Subject: Proposal: Assemblies...

From: "Stefano Artesi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:23:50 +0200

I would like to try this experiment of a voting procedure inside the game...
even if it isn't stated anywhere in the body of this Proposal, obviously the
rest of the Ruleset allows Doc to interfere or to veto any game action;
therefore that point is not stressed in the Proposal. It is not a way to try
to steal power from Doc; it's just an attempt to add a new mechanism to the
game. The Proposal consists of 2 new Rules and the amendment to an existing
Rule (1009, Convergent Views).

Enact a new Rule with the following text:
Ambassadors-
« Every Doctrine may have an Ambassador. The role of Ambassador is not
incompatible with Leadership or High Priesthood. Initially, the Ambassador
of a Doctrine is the Player with the least Points, with ties broken by
Juniority (as opposed to Seniority; the amount of time since a Player most
recently joined the game). The Ambassador is responsible for dealing with
other Doctrines in game actions that require the collaboration, or
interaction, of Doctrines. A Doctrine with no Ambassador cannot take place
in those game actions. Any Leader can override the Ambassador of eir
Doctrine by transferring that role upon any other Player of that Doctrine
(including emself) and invalidating any action performed by the Ambassador
within the next Dun. »

Also, enact a new Rule with the following text:
Assemblies-
« Once every 3 Duns, an Assembly of the Doctrines of all over the world can
be indicted upon request of any Ambassador of any Doctrine. All Ambassadors
automatically join the Assembly when it is indicted. The Assembly can
perform one of the game actions in the list appended to the rule per time.
The standard procedure for performing the game action is the following:
within the first Dun of Assembly, every Ambassador may propose the text of
the specified type declared in the description of the game action. Then all
Ambassadors cast their vote on the proposed text they like most, within the
next 2 Duns. The proposed text with most votes, which must be at least 2,
with ties broken by the earliest sumbission date, is the one chosen for the
purposes of the game action. If no text is chosen, then that game action is
not performed. Finally, Doc performs the necessary changes to the
Ruleset according to the description of the game action. Any procedure
described in the game action list has precedence over this procedure.
List of available game actions:

#Add a Doctrine Action: The text of a new Doctrine Action to be added to
rule 1015 is chosen by the Assembly with the standard procedure.

#Add a new game action to this list: The text of a new game action to be
added to this list is chosen by the Assembly with the standard procedure.»

Finally, amend rule 1009 rectifying the text so that the Players performing
the Merger are not the Doctrine Leaders but the Ambassadors. Then, change
the first condition for the automatic failure of the merger into

« #Both Doctrines have Leaders and Ambassadors. »

Then, add a new item to the properties list of the new Doctrine:

« #The Ambassador of the new Doctrine is the one follower of the Doctrine
with the least points of all followers of the Doctrine.If multiple followers
are tied for the least points, Doc shall randomly pick the new leader from
amognst those tied for the most points. This random selection may be done in
any fashion Doc desires. »

Then, reword the last sentence of the Rule so that it reads:
"The Ambassador and the Leader of the ex-Doctrine that received the proposal
both gain (if they're distinct Players; if not, only once) an additional 5
points."

<end of Proposal, whew!>

Stefano

---

From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:25:47 -0700 (PDT)

> any fashion Doc desires. »

I think that there is a copy/paste problem here. If follower's tie for 
ambassador, you have the text describing how to pick a leader in case of a 
tie.

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

---

From: "Stefano Artesi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:47:39 +0200

> ambassador, you have the text describing how to pick a leader in case of a

Right, my brains seem to have ignored the non-uppercase word... Cough.

Stefano

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 27 Aug 2002 15:17:37 -0400

"Stefano Artesi" <[email-masked]> writes:

REJECTED, mainly because of a few language problems that make some of
the meaning unclear -- also one or two problems with the idea. I'd
like to see a revised version.

> recently joined the game). 

I think I know what you're getting at here, but there are probably
clearer ways to phrase a definition of "Juniority".

> The Ambassador is responsible for dealing with

Last sentence is unclear. I don't *think* you really mean the leader
should say "I want Joe to be the Ambassador, so I hereby transfer the
Ambassador's role to Joe and I hereby invalidate anything Joe does for
the next Dun." Or maybe you do, but what effect does it have for the
Leader to say he invalidates Joe's actions? If the Leader is to have
the power to invalidate an Ambassador's actions, that should be stated
explicitly. And: *any* actions? Or just any actions that are
reserved for Ambassadors?

> « Once every 3 Duns, an Assembly of the Doctrines of all over the world can

"of all the Doctrines of the world" would be better English.

> be indicted upon request of any Ambassador of any Doctrine. 

I don't think "indicted" is the word you want; perhaps "convened".

> All Ambassadors

I think you mean "this rule". Does "can perform one... per time" mean
a particular Assembly can perform only one Action? If so I'd knock
off the words "per time" -- the phrase is unidiomatic and unclear.
Instead, say something like "The Assembly can perform up to one of the
game actions listed below."

I also don't like the phrase "game action" since it's too general a
description of the particular actions you're talking about -- maybe
"assembly action" would be better.

> purposes of the game action. 

I find this a little unclear. Does each ambassador propose one action
with one text? Or is an action (somehow) decided upon and then each
ambassador proposes one text? Or does each ambassador propose one
text for each possible action? I assume the first of these is what
you meant. Clarification is needed (and if the second interpretation
is correct, a means of deciding which action to take is needed).

> If no text is chosen, then that game action is

This latter provision sounds like a recipe for chaos, for instance if
somehow or other an action like this were added:

#Add a Rule: The text of a new Rule to be added to the ruleset is
chosen by the Assembly with the following nonstandard procedure:
Same as the standard procedure, except that the proposed text with
the *fewest* votes is the one chosen for the purposes of the game
action.

Then at an assembly where one Ambassador proposes to add a doctrine
action, and another proposes to add a rule, and the vote is 3 for the
former versus 2 for the latter... what happens?

Also: This rule fails to specify what happens to an Assembly after 3
duns, or after an action is chosen.

> the Merger are not the Doctrine Leaders but the Ambassadors. 

I'd like a more exact specification of how you want to amend 1009 to
accomplish this.

> Then, change

As Jeff points out, you probably meant "pick the new Ambassador from
amongst those tied for the least points."

-- 
- Doc