[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd)
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 06:19:54 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
> I'm hoping we don't reach the point where what we're allowed to talk about
> on this list is restricted (this is why I've been against the content of
> the list becoming part of the state of the game - but at present Rule 8
> allows things which are not part of the game to influence it anyway if the
> rules say so).
Yeah, I didn't mean breaking rules about message content. I meant about
game actions. Like if you said, "OK, I move from the Lounge to Washington
DC, and drop a banana there", at the same time a rule prohibiting bringing
produce into national capitals was ratified, it'd get messy.
> Having rules come into effect an hour after ratification
> would be fine by me, but it'd still be nice (especially if we're using
> active dissent) to see a message from the proponent to the effect of "the
> period of dissent for this rule has ended; the rule will come into effect
> at 14:30 GMT".
> As it stands, this means that only one player other than the player being
> courtmartialled need object for the demerit not to pass. If that's what we
> want, fine. (For the sake of simplicity, though, I'm still in favour of
> eliminating "majority ruling" altogether and using active dissent for
> everything, in which case we'd need to prevent the violating player from
> vetoing their own demeriting but would end up with basically the same
> suggestion as you have here.)
OK. So, a unanimous ruling is needed to apply extra demerits, but the
demeritee can't veto that ruling. Works for me.
_/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_
\<-= firstname.lastname@example.org =->/