Subject: DocNomic redux

From: [email-masked]
Date: 07 Jun 2001 14:31:37 -0400

Doc issues the following Proclamations:

1. By order of Doc, Round 1 is over and Round 2 has begun.

2. As none of the Players achieved any specified method of becoming
the Winner, by order of Doc the Player with the largest total Body
and Soul Points is the Winner of Round 1. That Player is Kevan.

3. The Ruleset has been trimmed back heavily to a "new initial" set.
See
<http://web.syr.edu/~rsholmes/games/nomic/docnomic/doc_init.html>.
Most of the text derives from the amended versions of the Round 1
initial rules, but with some notable adjustments. Read with care. 

4. The Gamestate has been adjusted in accordance with the above. All
Players have been removed from the Players List; anyone interested
in playing should sign up anew as described in the Rules.

Doc also issues the following Directives:

1. Rules which promote a steady but moderate game pace, as contrasted
with the extremely rapid pace seen at times in Round 1, are
solicited. 

2. Players are encouraged, although not required, to contempate
connotations of the word "doc" other than "medical doctor" in
developing a theme for this round. For that matter, a theme having
nothing to do with the word "doc" would be fine.

Let the game (re)begin!

-- 
- Doc

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:46:34 -0400 (EDT)

Proposal:

When a player submits eir first Proposal, e will recieve 10 Points, after
which e will have his points reduced by 1 point for every additional
Proposal e submits. This rule superceeds the provision in rule #8
regarding staring points and is retroactively applied to all current
players.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 07 Jun 2001 17:24:34 -0400

> Proposal:
[...]

Welcome to the game -- you've been added to the Player List.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 08 Jun 2001 13:43:37 -0400

> regarding staring points and is retroactively applied to all current

REJECTED. I have no problem with the basic idea. But there are
several technical defects -- easily remedied, but you should be aware
these things will make a proposal conducive to rejection:

(1) What is this? A new rule? An amendment? A proposal ought to say
"Create a new rule..." or "Amend rule <n>..." or something along
those lines. This looks kind of like a new rule, but it speaks of
superceding Rule 8. And the proper way to supercede a rule is by
amending it. And if this is a new rule, it ought to have a number
and a title.

(2) Speaking of superceding, that's how you spell it. And "receive".
And "starting". And if you're using Spivak pronouns, you might as
well be consistent: "eir points" not "his points". No, I wouldn't
reject a proposal solely because of a few misspellings and typos.
But they might push a marginal proposal over the line.

(3) While the ruleset does not prohibit retroactively applied rules, I
dislike them.

-- 
- Doc