Subject: Directive: The question of atheism

From: [email-masked]
Date: 17 Jun 2002 11:03:42 -0400

After having accepted the proposals that created Rules 1001 and 1002,
I noticed they suffer from related flaws.

Rule 1001 states:

Each player must follow one and only one Doctrine at all times. If
at any time a player is not following a Doctrine, they may either
create a Doctrine by posting its name to the mailing list, or choose
another player's Doctrine to also follow by posting their intention
to do so to the mailing list. A player who is not following a
Doctrine cannot submit proposals.

The first sentence conflicts with the rest of the paragraph. If a
player "must follow one and only one Doctrine at all times" then e
cannot be a player who "is not following a Doctrine". 

Rule 1002 states:

A player may cease to follow their current choice of doctrine by
announcing their intention to do so to the list.

This again conflicts with the first sentence of Rule 1001, unless the
player immediately subscribes to a different doctrine, a requirement
not stated in 1002.

Directive: Either the first sentence of 1001 has got to go, or some
other reconciliation is needed.

Actually there's one consistent interpretation of the situation with
Rule 1001, which is that everyone *was* following a Doctrine in the
first place, and just didn't know it. In that case the Doctrines
since created are illegal (since Doctrines can be created only by a
Doctrineless Player, which cannot exist). Rule 1002 is still
problematic even in that interpretation. Anyway, I think it's less
ugly to simply say (1) Those players who have not subscribed to a
Doctrine are now in violation of Rule 1001, for which however no
penalty is mandated and (2) Rule 1002 can't be applied since Rule 1001
conflicts and has precedence.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:55:40 -0700 (PDT)

I hereby join Goateus' "Doctrine of the easily
influenced." Which, I believe, makes me the 
longest subscriber to that Doctrine, by the 
way. Another side effect of the 
"create xor join" issue.

--- Doc wrote:
> After having accepted the proposals that created
> Rules 1001 and 1002, I noticed they suffer from
> related flaws.
>
> [snip]
>
> Actually there's one consistent interpretation of
> the situation with Rule 1001, which is that everyone
> *was* following a Doctrine in the first place, and
> just didn't know it. In that case the Doctrines
> since created are illegal (since Doctrines can be
> created only by a Doctrineless Player, which cannot
> exist). Rule 1002 is still problematic even in that
> interpretation. Anyway, I think it's less ugly to
> simply say (1) Those players who have not subscribed
> to a Doctrine are now in violation of Rule 1001, for
> which however no penalty is mandated and (2) Rule
> 1002 can't be applied since Rule 1001 conflicts and
> has precedence.

Another interpretation (mine, at least) was that the
rule was written in expectation that people would 
come up with ways to stop following Doctrines. 
Therefore, this rule should have to cover other ways
of
of getting a new Doctrine. Rule 1001 states a "must"
condition, and then offers ways to come into
compliance
with that condition.

A possible resolution would be to change Rule 1001
by adding the following sentence after the first 
sentence:

"By default, and until they state otherwise, any
player who has not declared that they follow a
Doctrine
is following the Doctrine of 'Laziness unto Excess'."

Then, modify the sentence that starts "If at any 
time..." to say the following:

"If, through some circumstance allowed by the Rules, 
a Player is not following any Doctrine, they are 
automatically considered to be following the Doctrine 
of 'Laziness unto Excess'. Players may create 
Doctrines by announcing so to the mailing list. 
Players may join any properly-created Doctrines 
by announcing so to the mailing list."

It's a bit redundant, but should cover all the 
bases pretty well. This, therefore, is my next 
proposal.

fnord

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:00:24 +0100

Proposal - The Answer to Atheism

Replace the first paragraph of Rule 1001 with:-

A variety of Doctrines are being peddled in the world of DocNomic. Each
Player must either follow a single Doctrine, or follow no Doctrine at all.
(Players start the game without a Doctrine.)

If a Player has not already done so during the game, he or she may create
a new Doctrine by declaring this fact and its name to the mailing list.

If a Proposal is made by a Player who is not following a Doctrine, that
Proposal is automatically ignored.

Add the following paragraph to the top of Rule 1002, and rename that Rule
to "Indoctrination / Outdoctrination":-

If a Player is not following a Doctrine, they may choose to follow an
existing Doctrine by announcing this intention to the mailing list.

And, for tidiness, replace "reduced by half. In the case that this would
result in their point total being a fraction then it will be rounded
down to the nearest whole number" with "halved (rounding down)", in that
Rule.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 Jun 2002 10:25:05 -0400

> way. Another side effect of the 

OK. Hmm, guess I should make the join date part of the gamestate,
even though it's not described as such.

> bases pretty well. This, therefore, is my next 

ACCEPTED.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 Jun 2002 10:32:18 -0400

> down to the nearest whole number" with "halved (rounding down)", in that

REJECTED, solely because Michael (fnord (Pope Thomas)) got there
first.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 Jun 2002 10:37:08 -0400

> even though it's not described as such.

Note that everyone who has not already joined a Doctrine is now
considered to have joined Laziness Unto Excess simultaneously, at the
moment this amendment was enacted.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:38:05 +0100

> REJECTED, solely because Michael (fnord (Pope Thomas)) got there

Oh, I must have read that conversational "This, therefore, is my next
proposal." as "This, therefore, will be my next proposal." - careless.

(Goateus and I should both have received ten Points for his successful
Proposal, incidentally.)

Kevan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 Jun 2002 10:56:37 -0400

> (Goateus and I should both have received ten Points for his successful

Indeed, I was about to do that. Likewise Michael for his (no one else
in his Doctrine though.)

-- 
- Doc