[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions

nomic02@wurb.com nomic02@wurb.com
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:19:22 -0000

(leaving all of baf's comments intact since his original reply went only to 
me rather than the list)

--On 15 January 2003 07:57 -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt <nomic02@wurb.com> wrote:

> 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.

True, but the entire archive of this mailing list is also publically 
available, which gives a far fuller picture of how the rules have developed 
than an archive of past rules does.

>>  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".

Jota and I are currently attempting to move away from the use of majority 
rule decisions anyway. If decisions do end up being taken this way, some 
change will be necessary, but I'd like to keep the sense that it's the duty 
of the proponent to announce the passing of rules where possible.

> >     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.

As Jota has pointed out, Rule 5 implies that we need to recognise that the 
list is part of the game, but that's not the same thing as being part of 
the gamestate.

>> >   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
> changes.

If we introduce the "active-dissent" mechanism as I proposed it in my last 
post, this rule can become simply "new players may be added to the game by 
unanimous agreement", and would work in the same way as suggested here.

>> 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.

Depends on the circumstances of the other players' leaving, I guess. If 
every other player is legally eliminated, that seems as though it should be 
a win, but if everyone leaves the game of their own volition that's not 
true. Perhaps a better rule might be "if at any time there are only two 
players remaining in the game, and one of them loses, the other shall be 
deemed to have won"?

>> 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.

Ok. It'd be nice if we could find a phrasing which would avoid having to 
write "this is part of the state of the game" every time the map is 
mentioned, though.