nomic: Pre-Game Agreement

Cyrano (

cyranocyrano) wrote in

nomic,
@ 2002-06-01 11:42:00

Pre-Game Agreement
My proposal, to avoid the languishing between turns from last game:

(1) When input is required from a single player (as opposed to a group, such as a call to vote) if there is a delay of seven days without the input, the requirement for that input is waived. (ie: If the input required is a new rule suggestion, turn moves to the next player who then suggests a new rule.)

(2) When a New Rule Suggestion has been under discussion for seven days without posted input, it shall be considered open to a vote.

(3) When a New Rule Suggestion has been Open to a Vote for fourteen days and still failed to collect the complete complement of votes, all silent votes shall be considered abstentions and counted as negative votes.

(4) Any player using pictures of coyotes as 'userpics' shall receive a bonus 2 points every round because coyotes are so cool.

There. Is that hopelessly naive of me? Have I left any glaring loopholes or obviously neglected facets?

(Post a new comment)

ravenblack
2002-06-01 12:45 (link)

Hm, surely you can't have a "pre-game agreement" for a Nomic? The whole point is that what happens is dictated by the rules. As modifications to the starting ruleset, however, I would agree with this suggestion (though I'd be inclined to lower the 14-day thing to 7 as well, and suggest that any player who misses a prompt be considered 'away' (and thus have their subsequent turns and votes omitted without the lengthy wait) until they state otherwise).

And obviously it should be coyotes or corvidae, in the fourth section. A careless omission on your part.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	cyranocyrano 2002-06-01 13:06 (link)
	Point yielded, perhaps, to rename it a 'pre-first-turn rule set modification'? And certainly coyotes or corvidae, the points being extended to any of the traditional trickster figures. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	9thmoon 2002-06-01 13:44 (link)
	Oh, then, pretty girls count, too, right? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cyranocyrano 2002-06-01 13:46 (link)
	I'm always willing to give bonus points to hot babes. I propose an inverse ratio award to the amount of clothing they're wearing. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	9thmoon 2002-06-01 13:55 (link)
	(glancing down at my black silk bathrobe) I win. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cyranocyrano 2002-06-01 13:57 (link)
	Well yes, but given this example so do I. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Larry "America's Most Ineligible Bachelor" Gilbert

l2g
2002-06-01 14:12 (link)

"Hm, surely you can't have a 'pre-game agreement' for a Nomic?"

Mr. Suber's own thoughts on the subject:

The Initial [Rule] Set must be sufficiently short and simple to encourage play, but sufficiently long and complex to cover contingencies likely to arise before the players get around to providing for them in a rule. It also needs a certain complexity to prevent any single rule-change from disrupting the continuity of the game. Whether my Initial Set satisfies these competing interests I leave to players to decide. Players who think not may wish to change the Initial Set before play rather than rely on amendments during play. They will then play "constitutional convention" more than "legislation".

Based on the experience of the first game, the majority of us decided that Mr. Suber's initial set was in fact unsatisfactory. The main goal of deciding on new rules before the game begins is to head off the situation that came up in the last game, which was the game grinding to a halt because one player simply stopped playing.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cyranocyrano 2002-06-01 14:14 (link)
	So, G, do you have an opinion on how my suggestions address this problem? Do you have ideas for improvements? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: l2g 2002-06-01 14:56 (link)
	They are all fine except for number 4. ;-) As far as I'm concerned, the only thing left to determine (after everyone agrees) is whether to make them separate rules or to work them into the wording of existing rules. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cyranocyrano 2002-06-01 15:03 (link)
	As far as I'm concerned, we should strongly consider this as at least the first suggestion at the beginning of every game. If we play this game through and there aren't gaping holes in them, we should consider them as Chapter Canon. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: l2g 2002-06-02 12:25 (link)
	Yes, what I would like to see us do is draw up a new Initial Set of rules that closes the major loophole exposed in the last game. Then we can use that Initial Set for subsequent games unless new unacceptable loopholes pop up. (Reply to this) (Parent)

ravenblack
2002-06-01 19:08 (link)

I wasn't objecting to a start-of-game ruleset at all, but to a mere agreement. Perhaps I was interpreting uncharitably - I don't know the players here well enough to judge whether they know what they're doing or not.

Incidentally, while we're on the subject of getting the initial ruleset down sensibly, something that could really do with a modification before we begin; where it says that the first batch of proposals pass if they get a unanimous vote, it should really specify a unanimous positive vote. Ah, the temptation to not mention this and then propose something outrageous, voting against it myself so as to ensure it would get a unanimous agreement...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: l2g 2002-06-02 12:33 (link)
	Webster's definition of "unanimous" includes "having the agreement and consent of all". I don't think a negative vote qualifies as consent...? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ravenblack
2002-06-02 12:50 (link)

In its *second* definition, yes. The first definition just says 'agreeing', which is in keeping with my suggested loophole and with the more common usage. So my play would perhaps be equally legal and illegal, and would result in collapse of the game, unless a Judge were to decide that definition 2 was the only correct one. Surely better to just make the starting ruleset not rely on the assumption of a less common definition of a word?

(I would submit to your argument after game start, just because my argument is an obnoxious one, but since we're pre-starting-ruleset here, I think it's a good time to bulletproof things as much as possible.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ravenblack
2002-06-01 20:50 (link)

Also up for clarification would be the rules about each player casting one vote - it's not specified what the available options are. Is it just FOR/AGAINST? Is it FOR/ABSTAIN/AGAINST? It strikes me that you might do better to rewrite the rules from scratch such that they apply only to livejournal-style play, and apply succinctly and sensibly. As it is there are a bunch of unnecessary clauses about modes of play which this game isn't, and, presumably, won't become. Unless the starting rules have changed since I looked at them, without anyone mentioning it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re:

l2g
2002-06-02 12:47 (link)

If I may presume to speak for the others, at least those who played the first game... We've been taking the tack of starting with Suber's Initial Set and making the minimum number of rule changes necessary to facilitate play while closing obvious loopholes. I really don't want to see us rewrite the rules from the ground up, nor do I think it's necessary.

Suber's Initial Set gives what I think is an unambiguous implication that votes must be for or against. From rule 105: "Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes." Abstaining is the opposite of participating.

Of course, it was this very issue that tripped us up in the past game. One player stopped playing, and the rules did not adequately address what should happen in that situation. So in that sense, you are right--we need to spell out what it means to abstain, and how things should proceed if someone abstains.

cyranocyrano's suggestions are an effort to address this.

(I can already see that you're going to be a formidable competitor.) ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ravenblack
2002-06-02 13:02 (link)

Ach. No, no I won't be. I had forgotten just how much I hated Nomics starting with the Suber ruleset until its usual issues have started being raised. It's clumsy, poorly-phrased, relies on a whole lot of unwritten assumptions being made by all, and writes a whole lot of things that don't need to be written ("All players must abide by the rules" - if anyone thought this wasn't the case, they can ignore this one just as well as they could any other, so what good does it do?).

I've been spoiled by custom Nomic-likes, I'm afraid. I find the Suber framework quite unusable by comparison - and doubly so in an online game for which it wasn't designed. I must retract my statement of intent to play before I become unnecessarily irritated by it all.

(Abstaining is not the opposite of participating - *not voting* is the opposite of participating. Abstention is an active thing.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Navigate: