Subject: Re: Nomic game
From: Mueller <>
Date: Monday, September 7, 1998 02:21:48

At 10:37 PM 9/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Before discussing actual provisions if I could suggest that instead of
>>Secretary of State, which implies to me relations with other nomics, some
>>other name. Maybe Secretary, Secretariat, or Recorder if your into a
>>functional description, or pretty much anything else if you want to be a
>>bit silly: Chief, Poobah, Most High, etc.
>I rather like Secretary of State, besides, I've go t a bunch of stuff
>rapped around it as of now. But waht about Minister of State, or
>something to that effect? I like minister better than Secreatary any way.
> I like British things... I don't know why, but I do.

Make it minister then, the real problem I had was the "of state" part which
implies the existance of other states (read other nomics) to deal with.

>>Secondly, 209 seems to me to be unnecessary. Either leave it up to the
>>courts, or just prevent everyone from trying this.
>If I don't explicitly state those actions to be illegal, then they are
>legal by 115, so it is necessary to keep me from abusing my position as
>Secretary of State by making such a rule. Not that I'm predisposed to
>abusing it, but hey, if it is legal, I'll certainly do it! :)

I think this is a bad interpretation. It implies that whatever is not
explicitly prohibited is permitted. This is a dangerous precedent as
demonstarted by the first cycle win of Internomic (see ). I think a better
interpretation is that things which are regulated (like rule creation and
points) can only be modified in the regulated way. If we leave rule 115
in, I think a valid case could be made that the rules implied the former
interpretation, lending credence to this interpretation. Make the rules
and points and such clear, then extra-rule manipulation is imposible by the
regulatory interpretation.

>>Fifth, does the term "transaction" in 201 mean that points trading is
>Yup. I want to encourage points to be like a money system, however I
>purposly had points useless at first.

Does this mean that we can give point gifts like we can give money gifts?
If so, I think the wording would permit negative points to be gifted.

>>Finally, unless the term constitution gives rules special dispensation in
>>the game, I think that Rule 101 should simply read "All players must always
>>abide by the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in
>>effect. The term "rule" as used in the rules means any member of the set of
>>statements in this document, existing here since the beginning of the game
>>or due to the implementation of rules subsequent to the start of the game."
>I see your point. I'll work these two together to make it cover what I
>intended, and what it should.

I was thinking that the rules violation clause should be either lef tout as
unnecessary or minimally included with the rest of the judging system for
ease of reading and later editing.

>>>>Also, we should think of a good name to differentiate our instance of
>>>>from other instances.
>Simplex... not bad. Maybe it should be up to a vote? Before
>ratification, we should collect name ideas from everyone, vote on it, and
>make it a 213?

Put it in 101 to make it solid and part of the very definition of the rules
(I've been giving a lot of thought to Nomic takeover tricks and I think
this might be important.)

>I like Simplex, but let's not jump to renaming, I don't
>want to have to keep retyping it everytime a better one is come up with in
>the next week.

Who else has responded with an interest in joining? (WHo might be
suggesting names as well?)