now I.A and VI.A are 75% in as well.
_/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_
\<-= firstname.lastname@example.org =->/