[Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:41:02 -0000
--On 15 January 2003 10:17 am -0500 Admiral Jota <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'd agree to this if instead it were: "No individual rule may be changed
> after it's been added, except to remove it from the game, which can only
> be done by unanimous agreement." Thus, one could effectively change a rule
> by making a proposal to simultaneously add a new rule while removing an
> old one, but a rule number will only ever refer to one rule, whether it's
> an extant or deleted one.
Ok, that's fine by me. Isn't "which may only be done by unanimous
agreement" redundant, though?
>> "It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be described in
>> the rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the state
>> of the game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will
>> immediately end and all players who have not won will lose."
>> (Accepted by baf, jwalrus)
> Yup. I assume that "is removed" qualifies as "leaves", in the terms of the
> above rule?
I was intending it to. Does the wording need to be clearer?
>> "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called
>> "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially
>> the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything
>> on it shall be considered part of the state of the game."
>> (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota)
> In light of the above rules, about players leaving the game, I'm going to
> have to posit an addition to that:
> "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the
> Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the
> Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it
> shall be considered part of the state of the game. The map and the
> locations it comprises will be considered associated with all players, in
> the sense described above."
I was assuming that the 'default' for parts of the game state would be for
them not to be associated with any player, which would seem to make more
sense than for the map to be associated with all players.
> Also, would it be possible for the summary to mention who is the proposer
> for the current version of each proposition? Admittedly, that information
> isn't vital yet, but it will be if the rule about unanimous ratification
> and active dissent and all that is passed.
I think (unfortunately) if the rule defining unanimous agreement is passed,
all the 'informal' proposals above will have to be proposed again more
formally. Perhaps we could argue a way around this. In any case, I'll see
if I can make a note for the next summary, if there is one.