Subject: Proposal: An Understandable Number of Proposals

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:48:05 +0100

Proposal - An Understandable Number of Proposals

{ There's something very unsettling about the vagueness of Rule 11; it
can easily be read as "for any stretch of time which is a dun in
length, fine the Player for excess Proposals", which makes for silly
amounts of infinity. For example, with someone making two Proposals on
a Tuesday:-

00:00 Monday -> 00:00 Wednesday = 1 Dun, 2 Props, 10pt fine
00:01 Monday -> 00:01 Wednesday = 1 Dun, 2 Props, another 10pt fine
00:02 Monday -> 00:02 Wednesday = 1 Dun, 2 Props, another 10pt fine
etc.

It's also arguable that any second Proposal doesn't trigger the
rule at all, because it's in a fresh new dun which might not contain
a third Proposal.

Disambiguation is needed. }

Reword Rule 11 (Manageable Number of Proposals) to:-

Whenever a Player submits a Proposal, they lose 10 points for every
other Proposal submitted by them (if any) during the previous dun. If
this would leave them with a negative number of Points, the new Proposal
is instead ignored.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 01 Jul 2002 13:34:50 -0400

> this would leave them with a negative number of Points, the new Proposal

OK.

Note that this makes Rule 11 even more severe in the case of 3 or more
proposals in a dun. Or at least, my interpretation of Rule 11 as it
stood was that if someone submitted 3 proposals in rapid succession,
e'd lose 20 points: 10 for each proposal after the first. With the
new version, e'd lose 30 points: 10 for the first proposal when
submitting the second, and 20 for the first and second proposals when
submitting the third.

+10 points to followers of Fundamentalist Cthulhu Worship: Goateus,
Kevan, Stefano, Zarba.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:49:35 +0100

> submitting the second, and 20 for the first and second proposals when 

Oh, I was reading the original Rule as the latter, preserving its harshness to 
avoid rejection. I took it to be a unique trigger every time a Proposal was 
submitted, rather than a general summary. Fair enough. Maybe I'll tone it back 
down in a future Proposal. 

Incidentally, another issue of interpretation; what does "enforce" mean, in 
Rule 1004? Does it actually allow Players' actions to be triggered externally 
(a 'Virulent' doctrine that said "The Leader of a Doctrine with this Precept 
may, at any time, force a follower of that Doctrine to Brainwash a specific 
Player"), or does it just mean "enforce by restriction of alternatives" 
("Players in a Doctrine with this Precept may only Brainwash when their Leader 
specifically tells them to")? 

Kevan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 02 Jul 2002 16:10:01 -0400

> specifically tells them to")? 

Good question. I think I'll keep quiet about it, though, until/unless
a PoO on the subject is raised.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:18:13 +0100

> [ Rule 1004 - Does it actually allow Players' actions to be triggered
> externally, or does it just mean "enforce by restriction of alternatives"? ]
> 

I think the most relevant dictionary definition of "enforce" is "ensure 
observance of laws and rules"; although a precept that said "followers must X 
when the Leader tells them to; if they don't, they can't take any other game 
actions until they do" would go some way to enforcing X, it wouldn't have any 
effect on the Inactive or otherwise idle.

So unless anyone wants to argue the other side and take it towards a Point of 
Order, I shall formally create the following Precept, under Rule 1004:-

Virulent

The Leader of a Virulent Doctrine may, at any time, force a follower
of that Doctrine to Brainwash a specific Player.

Kevan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 03 Jul 2002 11:11:31 -0400

> of that Doctrine to Brainwash a specific Player.

This precept gives the Leader *permission* to do something (force a
follower to brainwash a player), but I don't see that e has the
*ability* to do it. Even Doc can't force a player to take a given
action. As such this Precept seems to have no teeth.

On the other hand, if it had teeth, it'd allow the Leader to do
something (force a follower to brainwash a player) e could not
otherwise legally do, which runs afoul of the second sentence of
1004. 

So which is it? Is this Precept toothless, or inadmissable?

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:23:13 +0100

> So which is it? Is this Precept toothless, or inadmissable? 

Hm, quite right; it's the Precept that does the forcing, after all. I suppose 
it requires a rather more explicit wording, which is no bad thing:-

"If the Leader of a Virulent Doctrine announces to the list that they wish a 
member of their Doctrine to Brainwash a Player, then that member will 
automatically and immediately Brainwash the specified Player." 

(Although I can't, I suspect, formally suggest that for a dun.)

Kevan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 03 Jul 2002 11:57:00 -0400

> (Although I can't, I suspect, formally suggest that for a dun.)

But there again you'd have a problem, in that you're trying to give a
player (the Leader) the ability to do something otherwise illegal
(force another follower to brainwash someone). There's a distinction
between a precept that forces a follower to do something, and a
precept that allows the leader to force a follower to do something.
As I read it, the former may be admissible, but the latter is not.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:04:42 +0100

> As I read it, the former may be admissible, but the latter is not.

