[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:08:10 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
> > C. Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the
> > rule set permissable is the addition of new rules.
> I'm not dead against this, but I'm curious as to why you're suggesting it.
So that the set of rules contains its complete history. This strikes me
as desirable mainly because of the amusement I have derived from browsing
the rulesets of other games of Nomic and seeing how they developed.
> E. When the rules specify that a change "may be brought into effect",
> the player who proposed the rule may post an announcement that the rule
> has come into effect (along with a summary of the voting if it is felt
> that this would be helpful). The rule comes into effect as soon as this
> announcement is posted. It does not come into effect before this.
I like this. This has my support. Also, if this passes, I no longer
desire the "midnight GMT" rule. Just one concern: What if there's a
majority rule decision, and the proposer changes his mind, but there's
still a majority? Perhaps "the player who proposed the rule" should be
replaced with "any player".
> Also, I hope I'm right in
> thinking that the wording of Rule 8 allows changes to the rules to come
> into effect when they're announced on the list without the list being
> part of the state of the game?)
That is my understanding as well.
> > B. Any person who posts a request to join the game may be
> > added to the players by passive consent. (Commentary:
> > As passive consent is defined in II.C., there still has
> > to be a proposal by a player. Thus, each new player
> > needs a sponsor.)
> I agree in principle, but it seems as though the official wording ought to
> make the need for a sponsor clearer.
I guess it would be a good idea to add a clause requiring the support of
at least one player, just in case the definition of passive consent
> Yes. I also suggest:
> C. If at any time there is only one player remaining in the game then the
> game shall end and that player shall be deemed to have won.
Hm. I'm not sure if I like this. I think I might prefer a game where a
person who scares everyone else away loses.
> Sure, why not? Also, am I correct in thinking that as the map is part of
> the state of the game, all its properties (such as the locations of players
> within it) are also part of the state of the game?
I guess it would be a good idea to state this explicitly in the rule.