The WikiNomicRuleset has no provisions for Points of Order, Judgements, or whatever you choose to call the process by which the legality of an action may be questioned. In fact, given that anyone can simply nullify any such action by editing the relevant page, such a formal process is not required.
Yet I feel it might be best to, at least, request input on the subject before doing such a thing.
I therefore call the players' attention to the old rule:
- Whenever a player has more titles than any other player, he gets automatically the Title KingOfWikiNomia, which is a Title by itself. If another player is holding the title KingOfWikiNomia at this time, this persons loses the title KingOfWikiNomia.
- Only the KingOfWikiNomia is allowed to change the MapOfWikiNomia.
Note, however, the provisions of the Rules rule:
- Anyone may change the rules or gamestate to anything as long as it doesn't prevent, unreasonably restrict, or unequally restrict the rule/gamestate changing privileges of all players.
The KingOfWikiNomia rule, it seems to me, unequally restricts the gamestate changing privileges of the players. Thus these two rules conflict. There is no explicit provision in the WikiNomicRuleset for resolving rule conflicts, but in this case I think it's obvious that the older rule should take precedence over the newer.
I therefore call for the KingOfWikiNomia rule to be amended or repealed. Comments?
[Added later:? Hmm, I'm not so sure of my own argument now. After all, we already have things like the MysteriousCheerleaders who can be manipulated to enable Players or Teams to get one more Action than they would otherwise; arguably that's exactly the same sort of inequality in the ability to change the gamestate. Yet a game that doesn't allow any sort of variation in what different Wikit players can do would be quite dull.
So have I talked us all around in a circle? Or is there some fundamental difference that makes the MysteriousCheerleaders OK but the KingOfWikiNomia not OK?
- RichHolmes, 16 Mar 2001
The Mysterious Cheerleaders don't actually restrict anyone, they simply grant privileges towards a select class of people.
Anyway, the key word here is, I think, "unreasonably".
- Tyrethali, 17 Mar 2001
No... the phrase is
- prevent, unreasonably restrict, or unequally restrict
i.e. prevent or unreasonably restrict or unequally restrict. Unequal restrictions don't have to be unreasonable to run afoul of this -- unequal is sufficient.
And while the MysteriousCheerleaders themselves do not restrict anything, they do loosen a restriction -- that you can take only five actions a day -- for some players but not for others. That turns an equal restriction into something that might be viewed as an unequal one.
So do we have a conflict here, and if so, how do we fix it?
Sheesh, it's my language, it'd be nice if I knew what the hell I meant.
- RichHolmes, 19 Mar 2001
Hm, maybe it's time to establish a loose "Proposal" system after all. A section in each Rule page containing proposed ideas, which any Player apart from their Proposer can enact, or something.
- Kevan, 19 Mar 2001
I think that would be a good idea Kevan. However, I suggest first resolving the current problem we have.
Reading the rules, I would say that the KingOfWikiNomia rule definitely is in conflict with the original basic rule. Unfortunately, I think the MysteriousCheerleaders is as well. And I don't want ending up in writing rules like
- Nobody is allowed to change the MapOfWikiNomia
and
- The KingOfWikiNomia is in exception to the above rule allowed to change the MapOfWikiNomia
with which I would achieve an unequal loosening of restrictions, like in the MysteriousCheerleaders rule.
I would rather suggest changing the rule which prevents unequal restrictions, because this restricts us too much in inventing new rules. I think the original intent of this rules was to prevent rules like:
- Only Kash is allowed to change the MapOfWikiNomia
This, of course would not make any sense.
- Kash, 19 Mar 2001
Well, in my opinion, it's not unequal, as there is an equal chance that the cheerleaders will chant for any given team. Granted, at any specific one point it time, the cheerleaders will be chanting for a specific team, but the rule itself doesn't differentiate. As a hopefully relevant analogy, in Monopoly the rules treat all players equally, but some will still come out ahead in cash and property. That's, at least, in my humble opinion. To me, it's all just a game anyway, and quibbling over the fine text of who gets to alter the big ascii drawing defeats the purpose of having fun. Unless you enjoy that kind of stuff. In which case, feel free.
- Tyrethali, 20 Mar 2001
Oh, well. Actually, I don't really care about this rule, and because it is allowed by the rules, I just removed the KingOfWikiNomia rule again. It seems to me that most people did not like the rule, anyhow.
However, I don't really understand your argument, Tyrethali, and in order to prevent similar mistakes of my part in the future I ask you to clarify.
To me, the KingOfWikiNomia rule did not make an unequal rule to begin with, as it's exactly similar to the cheerleaders rule. Granted, at any specific one point in time, there is only one player which is allowed to change the map, but this player may change. The rule does not differentiate.
Could you please explain me the difference?
- Kash, 20 Mar 2001
From my point of view I'm not sure there is a significant difference, and I'm not sure whether that means the King rule is (was) OK or the Cheerleaders rule is not OK. ("OK" here meaning "not in conflict with the Rules rule", not "good in some abstract sense".)
There is a difference in that any player may change what the Cheerleaders are saying (once a day, at a cost) so that eir team will benefit. On the other hand, since one is not supposed to grant titles to oneself, if you're not the King there's not much you can do about it. Well, you can unbestow titles on the King and everyone else, I suppose...
But is that a sufficient difference, or just a difference of degree? My gut feeling is that the Cheerleaders rule is fair (here I am talking about "good in some abstract sense", regardless of what the Rules rule says) -- since it gives a small benefit which is available to either team; that a rule of the form "Whoever has the Flag is the Emperor of WikiNomic; no one but the Emperor is allowed to change the rules or the gamestate" is unfair -- since it gives total power to one person and allows no mechanism for anyone else to have access to that power; and the KingOfWikiNomia rule is, um, somewhere in between.
So what I'm trying to come to grips with is whether or not the Rules rule is too restrictive in its prohibition of unequal restrictions, and if so, how to rewrite it to permit Cheerleaders while not permitting Emperors.
All this and building a wall too -- I tell ya, I got a lot to handle here...
- RichHolmes, 20 Mar 2001
Mm, this sort of thing confounds me. A Proposal system would be a passable solution, of course, but it seems that if our brains are capable of deciding whether a rule-change is "fair" or not, we should be able to express that decision in text form somehow.
But how would a Rule be able to compare "Players other than TheScribe? may only change the Ruleset once per day" to "Players other than TheScribe? may only change the Ruleset once every 4,000 years", without an exhaustive list of Player rights ("Players must always be able to change the Ruleset at least once per day, changing at least one paragraph, using their native language, without having to go via other Web sites..."). I suppose such rights are intuitive to a human brain, but would be hard to generalise in rule form. Hmm.
- Kevan, 22 Mar 2001
I don't think I should have the right to make rules in my native language, as then I'm probably the only one who is actually able to read them. Actually my native language is not even supposed to be written.
I think the only passable solution is to go with a proposal system. While rights might be intuitive to a human brain, they are probably different for everyone. Therefore, assuming we have a working proposal system, we should get fine rules. Maybe I make a proposal for a proposal system today.
- Kash, 22 Mar 2001