[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd)

Admiral Jota nomic02@wurb.com
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:46:27 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 amgb2@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> So: "The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the
> game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it
> to the list. Any player who does not 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 demerit. Further week-long
> delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur
> one additional demerit." (The only changes from your original rule here are
> the removal of the word 'state' and the change of 'penalty point' to
> 'demerit'.


> My only concern at the moment is that if a proposal receives any "nay"
> votes, it currently remains as a proposal forever. I'm against this since
> it means I can vote "nay" to a proposal everyone else has ratified and then
> change my vote weeks later and have the proposal come into effect an hour
> later before everyone else has even remembered what it is.

So, it's not officially ratified until the original proposer declares it
so, and can also be officially be removed from consideration if voted

     Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires the
     unanimous agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye"
     or "nay" in response to the proposal by posting this vote to the
     list. Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such
     time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an
     initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player
     who hasn't voted on a particular proposal within the first 72 hours
     is assumed to have voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the
     proposal is officially ratified or removed from consideration. If at
     any point any player has voted against a particular proposal, then
     any other player (including other "nay" voters) may declare it to be
     dead, and removed from consideration. If at any point all players
     have voted in favour of a particular proposal (either by voting "aye"
     or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the original
     proposer may declare it to be ratified by posting a message
     containing the text of the proposal, a summary of the votes on it,
     and the time it will come into effect: the issue under consideration
     is considered to have been unanimously agreed by all players after a
     period of one hour from the time of this posting has elapsed.

And, to reply to stuff from jwal's other message (to baf):

> 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"?

Sounds fair to me. But what if there are three players, and two lose
simultaneously? Also, this would probably require that being demerited out
counts as a loss.

> 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.

It'd only have to be mentioned once, in the rule that defines it as such.

                                     _/<-=    Admiral Jota    =->\_
                                      \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/