Subject: MN: A New Dawn

From: David Kenning <KenningD@w...>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:39:29 -0000

> I'd like to volunteer as Speaker, if I may, and if no other Player has any
> 
> objections. 
> 
Well, it's already happened, but I'm wholeheartedly in favour of this
anyway.
> 
> On a more personal note, Kevan, I'd like to thank you for starting this
> game 
> up and for runniing it so effectively over the last 20 months. I'm very
> sorry 
> to see you go, however temporarily or otherwise that may be. 
> 
I second that. It was an excellent idea to combine Nomic and Crescent, and
it's been great fun.

Since we seem to have reached a watershed in the game's history, this might
be an apprpriate moment to take stock. I have a couple of suggestions.

First, if we're not sure of the status of the foobar mailing list, I wonder
if perhaps it might not be a good idea to move l-nomic over to egroups? Or
would it be best to wait until the unfortunate event actually happens?

Second, how about a moratorium on proposals for a while? I suggest this in
the hope that we could have a good bash at thoroughly playtesting the
current ruleset in its entirety and really iron out any bits that need
ironing out -- any changes that need to be made could be made by emergency
proposals.

Third, but related to second, reorganise the rules comprehensively (I'm
imagining doing this by discussion and concensus rather than by proposal)
and maybe make the first section more distinct from the rest, to keep the
rule-changing processes separate from the game-play rules.

That's it for now. What do folk think? Any more ideas?

dave

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 08 Jan 99 16:03:09 +0000

>would it be best to wait until the unfortunate event actually happens? 

That's probably a good idea - my only concern about egroups is the slow 
response of one of the lounges (Rushton is quite variable), but otherwise 
they seem to have done a good job of supporting our traffic so far. 

>ironing out -- any changes that need to be made could be made by emergency 

I assume that you mean we should have some kind of formal state where 
sections 0.4, 0.5, and 0.9 of the ruleset are suspended. 

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I confess that I'm 
currently more involved in the Crescent part than the Nomic part, and that 
not having to distribute proposals and so on would obviously make my life 
easier. 

But on the other hand, some of the fixes which may be required could be 
large - I'm still unconvinced that Dollis Hill isn't deeply broken, for 
instance - and as I've expressed before, EPs should be highly focussed. 

I think it may be sufficient to have an informal moratorium, although that 
rather goes against the spirit of a Nomic. 

>rule-changing processes separate from the game-play rules. 

With you there. The action tables in particular make navigation a lot 
easier, but it is still a deeply confusing ruleset to read through from 
start to finish. 

And consensus is vital, but I also believe that a proposal (or two, or 
three...) has to be the ultimate result of that consensus. However we look 
at it, the ruleset is still the primary Official Document of this game and 
keeping a proper record of the changes made to it is pretty important. 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, Senior Software Engineer, Business Modelers, Oracle 
<I work for Oracle, I don't speak for them>

---

From: David Kenning <KenningD@w...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:00:59 -0000

> they seem to have done a good job of supporting our traffic so far. 
egroups has been particularly painful over the last week or so, but unless
we can find another alternative, it may be preferable to waiting for foobar
to go belly up.
> sections 0.4, 0.5, and 0.9 of the ruleset are suspended. 
That's the idea.
> rather goes against the spirit of a Nomic. 
Yes, maybe nomics in general, but probably less so this one. I think it's
probably a good idea to have periodic stock-taking anyway.
> keeping a proper record of the changes made to it is pretty important. 
Oh yes, I can't disagree with you there -- I really just meant we should
discuss any such proposals before submitting them rather than throw all our
own separate ideas into the hat and ending up with a worse mess than we
started with.

dave

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 11 Jan 99 15:49:26 +0000

>we can find another alternative, it may be preferable to waiting for foobar 

Good point, well made. I'll sort it out (unless anyone has any objections). 

>That's the idea. 

Right... one benefit of having a formal state (rather than the informal 
moratorium I mentioned) is that Kudos would be preserved. Without that, 
Kudos would decay to nothing after a few Weeks (there being very few non- 
Vote related bonuses). But then you know my views on Kudos already. 

>own separate ideas into the hat and ending up with a worse mess than we 

I couldn't agree more. 

Talking of whacky ideas, I was thinking... No, better make that another 
message.