[Nomic02] three new proposals
Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:15:55 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
> "Players may change the details of the map by unanimous consent."
> (Essentially, now that the map is part of the gamestate, I don't think it's
> necessary to have to pass a new rule every time we want to change the map.
> With the rules that currently exist, plus this new rule, changing the map
> could be done using the same mechanism as changing the rules, but the list
> of rules wouldn't have to become cluttered with the details of the map.)
> "A specified subset of players may be deemed to have reached unanimous
> consent on an issue in the same manner as specified in Rule 10, except that
> only players in the specified subset are counted for determining the
> outcome of the proposal."
> (This is just a support rule for the rule below. I think the wording is
> fairly airtight, but it's possible I've missed a loophole somewhere.)
Hmm. I'd be more comfortable if this were called something without the
word "unanimous" in the name. Like, "consent of the subset" or "sectional
consent" or something. So I'm giving a tentative nay.
> "Any player who is found to have intentionally deceived another player
> about the current state of the game may be issued a demerit by unanimous
> consent of the other players."
In principle, I like the idea. In practice, I think that it should be
better defined what it means "to be found to have intentionally deceived
another player". E.g., agreed to have done so by sectional consent of the
_/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_
\<-= firstname.lastname@example.org =->/