Subject: Proposal, Merger, and Question

From: "Tyrethali Ansrath" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:40:48 -0400

Proposal "Who are we racing?"

Amend the second sentence of rule 1006 to read "The Leading Doctrine is the 
Doctrine with the greatest Influence."

Amend the second sentence of rule 1007 to read "The Influence of a doctrine 
will be equal to the points total of the doctrine's leader."

(end proposal)

The first bit is because, we have something like Influence, and it seems 
natural to have it determine the Leading Doctrine. The second is because, 
having the Influence adjusted by one point per player really has no effect 
on the game worth the space of that clause in the ruleset. The mere fact 
that the other players, if active, should be submitting proposals and thus 
raising the leader's score, will be enough to seperate large, active 
doctrines from smaller, apathetic ones. And it's more elegant, in my humble 
opinion.

Either way that proposal goes, now that I'm active again, I'm proposing a 
Merger between Semantic Solipsism and Error 404 / Doctrine Not Found. 
Because neither of those names are nearly long enough by themselves, 
obviously.

Oh, one question for the Doc which I just thought about. If a Extremist 
Doctrine follower submits a trivial proposal which is accepted, would they 
and their comrades still get the 5 points? The rules seem to indicate they 
would, and I would like to know if that's a correct interpretation or not.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

---

From: Sir Toby <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:32:23 -0700 (PDT)

> Because neither of those names are nearly long enough by themselves, 

As the leader of Error 404 / Doctrine Not Found, I agree to this proposed
merger.

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 11 Jul 2002 11:20:50 -0400

> will be equal to the points total of the doctrine's leader."

OK. +15 points to Tyrethali.

> Because neither of those names are nearly long enough by themselves, 

OK. The new doctrine is "Semantic Solipsism - Error 404 / Doctrine Not
Found". Members are Jeff Weston, Tyrethali. Precepts are Open,
Extremism, Strong-Minded. Leader is (1 = Jeff, 2 = Tyrethali):

1 random int 1 <= x <= 2:
2

Tyrethali. +20 to Tyrethali, +25 to Jeff.

> would, and I would like to know if that's a correct interpretation or not.

That's how I read it. Rule 3 says

A Proposal may be declared as "Trivial" if its Proposer feels that
it is a minor change to the Ruleset and thus unworthy of reward or
other consequence.

but that doesn't mean it doesn't result in any reward or other
consequence. Rule 1003, "Extremism" doesn't exempt trivial proposals
for the 5 point gain (or loss, if rejected). Another consequence that
isn't exempted is the qualification to be an active player.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:32:36 +0100

> isn't exempted is the qualification to be an active player.

Not really sure how bad or realistically-scammable this is, but it seems out of 
keeping with the intention of Trivial Proposals. So:-

----

Proposal - Trivial Extremity

Throughout the Precept "Extremism", replace the string "a proposal" with "a non-
Trivial Proposal".

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:35:22 +0100

> Throughout the Precept "Extremism", replace the string "a proposal" with "a
> non-Trivial Proposal".

Oops, that was supposed to be a Trivial Proposal. Although it seems I 
can "declare" it as such at any time, so I'll do that now. 

Cough cough,

Kevan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 11 Jul 2002 13:51:38 -0400

> Throughout the Precept "Extremism", replace the string "a proposal" with "a non-

OK.

Your request to regard this as trivial is accepted.

-- 
- Doc