Subject: joining message and addition to precepts

From: "Stefano Artesi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:45:12 +0200

Hello all, I would like to join this round of DocNomic. I have been a player
in Round 3 under the pseudonym of Steppen Ling, but I guess you won't
remember me (partly because I was posting when many players were Inactive
and the Round was closed shortly). I'd like to drop that handle anyway, so
call me just 'Stefano'.

I have been following this round from the beginning but didn't join promptly
because I was playing in another Nomic which is currently suspended for
summer vacations. (it's an Italian Nomic,
http://web.tiscali.it/pmassio/dn2/index.htm) Having decided to do one thing
at a time, now I can follow more closely this game.

Let's start with the real stuff.

I would like to create the Doctrine "Followers of the White Rabbit".

I would like to join the Doctrine of "Fundamentalist Cthuluh Worship".

I would like to create a new precept:

"Closed

Players cannot abandon a Doctrine with this Precept. This has
precedence over rules determining how to leave Doctrines."

Stefano

P.S. There's a printing-error in Tyrethali's Doctrine name. It should be
"Solipsism" (I guess)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 20 Jun 2002 10:39:32 -0400

> and the Round was closed shortly). I'd like to drop that handle anyway, so

OK.

> I would like to create the Doctrine "Followers of the White Rabbit".

OK.

> I would like to join the Doctrine of "Fundamentalist Cthuluh Worship".

OK.

> precedence over rules determining how to leave Doctrines."

OK.

> P.S. There's a printing-error in Tyrethali's Doctrine name. It should be

Tyrethali asked for Solipism, he gets Solipism. It's his Doctrine.

On the other hand, I assume you really want to join Fundamentalist
Cthulhu Worship.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 20 Jun 2002 10:41:12 -0400

> precedence over rules determining how to leave Doctrines."

But does it take precedence over other Precepts?

Directive: Address this.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 20 Jun 2002 11:01:40 -0400

> precedence over rules determining how to leave Doctrines."

On second thought, not OK. Rule 1004 says this can be done. However,
Rule 1003 says the available precepts are Open and Extremism; creating
a new precept without amending Rule 1003 would create a
contradiction. Since Rule 1003 takes precedence, Rule 1004 is
inapplicable. 

Directive: Address this.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 20 Jun 2002 11:15:06 -0400

> contradiction. Since Rule 1003 takes precedence, Rule 1004 is

By the way, Rule 1003 was amended after Stefano posted his precept
creation. So 1004 now has the earlier enactment date and now has
precedence, so precepts can be created via its mechanism now.
Needless to say, this is still ugly and merits repair.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:44:47 +0100

Proposal: Preceptual Precedence

Two interconnected birds, one stone.

Reword Rule 6 (Precedence) to:-

When two or more sentences in the Ruleset conflict, the more
specific one takes precedence. Where two conflicting sentences
are equally specific, the one that appears earliest in the
Ruleset takes precedence.

{ This automatically covers "This Rule takes precedence over" stuff,
because such sentences are more specific than the above rule. }

Reword Rule 1004 (Creating Precepts) to:-

Any Player, provided they have no done so within the last dun, may
suggest a new Precept by posting it to the mailing list. Such a Precept
may only enforce or restrict certain actions on the part of the Players
who follow the Doctrines which have them. Precepts made in this manner
may not force or permit players to do anything otherwise illegal. (For
example, gaining points in a manner unspecified by normal rules.)

Precepts suggested in this manner shall, if valid, be added to Rule
1003 by Doc. They do not become actual Precepts until the Rule is
updated.

---

From: Sir Toby <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:47:35 -0700 (PDT)

> But does it take precedence over other Precepts?

Do the rules allow a precept to take precedence over the rules? That seems 
pretty powerful for something that Doc doesn't have to accept or reject.

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

---

From: Sir Toby <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:51:55 -0700 (PDT)

> Needless to say, this is still ugly and merits repair.

What is the enactment date? The only dates I see applied to rules in the 
ruleset are Proposed, Accepted, and Amendment Proposed dates. Which one of 
the several dates listed for a particular rule is the enactment date?

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

---

From: Sir Toby <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:56:49 -0700 (PDT)

> Ruleset takes precedence.

Eek! This sounds like a precedence nightmare.

> 1003 by Doc. They do not become actual Precepts until the Rule is

Why add this additional method to create precepts? One could simply
propose an amendment to 1003 instead. In reality, I would rather have the
list of precepts be a part of the gamestate.

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 20 Jun 2002 16:40:52 -0400

> the several dates listed for a particular rule is the enactment date?

See Rule 0.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 21 Jun 2002 10:48:52 -0400

> pretty powerful for something that Doc doesn't have to accept or reject.

It does, doesn't it? When I accepted the "easy precepts" rule I
overlooked the fact that it doesn't enter the new precepts into the
ruleset. For now, though, it's a moot point.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 21 Jun 2002 11:05:51 -0400

> Eek! This sounds like a precedence nightmare.

I am aware that some other Nomics have taken an approach like this. I
dislike it, though:

(1) "specific" isn't. It's vague.

(2) I don't like "sentences" as the basis for conflict resolution. It
is not hard to come up with examples of sentence A conflicting
with the combination of sentence B and sentence C without
conflicting with either, e.g. "There is one woman in the boat. A
woman named Mary is in the front of the boat. A woman named Edna
is in the back of the boat." And what about the rules that say
e.g. "This paragraph takes precedence over Rule 12"? Arguably the
only effect of such a statement would be to create a conflict
between itself and the rewritten Rule 6. It certainly would not
protect other sentences in the rule.

> list of precepts be a part of the gamestate.

I would rather not, since precepts are more rule-like than data-like.
And in particular, what's the precedence status of precepts vs. other
precepts vs. rules? At least if they're in the ruleset, the ruleset's
precedence rule has something to say, if not enough.

Kevan's proposal is REJECTED.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 21 Jun 2002 11:17:57 -0400

Oh, and -10 points to Kevan for more than one proposal in a dun.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: "Stefano Artesi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:47:49 +0200

> On the other hand, I assume you really want to join Fundamentalist

Yes, of course. One can never be safe withj typoz!

Stefano