Subject: MN: Mechanical Suggestions

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:42:14 +0000

Friends:

Attached is an initial suggestion for the process part of a
reconstituted Morning Nomic. Basically, it is Section 0 of the old
Ruleset with some modifications. I'll give a summary of those
modifications in a moment, but I thought I'd say where I thought we
should go next.

What I suggest here is to follow a version of the modified Proposal
process described in the new Section 0, treating this Section as a
single big Proposal and with myself as the Proposer. Obviously this
can't properly be constituted under the new process, since it has not
yet been Passed into the Rules, but since I assume we are treating any
previous rulesets as being in abeyance then we have to start somewhere.

Once we have agreed what the core mechanics shoud look like, we can
start constructing a basic ruleset in earnest. I have deliberately not
codified any concepts of focussing the discussion on specific topics,
since that's not truly a mechanical issue.

So, what has changed?

The main thing which is different from the old Section 0 is the Proposal
process: rather than being tied to the end the Nomic Week and being
managed exclusively by the Speaker, I've made the Players responsible
for their own Proposals and have decoupled Voting from the end of the
Week, as well as making Voting a public act. This is all predicated on
Mornington Nomic no longer being competitive in the Nomic space, all the
cut throat attacks are confined to the Mornington Crescent map.

What I think should happen with a Proposal is as follows:

1/ someone has an idea, and puts together a Proposal embodying this
idea. So far, so similar to the current process, although I suggest
that for most Proposals it is worth thrashing out an idea publically
before constructing a Proposal.

2/ the Player puts on eir Proposer hat and formally issues the
Proposal by posting it to the list. This can be done at any time of
Week, and does not require the Speaker's involvement (although it is
up to the Speaker to avoid duplicates). Each Proposal has a unique
Proposal number, just as currently.

3/ other Players Vote. I've suggested that the Proposer not be allowed
to Vote on eir Proposal.

Votes are posted to the discussion list within a calendar week of
the Proposal being issued.

4/ once the Voting is completed, the Proposer tallies the Votes and
publishes the result. If the Proposal passed to the appropriate
standard, the Proposer then edits the ruleset accordingly.

Note that only one Proposer can edit the ruleset at once. Permission
to edit the document is sought from the Speaker, and (in the
strictest interpretation) if you don't have this permission any
changes you make will not be accepted.

In practice, if changes do not affect the same areas of the ruleset,
then simultaneous editing would be allowed.

5/ if a Proposal fails, the Proposer is allowed to solicit feedback and
reissue the Proposal with any changes deemed necessary, but it is
considered a new Proposal with a new Proposal number and everything.

That's it. apart from caveats about Players using common sense in not
continually resubmitting Proposals which no one Votes for and not being
capricious in their Votes. The Speaker has no role except to act as a
guarantor of the consistency of the Ruleset.

Another significant change is that I have reintroduced immutability, and
different degrees thereof. Immutability is a property present in many
Nomics (and originally in this one too) which is applied to Rules to
stop them being changed maliciously. What I have tried to do here is to
codify degrees of immutability linked to how powerful the mandate
required for change is. I've also made these controls applicable to
sections and volumes rather than just rules, which is the mechanism I
suggest using to stabilise the basic ruleset once we have agreed its
content.

There are not many other big changes which are not concomitant to the
above, apart from what has been removed:

- Kudos: always difficult to administer, increasingly irrelevant in
the old ruleset, but utterly futile now that the Nomic part is
no longer competitive. I weep for the loss of whimsy only.
- Mentors: they speak of an earlier time when the ruleset was
unnavigable without aid. And when we're all finding our way
anyway...

Obviously all comments are welcome on what I've done here, but
particular points I'm interested in:

- mutability: I haven't offered any suggestion for the mutability
modifiers of any Rules in this first draft, primarily because
I've run out of intellectual energy to make sensible decisions
on this point. All suggestions welcome.
- Roles: I have made mention of different roles which Players have
within the Game. Is this useful terminology?
- Week-End: I've moved this to 1200 GMT Tuesday, which is where it
started in the first ruleset. The 1800 Tuesday time was
introduced because the Speaker was very unlikely to do the
Week-End admin until that time in the evening, and this gave
Players another six hours to get their bits and bobs in. With
the Speaker's role in Proposal administration reduced, there
seems less reason for this otherwise confusing time.
- ruleset format: I've stuck to a text file for the moment. I'm not
hostile to XML or HTML formats, but text is most widely readable
and is easily edited. I'm also loath to change this aspect of
the Game along with everything else right at the moment.
- Special Rulesets: I've had a go at defining Options and Variants.
Are these satisfactory?
- Points of Order and EPs: these are unchanged, since they seem to
be useful panic measures.
- Game Time: we're well into Year Four now, by the terms of The
Theocracy of Muntab. I hereby declare Week 1 started last April
and continues until tomorrow.

