Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] Another measly update

From: "Andy T Harrison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:14:12 +0100

>>By the way, I really need people to fill in for my positions soon. I'll
be
>>going on Saturday, and don't want to have to rush around finding people
to
>>fill in. So don't be shy! Volunteer! Remember, with three players on
>>vacation, there will be a lot less work than normally.
>
>I will take them if no one else does I guess.  I will not have the time
>however to keep the web pages up to date for proposals and such which is
>why I am hesitating to step forward here.

I would take them, but considering I've been too busy to even submit any
props recently, then I doubt I'd have much time to do anything. Alos, I'm
off on holiday myself in August. What exactly is up for grabs here?

--
The Kid

---

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jul 98 16:10:23 -0400

>Much as I hate to be picky (ok I lied, I enjoy it really), I never
actually
>*publicly* declared my intent to become a member of the RP. I *privately*
>notified the SoM that I replaced Philo as a member, and then he publicly
>announced this. It just so happened that I was the SoM at the time.

Yes, which is a problem with the public/private distribution rules. We
really should fix that.

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

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

---

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jul 98 16:16:37 -0400

>	I don't have the rules right now, but do sub-proposals work with
>vote farms?  I think they predate them...

Nope, they don't. I'll submit a proposal to fix that.

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

---

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jul 98 16:15:32 -0400

>136: AGAINST
>	I'd support this for civil cases, but not for criminal.  Not that
>it matters.  Just to be clear, the RP could convict anyone of treason any
>time they feel like it.

No, we need it for criminal cases too. After all, it is a criminal crime to
publicly declare one's intent to join the RP, and JT, The Kid and I have
declared our intent. If there is no limitation then JT and I could be
prosecuted when we leave, and The Kid whenever. And, as you said, the RP
could convict anyone of treason at any time, so it doesn't really make much
difference (well, it improves MacroNomics image as a just and fair Nomic,
without really decreasing the RP's power).

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

---

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jul 98 16:21:57 -0400

>Oh yes, I suppose that covers it. What would people think about changing
>things so that proposals passing don't actually take action until all
>proposals that round have passed/failed?

No, I like it the way it is. It seems more logical this way.

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

---

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jul 98 16:24:54 -0400

>I would actually prefer it to happen the way it does now.  I'm hoping
>sometime in the future that we'll actually go to a daily
>update/distribution/resolution of props similar to what Acka (and most
>other nomics) have.  I just haven't bothered yet since it's pretty slow
>here.

Yeah, I think that would work well. It'll mean I can spread out the work
over the week, rather than doing everything in two days.

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

---

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jul 98 16:38:28 -0400

>134: FOR
>	You realize we're going to have to spend weeks just straightening
>this one out...

What do you mean? I was fairly careful to make sure that everything acted
the same way as it did before. You still have Global Limits, Loyalty
Points, Titles, Vote Farms, Proposal Commodities, Vouchers, Victory Tokens,
Referenda, Players, Subgamers, and The State and they all work about the
same as they did before. Most of this just lays the framework for adding
other types of Objects, and cleans up the object rules.

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

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 12:58:41 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Aidan McLoughlin wrote:
>that would mean that people coudn't really retract their proposals wouldn't
>it?

I would get rid of the 'preactive' phase (pretty much), but it would also
make conflicts between proposals much less common, so there would be less
reason for such retraction as well :)

Anyway, it was just a thought, and not something I'm about to propose yet
:)

--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: "Andy T Harrison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:41:45 +0100

Sorry, wasn't really paying attention just then. So are we pausing the
game? I don't see how we can and still be playing by the rules. How about
this for the future:

If at any time the number of members of the Revolutionary Party that are
'on vacation' exceeds the number of members that are not, or the number of
players (RP or Prole) that are 'on vacation' exceeds the number of players
that are not, then the game of MacroNomic shall be put 'on hold' until
sufficent players return from vacation to ensure that the number of members
of the Revolutionary Party that are not 'on vacation' exceeds the number of
members that are, and the number of players (RP or Prole) that are not 'on
vacation' exceeds the number of players that are. [Note this means that if
there are 10 players, the game does not go on hold till 6 are on vacation,
but will not resume until 2 of those 6 return]

If anyone thinks this is a good idea, I'll add a few more details and prop
it.

Here's my votes anyway:

128: LOYAL
129: LOYAL
130: LOYAL
131: LOYAL
132: LOYAL
134: LOYAL
135: LOYAL
136: LOYAL (125)
137: LOYAL

--
The Kid