Subject: [MacroNomic] Votes

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 20:24:18 -0400

--- begin forwarded text

X-Sender: [email-masked]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 16:11:49 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Votes
Status: RO

102:AGAINST.  I don't like having RPG's modify the entire ruleset
(potentially).  How about saying that the rule becomes the youngest child of
7 other than 7-0.  Then add to 7 something like "Descendants of this rule
defer to all rules which are not descendants of this rule.  Descendants of
this rule which are not descendants of rule 7-0 may not modify anything not
defined in a descendant of this rule unless specifically permitted by a rule
which is not a descendant of this rule." 7-0 could grant specific
permissions for things like an award for winning certain games.  If we're
going to use a method other than proposals, we should limit it.  Also this
is less stringent than a proposal, since it will pass on a tie.

103:FOR.  I don't love the wording, but if it passes I'll make a proposal to
improve that.
104:FOR
106:FOR, although it inexplicably makes me uncomfortable.
107:AGAINST.  This seems scammable, since two players could conspire to play
a string of two player games, etc. etc.  Let me plug my suggestion for
sub-games here.  A sub-game could specify whether it gives that reward or
not, depending on how many players it takes.  Also, I think a LOYALTY point
award should be something like 3 points per player instead of a flat value.
As an aside, I don't think your attempt at ducking a penalty if 102 fails
will work right.  106 says "However, if the proposal it is dependant on
changes to the Inactive state in any other way".  102 will already have
become inactive, so it will not change to the Inactive state after 106 is a
rule, so 106 would never come into effect.
108:AGAINST. You never say that the best player is the winner and the
phrasing of this would be very awkward.
109:FOR
110:FOR

        As for sub-games, I have a few more comments.  I do support having
sub-games, but we're pretty small. Here's my suggestions:
        "Create rule 7, "Subgames"
        Create rule 7-0, "Subgamers" and give it the following
METAPLAYER-delimited text
METAPLAYER
        A Subgamer is someone who can play in a subgame.  A Subgamer must
have an alias and an e-mail address.  All players of MacroNomic are
subgamers.  All players of gaming nomics are Subgamers.  A subgame may
define a parallel subgame in a gaming nomic.  A player of MacroNomic may
join any subgame in a gaming nomic unless they have an avatar already
playing in the game if it is permitted by the rules of that nomic and the
game has a parallel in MacroNomic.  The MacroNomic player will play the game
according to MacroNomic rules.  A player from a gaming nomic may join a
MacroNomic game unless they have an avatar already playing in the game and
there is a parallel game in their nomic, but must play according to the
rules of their own nomic.
        Ackanomic is a gaming nomic.
METAPLAYER

        Create rule 7-1, "RPG" and give it the following D&D-delimited text
D&D
        A sub-game may be created through proposal or by submission of a
Request for Popular Game (RPG).

        An RPG is a sub-type of Referenda and the Accountant for RPGs is the
Secretary of Entertainment. An RPG must define the following lettered items
in order to be a valid RPG.
        a) The name of the game.
        b) The number of players.
        c) The rules of the game.
        d) A method for determining the winner of an instance of the game.
        If an RPG is submitted to the Secretary of Entertainment that is not
valid as above, the Secretary must notify the submitting player and shall
not distribute the RPG, otherwise, the RPG shall be distributed within 3 days.
        The legal votes for an RPG are YES and NO. All player's votes on an
RPG are initially set to NO.
        When an RPG becomes inactive, if at more players have voted YES than
have voted NO then the RPG is accepted. [IE, 50% or greater is sufficient to
pass the RPG]

        When an RPG is accepted it becomes a child of rule 7-3 with the
smallest available final section number.
D&D

       Create rule 7-3, "Subgames" and give it the following GAGA-delimited
text
GAGA
        A subgame may only specify information to be sent privately,
personally, or playfully.

        Information which is sent playfully must be sent to an authorized
"game-related" mailing list.

        The [email-masked] mailing list is an authorized
game-related list, as is [email-masked].
GAGA

        Create rule 7-3, "Subgames" and give it the following
DETAILS-delimited text
DETAILS
        Descendants of this rule defer to all rules which are not
descendants of this rule.  Descendants of this rule may not modify anything
not defined in a descendant of this rule unless specifically permitted by a
rule which is not a descendant of this rule.  Descendants of this rule are
known as "Subgame Definitions".
DETAILS

        I'd also add something defining avatars to 2-0-0."

        What do people think?

--- end forwarded text

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:53:33 -0700 (PDT)

>is less stringent than a proposal, since it will pass on a tie.

I admit to liking your formulation below better. However, given the fact
that players votes are initially NO on RPGs, I would like to see my
formulation pass and then have it amended so that I don't lose those
lovely commodities and the loyalty.

>103:FOR.  I don't love the wording, but if it passes I'll make a proposal to

Mind my asking what you don't like? (Note that 103 really doesn't make
much sense unless 102 also passes)

>rule, so 106 would never come into effect.

I never noticed this scammability.  All the more reason that I'm glad I
voted against it.

[Gaming proposal clipped]

>        What do people think?

I saw only one potential problem and a couple of typos.  The problem was
the bit about players playing the game according to the rules of their
'home' nomic.  This could be problematic if the rules diverge between the
two nomics.  I would prefer to see it played according to the rules of the
nomic which is 'hosting' that instance of the game.

Other than that, I like it.

--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: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 21:04:51 -0400

>lovely commodities and the loyalty.
	Fair enough.  The concept is good enough, and the risks low enough,
that I change my vote to FOR.

>much sense unless 102 also passes)
	Wasn't a big deal.  I just thought the way you phrased things about
after a win the number of games the person had won was set back to zero was
awkward.  Pretty trivial actually.

>nomic which is 'hosting' that instance of the game.
	Problem is that every nomic defines things differently (like
points, and where you can post things.)  Personally, I wouldn't make
something parallel unless the rules functioned the same, but were phrased
appropriately to each nomic.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:04:09 -0700 (PDT)

>that I change my vote to FOR.

Thank you.

>awkward.  Pretty trivial actually.

Actually, my intent was that everyone's 'win record' was set back to 0, so
that it was sort of a race.

>appropriately to each nomic.

This is sorta why it worried me, but I suppose it'll work.  

--JT