Returning to how to get going here, I'm putting forward this initial
draft as a discussion document rather than yet being any kind of formal
Proposal. When this goes to a Vote, I'm looking for some variety of
unanimity, not because it is necessarily required (indeed, I am hoping
to keep the Mechanics section mostly easily changeable) but because it
probably makes sense at this stage.

See what you all think.

--
Dunx
Nihilism? Nothing to it.
name="ruleset-0.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ruleset-0.txt"

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:25:13 +0000

> modifications in a moment, but I thought I'd say where I thought we

No comments then? Should I take that as unanimous approval, or disinterest?

It is quite a long document, I suppose, but I thought it would be quite
easy to digest since it was so close in content to the old Section 0.

A few comments of my own, anyway:

Mandates: I'm fairly sure most of the Mandates given won't be any use. In
particular, Total Unianimity seems far too demanding for any realy work,
whilst Simple Majority seems too weak to be safe.

Mutability: I'm going to leave all of the Section 0 Rules as the default
for now, because I can't see there's any percentage in doing anything else
initially.

That's all I had based on rereading the document when I was more awake.
Anybody else?

Something I obviously haven't done yet is upload this onto the web site. I
shall notify you when that's done.

But if that's all, then I'll put this section to a vote shortly.

Cheers.

-- 
Dunx
There is no spoon.

---

From: David Lynch <david@d...>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:45:31 -0600 (CST)

> No comments then? Should I take that as unanimous approval, or disinterest?

Take it as lack of time, in my case. It's sitting here in Pine waiting for
my reading as soon as I have more than a few seconds for e-mail.

- David James Lynch -
david@d...

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:56:25 +0000

> my reading as soon as I have more than a few seconds for e-mail.

Of course. I'll do that walk through I mentioned since I should think that
might help in reading the document.

Also, I should apologise for the somewhat arch tone of my last message. I
was a bit tired.

Cheers.

-- 
Dunx
There is no spoon.

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:09:08 +1100

>No comments then? Should I take that as unanimous approval, or disinterest?

Sorry, but I must have missed the attachment. I didn't see the attachment 
on your email, but when I looked at the copy online it showed me the 
ruleset that you had attached to your email, Dunx. This must be some 
curious filtering on yahoo's behalf, or else my email program isn't obeying 
MIME (which would be more curious).

>easy to digest since it was so close in content to the old Section 0.

This is what stands out to me (not necessarily wrong) at first impression:

# Have we always had section 0.2.3? It strikes a bell somewhere (probably 
in my old Thring archives).

# The idea for Mandate and Mutability seems to remind me curiously of 
Ackanomic. If we get to the stage where repealed rules are not actually 
edited out but are marked "Repealed" and filed away in a corner somewhere, 
I'll know we've been infiltrated by the Ackanomic Secret Service. While I 
agree with Dunx that Mandate seems rather simple and needs more subtlety, I 
can't work out exactly what that might be or find anything else to add (at 
this stage).

# I'd like to suggest a change here: rework 0.4.1 here to read:

Each Proposal submitted by a Player should have a name (typically summing
up the aim of the Proposal in a few words, optionally in the form of a
pun), a Type, any amount of text stating what the Proposal should do
if it is Voted through, and any amount of commented text explaining
anything the Proposer feels the need to explain. All the manipulations
of the Ruleset in one Proposal should generally have one general aim or
effect.

Proposals may be of the following types:-

* Enactment - To create one or more new Rules to be added to the
Ruleset. Enactments may specify the Volume and/or
Section of the new Rule(s), which are created if
they don't already exist.
* Amendment - To change the wording of one or more existing Rules
in the manner detailed in the Proposal.
* Repeal - To remove one or more Rules, as specified by the
Proposal, from the Ruleset.
* Multiple - A combination of Enactments, Amendments and Repeals
in any order.
* Renumbering - To renumber all the Rule Numbers in a particular
Subsection, or to renumber a single Rule.
* Resignation - To force another Player to Resign.
* Mutability - To change the Mutability Modifier of a Rule, Section,
or Volume.

Commented text is signified by surrounding it with curly braces, and
is entirely ignored if the Proposal passes and alters the Ruleset.

