Subject: Re: Simplex: Up for another iteration?
From: Mueller <>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 02:01:36

At 01:49 AM 9/13/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Well, as you probably noticed, I effectively threw in the towel in my
>>previous message.
>Actually, I hadn't noticed that message when I wrote this. The problem
>with Nomic (for me, at least) is that it takes so damn long to right a
>good, coherant, but detailed message before some developement makes your
>observations obsolete.

The major problem with other nomics I've seen is that they are very slow!

We developed a quick game (even if it is falling apart)


>>I would question the ability of any claim of a paradox win as that could
>>be >overturned by a 115 action.
>I don't think that this is the case. Actions permitted under 115 cannot
>touch processes already regulated by law, such as paradox win, RFJ's, etc.
But what if we created a skooba system that was more powerful than the Laws
and then used that system to modify the laws.

I have a sinking feeling that the Eternal Anarchy can infect everything by
stepping away from the game 115 which is permitted, and then back towards
it without worrying about even 115's limited restrictions.

>>In response to the subject's question, I am currently engaged in the
>>process of designing a rule set that (1) first creates an epistemology,
>>then (2) uses this to create the a fairly normal ruleset.
>>When its finished I will post it to be torn apart.
>I almost agree with Tom's pessimism to the extent that we may have a rule
>set which is so badly flawed that it can't be repaired within the game. I
>am not yet entirely convinced that this is the case, but I certianly agree
>that it would be a lot simpler just to go outside the game, fix this
>problem, and start over. I am very interested in seeing Tom's efforts in
>this direction.

It uses a lot of the concepts involved in my thingies except that I expect
it to be totally decetralized (with only somthing along the lines of an
office of random events).