Subject: Proposal: Letterhead

From: "Micheal Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 17:49:45 -0000

I propose the following modifications.

Modify Rule 1001 as follows:

Replace the second paragraph with the following paragraph:

Each Document is printed on paper. Some documents are printed on 
high quality Letterhead paper which proudly displays "DocNomic" at 
the top, while the rest are printed on poor quality Coloured paper - 
either White, Pink, Green, Yellow or Blue. A Document's paper 
quality and colour are part of the Gamestate. Newly-created 
Documents may not be written on Letterhead, and are White unless 
their creator specifies otherwise.

Replace the text "its current Location and Colour are noted" with the 
text "its current Location, Quality and Color are noted".

Modify all Fundamental Rules by adding the following statement to 
each of them:

This Rule becomes printed on Letterhead quality paper, then this 
sentence repeals itself.

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:17:42 -0400 (EDT)

Create a new Not So Fundimental Rule

Proposal: Job Descriptions

Create four Offices which any single Active Player may hold. Each Office
will have a colour associated with it which directly relate to the
Document colours referenced in Rule 1001. The current holder of an Office
is part of the Gamestate.

Listed below are the Offices and their colour:

Human Resources Director - Colour Pink
Payroll Manager - Colour Green
Operations Manager - Colour Yellow
Clerical Manager - Colour Blue

If a player attempts to propose an amendment to a rule of a colour
associated with a particular Office and that Player is not the current
holder of that Office then the amendment proposal is ignored.

Should any Office Holder lose points as a result of Rule 1004, they
immediately lose that Office.

Empty Offices are immediately filled by a randomly selected Active Player,
if and when one is available. (Note that the selection of Active Players
may include the most recently ejected holder of that Office.)

---

From: "Micheal Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:39:12 -0000

--- In DocNomic@y..., John Kipling Lewis <jklewis@u...> wrote:
>...snip... 
> If a player attempts to propose an amendment to a rule
> of a colour associated with a particular Office and that
> Player is not the current holder of that Office then the
> amendment proposal is ignored.

This is an interesting concept, but I think this will just make it 
more difficult to empty our Inboxes, moreso than it already is.
Also, it will lead to people Assigning documents they can't modify to 
those Officers that could modify them so they can get rid of them, 
and the Officers to assigning documents to others that can't handle 
them so they can't get rid of them by modifying them.

> immediately lose that Office.

Perfect use for the Pink Slip!

The Offices are randomly assigned, but what kinds of ways would a 
player be able to take a job they want to? Suppose they knew of a 
great amendment to a Pink Rule, but didn't have the right office? 
That kind of thing would be real handy, especially if you needed to 
sacrifice some points to get the job title.

Micheal

p.s. I'm not really sure if people are seeing this, so could people 
please send me email at this address, just so I can tell someone sees 
this? I don't even mind if everyone sends me a message, I just wanna 
know I'm being seen.

---

From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:07:30 -0700 (PDT)

--- Micheal Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> p.s. I'm not really sure if people are seeing this,
> so could people please send me email at this
address, 
> just so I can tell someone sees this? I don't
> even mind if everyone sends me a message, I 
> just wanna know I'm being seen.

On second thought, please don't. For some reason, I
never saw the first post I made, and thought it was
because I had posted from the Yahoo group page, but I
did that for this message as well, and got it just
fine. *sigh* Sorry for the inconvenience.

Michael

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

---

From: John Kipling Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:48:33 -0400 (EDT)

> them so they can't get rid of them by modifying them.

I figure that dealing with in box stuff will be handled by another rule.
This just sets the ground rules for officers so that we can start playing
with the idea. There were two ways to go, IMO. One was restrictions
based on colour, the other was based on where it was... I would rather
restrict on colour.

> Perfect use for the Pink Slip!

Thanks! :-)

> sacrifice some points to get the job title.

This could also be handled by other rules or an ammendment. Rather than
stating in the rules who started with each position, I suggested a random
starting lot. We can always ammend the rule to add perfomance reviews or
whatever we want.

As you can tell by the Pink Slip rule, I have an overview of an idea that
I'm putting together piece by piece. This is just another piece and it's
a pretty open idea... so this is just a ground work rule that we can then
either ammend or just add other rules to change.

John -

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 29 Jun 2001 11:48:19 -0400

> This Rule becomes printed on Letterhead quality paper, then this 

REJECTED. It's an interesting idea, but the implementation has one
big hole in it: What color(s) is letterhead paper? 

I note also the rather extreme last portion (which changes the
enactment date of all FRs) can be more economically accomplished by
simply adding a self-repealing sentence to Rule 1001 that sets the
quality of all FRs.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 29 Jun 2001 11:52:19 -0400

> may include the most recently ejected holder of that Office.)

REJECTED. I dislike the idea of having parts of the ruleset be
unmodifiable by a given person.

I'd be more favorably disposed toward a similar proposal that merely
makes it harder/easier or more/less rewarding to modify a rule based
on its color.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: "Micheal Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:33:37 -0000

--- In DocNomic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote:
> "Micheal Thomas" <pope_thomasm@y...> writes:

Um, letterhead coloured? D'oh.

> simply adding a self-repealing sentence to Rule 1001 that sets the

I hadn't thought of the changing-of-enactment dates. I was merely 
trying to get a whole lots of documents in my outbox.

Michael