[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd)
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:12:37 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 email@example.com wrote:
> Oops, you're entirely right. The suggestion I made about having rules come
> into effect an hour after final ratification and having the proponent post
> a message stating that the rule has been passed and exactly when it comes
> into effect covers all our concerns about this nicely, I think.
Yeah, I'm all for it.
> Again, at present, I can't see any reason for this: just acknowledging the
> existence of the list doesn't really fit with my ideas about what "the
> state of the game" should cover. If you can give a concrete example of a
> rule or situation where it would be important for the list to be part of
> the state of the game I might change my mind.
For one, if we wanted to demerit people for not taking part. For two, if
we wanted to propose rules for the formatting of rules or votes. For
three, you can't make a rule saying that someone has to post 'This rule
has been ratified' to the list unless the list exists as an entity you can
> Perfectly happy with this in spirit, but I think the wording should reflect
> the fact that this is a general decision-making process, not only one which
> applies to the introduction of new rules. A "proposal" should cover any
> change which the rules require to be agreed unanimously: although at the
> moment this is just changes to the rules, phrasing this properly means that
> passing rules such as "players may be added to the state of the game by
> unanimous agreement" becomes very simple since unanimous agreement is
> already defined.
Feel free to posit an alternative phrasing that you're comfortable with.
> We seem to be a little closer to reaching consensus on some of these,
> although Roger hasn't had a chance to raise any objections yet ... I'm
> having trouble keeping track of what's been agreed to by whom, but I think
> the only rules that are immediately likely to pass are those from baf's
> initial proposal which both Jota and I agreed to unchanged: I.A, V.A, V.B
> and VI.A.
Any others would require consent from both RC *and* baf, at this point.
_/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_
\<-= firstname.lastname@example.org =->/