Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] Paper

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Jun 98 22:38:45 -0400

I vote FOR this paper.

--- Brian Campbell (AKA lambda)
Visit my webpage: http://world.std.com/~campbell/Brian/
Visit the Latin Club webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/

----------
Nihil sub sole novum.

---

From: Jason Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 10:01:21 -0500

>--- Brian Campbell (AKA lambda)
Er, you can't. Only the RP while it's Active1.

By the way, I like the [MacroNomic] thing. Very easy to pick out, visually.

Also by the way, who is volunteering for the secretariats I hold? Townser,
everything but SoT, Lambda SoT, right?

- Philo
(SoT, SoF, SoJ, Macronomic)
[email-masked] -- http://kyogen.com/pascal/
"First you geet de shuga; den you geet de powa; den -- you geet de weemen."
   - Homer Simpson

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 08:11:02 -0700 (PDT)

>Er, you can't. Only the RP while it's Active1.

I thought it had stopped being Active1 recently.

>By the way, I like the [MacroNomic] thing. Very easy to pick out, visually.

Glad you like it.

>everything but SoT, Lambda SoT, right?

I will volunteer to hold the SoJ.

BTW, noone has commented at all on that proto-proposal for dealing with
paradox, so I will just ask you (Philo) to make it into a full-fledged
proposal and distribute it with the next batch (should be tomorrow or
Wednesday, yes?)

--JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

---

From: Jason Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 10:31:17 -0500

>I thought it had stopped being Active1 recently.
Oops, I thought he was referring to the other one.

>proposal and distribute it with the next batch (should be tomorrow or
Tomorrow. But if you're referring to

>For instance, something like this added to Section 0 as 0-0 or something.
>PROTO-PROPOSAL
>If ever the game should reach a state that is unplayable, or a situation
>exists where two rules are mutually exclusive and no precedence can be
>determined by normal means, then any player may submit a <create a
>type of referendum here> stating this.
>The judges for this <type of referendum> shall be the entire RP and the
>votes shall be YES or NO.  Should the outcome on this <type of referendum>
>be YES, then the RP may draft a proposal which only they may vote on
>designed to alleviate the problem and allow normal game play to continue.
>During the judgement of the <type of referendum> and the proposal (if
>needed) normal game play is suspended.  This rule claims precedence over
>every other rule, and no rule may ever claim precedence over this one.
>This rule may not be repealed or ameneded except by a unanimous vote.
>END PROTO

I don't think it'll quite work as an actual prop unless you fix it up a bit. :)
And I didn't comment on it only because I didn't notice something until
now. If the game is unplayable, how can you even follow this rule? What
exactly does the last sentence mean? (I know what it should mean, but you
might want to make it more explicit. "This rule may not be amended, except
by the effect of a proposal which has no votes AGAINST it upon passing." or
something.

- Philo

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:01:40 -0700 (PDT)

>by the effect of a proposal which has no votes AGAINST it upon passing." or

Well, the intent was to reserve a small portion of gameplay which could
still continue in the event that a large part of the ruleset got scotched
by some paradox.  By giving this rule supreme authority (see suber's
discussions in Paradox of Self-Amendment :) it provides an almost
inviolate method by which game play can be restarted even from a possibly
fatal to all rules but this one crash.
To that end, I will submit it redone slightly as follows.

PROPOSAL Paradox Resolution
Create a new setion 0-0-0 titled Paradox Resolution with the following
ANTI_PARADOX delimited text
ANTI_PARADOX
If ever the game should reach a state that is unplayable, or a situation
exists where two rules are mutually exclusive and no precedence can be
determined by normal means, then any player may submit a Paradox
Declaration, which is a type of Referendum stating that such a state as
mentioned above exists.
As soon as such a Declaration is issued, other game play will pause until
the Declaration has been resolved in accordance with this rule is such
play was still possibly.
The valid votes for a Paradox Declaration shall be YES or NO, and the
judges shall be the Revolutionary Party at the time the Declaration was
issued, or the previously extant Revolutionary Party if the game has
corrupted in such a way that the makeup of the current Revolutionary party
is not obvious.
Should the outcome of the vote on the Paradox Declaration, be YES, then
the following step will ensue in order.
  a) The Revolutionary Party (or one of it's members) will distribute a
Paradox Resolution, which is a type of Referendum   with valid votes of
YES or NO and valid judges being the judges of the preceding Paradox
Declaration.
  b) If the outcome of the Paradox Resolution is a vote of YES, then the
details of the Resolution shall be enacted into the Macronomic Ruleset as
stated, and this proceedure shall end.
  c) If the outcome was NO, then proceed to step a.
Normal game play now resumes under the fixed ruleset.
This rule may not be repealed or amended except by the passage of a
proposal on which no AGAINST or LOYAL votes were cast.
This rule claims precedence over all other rules and denies any rule the
ability to claim precedence over itself.
ANTI_PARADOX
There is still one flaw in the above in that it doesn't stop the RP from
unilaterally declaring a paradox and thus altering the ruleset at whim
through a paradox resolution, but that is in itself, the heart of the
paradox of self-amendment.  As long as any way exists to change the rules,
and there is no such thing as a completely inviolate rule, then there will
always exsit the possibility for such unilateral usurpation of authority.
My hope is that this proposal will get passed, and the RP will not abuse
the potential hole here, and that eventually perhaps a better mechanism
might replace (by unanimous vote) some or all of the provisions here.
END PROPOSAL

--JT