Hello everyone out there! I thought I would send you a brief note attempting to encapsulate the some of things that have been going on in the moth or so that game 2 has been going on. In the first month (we began Oct 9), we have voted on 53 proposals. 23 passed, 27 failed, another 8 or so are up for vote at this time. There is, contrary to the impressions I received from players of previous nomic games, a distinct possibility that someone may eventually win on points - or at least there would be, if a judgement had not been passed to the effect that the meaning of "achieve" in "achieve a score of N points" is "achieve *exactly*"! I do not intend to offer transcipts from the bulletin board in the game. The archive for game two is already quite enormous (146K - 600 notes or thereabouts), and I can get it to you if you're interested. And, of course, you are all very (*very*) welcome to log in anytime and check out the situation. For those unable to log in, we are still looking into the possibility of play be email. But it will require much work, so don't hold your breath. At a very rough guess, legislation has concentrated generally in 3 areas: scoring (the largest category by far), procedures for proposing and voting on proposals, and dealing with new and old players. Before I deal with the 3 areas, however, it is interesting to note that a similar pattern to that which developed in game 1 developed in game 2 also, seens at the appropriately abstract level of description (if you'll pardon the Hofstadter-like disclaimer -:). In game 1, you will recall, a slow, cautious start to the game was followed by an explosive attempt to break the deadlock. A similar pattern was observed in game 2. In game 1, the deadlock was the result of the unanimity requirement, and it was spectacularly broken by Lindrum's attempts at a constitutional coup d'etat. Game 1 was dissolved in the ensuing crisis. The deadlock in game 2 was caused by a combination of two rules: supermajorities, and what we call the 10-point rule, ie, the rule that awards 10 points to players who vote against proposals that pass. We began with about 15 players. A block of six points-grabbers developed, blocking all proposals, all hoping that one of their number might relent so that they might be rewarded. In the period Friday Oct 9 to Tuesday Oct 20, 9 proposals, most meritorious, either failed, or would clearly do so. My attempt to break this deadlock occurred early Wednesay morning, Oct 21. I offered a points incentive to yes voters in excess of what the 10-point rule offered to vote no. I offered the incentive to players prepared to vote yes to Simple Majorities, and to another proposal that would later be the cause of much confusion and controvesy, Early Decision (which allowed proposals to be tallied before the seven day voting period had elapsed if (i) 3 days had expired, and (ii) enough votes had been cast to *ensure* the proposal either passed or failed, if no player changed their vote. Changing one's vote is permissible in our game.). The game exploded. In the ensuing chaos, 20 further proposals were added in the following 18 hours, many offering fantastic points incentives to vote for them, others proposing to outlaw such activity. Thus, the first and greatest focus of legislative activity has been scoring. After numerous amendments, the scoring situation has been modified considerably from those in the Original Rules. The Prisoner's Dilemma feel of the original situation has been dissolved, to be replaced by a system that rewards "political vision" by intensifying the Bandwagon Effect: it rewards you for voting with proposals that pass, and it rewards you for voting against proposals that fail. Further modifications are in the pipeline. Additionally, a 1 point penalty has been imposed for invoking judgement. The second major area of legislative activity has been modifying the procedures for proposing proposals. A system of seconding has been introduced, wherein a proposal must be scrutinized and publicly approved by a seconder before it can be put to the vote. The role of the seconder is supposed to be to examine the proposal for possible bugs and conflicts with existing rules. There is a points incentive for seconders to do their jobs well: a 2 point bonus to the seconder if a proposal s/he seconds passes, and a 2 point penalty if it fails. Lastly, several proposals have been adopted that deal with the problem of players entering and leaving the game, an area unaddressed by the Original Rules. Basically, loopholes that would have allowed players to avoid penalties by leaving the game and rejoining have been closed. These loopholes are part of a wider challenge to all of us at Nomic World: that of adapting to what is really a very different style of Nomic play than has ever been attempted before. As an example of ther subtleties that that can be involved, I include a post from last week: ------------- 110,219 conflict: vote YES to 1041 (Steve, Oct 30 12:39) I believe that at this time, rule 219 (Win by Paradox) is wholly void and without effect. I therefore believe that it is important that the proposal (1041, by Ilt) to transmute 110 succeed. Here is my reasoning: Rule 110 states that the state of affairs that constitutes winning the game may not be changed from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. However, it makes one specific exception to this: rules which determine a winner when play cannot be continued may be enacted etc. It might appear that this exception allows rule 219 to have its intended effect. However, rule 219 oversteps its authority in this respect since it goes further than just specifying a winner when play cannot continue - it states that a winner may be determined by the judgement of an action to be equally legal and illegal, or an action whose legality cannot be determined with finality. In the Original Rules (Suber's dinner-table version), the discovery of such an action would have stopped play, because of the turn structure of the game. With this new style of game, that is no longer the case. In other words, this conflict is yet another subtle problem arising out of our switch to this form of play. Since 219 specifically mandates the selection of a winner under circumstances explicitly prohibited by 110, I claim that 219 is currently wholly void and without effect. Since I think that 219 is a fantastic rule, I think 110 ought to be amended to allow a winner to be determined when an action is judged equally legal and illegal, or when its legality cannot be determined with finality. Fortunately, Ilt has already (on Oct 27) proposed to transmute 110. I previously opposed its transmutation. I now support it, and hope that you will do likewise: otherwise, one of the most interesting facets of the game, winning by paradox, will disappear from our game. ------------------- The only other area which requires comment is that of judicial reform. Lindrum's crisis introduced to game 2 a strikingly different conception of Judgement. Instead of the sweeping powers judges enjoyed in game 1, judges in game 2 have been restricted to declaring certain propositions to be either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. Judgements have been explicitly restricted to decisions about game-custom, the interpretation of terms within rules and such. Judgements are not rules and may not conflict with rules. So far, this new system has worked very well, I believe. At this time, a proposal to extend the scope of judgements to answer YES/NO questions is being voted upon. To conclude, it has been a wonderful first month. I have enjoyed playing this game immensely, and always look forward to logging in to find out what's been going on. It will be fascinating to see where we go from here. ******************************************************************************* * __ ___ ___ \ / ___ | * * *|__ | |__ \ / |__ | * "Open the pod bay doors, please, Hal." * *___| | |___ \/ |___ o * * *gardner@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au* * *******************************************************************************