Doesn't "that member will automatically X" mean "this precept will 
automatically force that member to X"?

The Precept's doing the enforcement, it's just being triggered by a particular 
outside influence, which in this case happens to be a Leader saying something 
on the mailing list (which is legal behaviour for a Leader).

Kevan

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 16:14:33 +0100

> it requires a rather more explicit wording, which is no bad thing [...]

Shamelessly assuming that Doc was misunderstanding me, rather than that I was 
misunderstanding Doc, on Wednesday, I resuggest the "Virulent" precept, with 
the following wording:-

"If the Leader of a Doctrine with this precept announces to the mailing list 
that they wish a specific member of their Doctrine to Brainwash a Player, then 
that member will automatically and immediately Brainwash the specified Player."

As commented before, the Leader doesn't gain the ability to do anything outside 
of the rules, he or she just triggers a particular reaction from a Precept when 
speaking particular sentences on the mailing list.

Kevan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 05 Jul 2002 21:53:33 -0400

> speaking particular sentences on the mailing list.

This is mere semantics. The effect is that the Leader gains an
ability to do something otherwise illegal, even if cloaked in language
suggesting otherwise. I do not regard this as an admissible precept
under Rule 1004.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:04:50 +0100

> suggesting otherwise. I do not regard this as an admissible precept

Feh, alright then. New Precept suggestion; Extra Virulence.

"If a Doctrine has this Precept then - every three milliseconds - a random 
member of that Doctrine (other than its Leader) will automatically Brainwash a 
Player outside of the Doctrine, provided that:-

* The targetted Player has fewer Points than the member.
* The targetted Player has not been Brainwashed during the
previous Dun."

If this is accepted, I shall add the precept "Extra Virulence" to the 
Doctrine "Fundamentalist Cthulhu Worship".

Kevan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 07 Jul 2002 22:34:59 -0400

> * The targetted Player has not been Brainwashed during the

Feh, yourself. This precept is admissible under Rule 1004. It
therefore is added to Rule 1003.

A nanosecond later, by Proclamation, I amend Rule 1003 by removing the
"Extra Virulence" precept.

Come on, Kevan, surely you didn't expect me to allow this crap to
stand. I am NOT going to do the stipulated random number generating,
point checking, brainwashing history checking, et cetera every time
anyone's point total changes. The work load would be appalling.
Force this kind of stuff on me and you'll kill DocNomic. Scam your
way to an inelegant, brute-force win if you like, but don't expect me
to do the grunt work.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:39:58 +0100

> stand.

Well, no; I was expecting other Players not to let it stand, though. Leaders 
being able to improvise and employ any Precept they feel like seems extremely 
dangerous - it's a bit disappointing that people are just snoring at it, 
despite my increasingly unsubtle flexing.

> I am NOT going to do the stipulated random number generating,

Hm, I didn't imagine it taking too much paperwork, to be honest; the Cthulhu 
acolytes would instantly Brainwash everyone else - if anyone resisted, they'd 
get Brainwashed again a dun later. Repeat until the world is conquered or until 
a Player does something to stop it (I would have expected a repeal proposal 
within the first Dun, really).

> Force this kind of stuff on me and you'll kill DocNomic.

That's the last thing I'd want, of course. Just trying to wake people up; to 
provoke a clever reaction to a clever event, which is (for my money) half the 
fun of Nomic.

> Scam your way to an inelegant, brute-force win if you like, but don't
> expect me to do the grunt work.

Hm, I thought it was quite elegant, actually, and keeping entirely within 
theme. I could have just gone for a massive, abusive combi-precept, after all. 
("Members of this Doctrine may not leave, or challenge Leadership; will 
automatically resist Brainwashing, must Propose things on the Leader's behalf 
if he demands it, cannot make original Proposals, etc. etc. etc.")

A Proposal, then:-

-----

Proposal - Mispreception

Repeal Rule 1004 (Creating Precepts). 

In Rule 1001, replace "Whenever any Player has one of their Proposals
accepted" with "Whenever a Player has one of their Proposals accepted
(unless that Proposal only creates or amends a Precept)". 

In Rule 11, replace "Whenever a Player submits a Proposal" with
"Whenever a Player submits a Proposal (unless that Proposal only creates
or amends a Precept)". 

-----

Kevan

---

From: Sir Toby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 08:21:13 -0700 (PDT)

> "Whenever a Player submits a Proposal (unless that Proposal only creates

We may not want to mention not-so-fundamental concepts (precepts) in 
fundamental rules.

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 08 Jul 2002 11:54:16 -0400

> despite my increasingly unsubtle flexing.

Possibly the fact that it's a 4-day holiday weekend in the USA has
something to do with that.

> "Whenever a Player submits a Proposal (unless that Proposal only creates

REJECTED. It's not a bad idea, but Rule 11 is Fundamental and should
not be polluted with Not So Fundamental concepts.

-- 
- Doc