All I'm really changing is taking away the necessity to use Multiple 
Proposals all the time to get any real work done. If you're doing a bunch 
of enactments then it should just be an enactment. That and a bit of 
wanton tidying :-)

# Is there any reason why Proposals can't be numbered arbitrarily, so long 
as they haven't been used before? We need to avoid continual reposts of 
proposals due to the inevitable "when I checked my mail that proposal 
number was free..." conflicts. I think the best way is for each Player to 
have a prefix which they alone use: e.g. my Proposals would be Proposal 
PW001, PW002, etc. Doesn't have to be specifically two initials: Proposal 
GrandPoohBah140D_20010301a could be OK as well (if somewhat 
sesquipedalian). Once again, a simple matter of leaving it to the players 
themselves to sort out.

Of course, having some sort of order to the numbering would be encouraged 
(i.e. sequential proposals from the same proposer being numbered Thing44 
then Ajax921 then THX1138 would be right out). After all, if we can fit it 
in some kind of database for automatic formatting then that'd be good.

# 0.5.2 strikes me as being out of place, because it allows only one week 
for discussion on a Proposal to take place. But then I may be 
misunderstanding the intent of the Ruleset as it is. Are we aiming for a 
Proposal to be patched and amended before being Voted for, or are we aiming 
at patches and amendments involving discarding the old Proposal and 
Proposing a new one?

That's pretty much it, yeah. I'm in favour of the Ruleset generally.

Have fun,

Paul

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:06:11 +0000

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, you wrote:
> Sorry, but I must have missed the attachmentT.

That's very odd, isn't it?

It's partly my fault for not putting this stuff up on the web page, of
course, something I shall rectify this weekend.

> in my old Thring archives).

That's always been there, yes - or at least, it's a section which is
unchanged from the latest version of the old Section 0.

As for the Thring similarity, I may be wrong here but I believe that the
original Ruleset was drawn in part from Thring. Kevan?

> I'll know we've been infiltrated by the Ackanomic Secret Service.

Not me, guv - I've heard of Ackanomic, but nothing more. Mutability is,
as I said, a pretty venerable concept in Nomics (I believe it is even
mentioned in Peter Suber's original rules?), whilst Mandate just seemed
like the right word.

> While I 

This is precisely why I'm less keen than I was earlier on in the week on
applying any more stringent Mutability constraints to Section 0,
particularly to the newest bits. I think we need these ideas, since having
something in-game is better than just the edict "thou shalt not change
Section 1", but if someone has a blinding flash of insight as to how to
make this a more subtle provision then we want it in as quickly as
possible.

> of enactments then it should just be an enactment. That and a bit of 

I can see what you're aiming for here, but I suspect it's slightly
missed the target. In particular, past experience suggests that it is
rare to have a Multiple proposal consisting of just Enactments: there is
usually at least one Amendment in there too.

That usual form may be an artifact of the Byzantine ruleset we had, but
I suspect not.

I think a cleaner tidy up would be to just say by default that any
ruleset manipulation is a Multiple, which can include sections to Enact,
Amend, create Special Rulesets, or Repeal, and to leave just the
Renumber, Resign and Mutability types separate.

> number was free..." conflicts.

That's a good point, well made - I would have thought just using the
Player name and an index value (or even a date stamp) would be
sufficient.

> at patches and amendments involving discarding the old Proposal and 

Well, what I was aiming for was that ideas for Proposals should be
discussed before a Proposal is even made such that the general form of
Proposals would usually be largely decided before Voting opens. I didn't
mention this approach explicitly in the ruleset section I put forward
because this discussion process would be impossible to define, and
indeed would be counter-productive to do so, but I will add a suggestion
that that be the case at the top of 0.4.2.

The week of discussion is in fact the same period available under the
old rules (assuming a Week was a week long, which it usually was), but
Proposals were very rarely discussed before submission. Using a calendar
week rather than a Nomic Week as teh Voting period was merely a
reflection of the decoupling of the Proposal submission process from the
Week-End. Hopefully we'll get a less 'spiked' sequence of Proposals
coming through.

What is deliberately missing is that the Proposer cannot modify a
Proposal which is placed before the Players for consideration. BUT e can
withdraw it, then immediately submit a modified version with a new
Proposal number. Since the Proposal content is likely to have been
thrashed out before hand, the most likely reason for such withdrawal and
resubmission is typoes.

The primary advantage of this system is that there is never any
confusion about what is being voted on, because each textually different
Proposal will have a distinct ID.

The main disadvantage is that it is open to abuse, but then there is
much in these suggested procedural rules which is loose and open to such
abuse because the focus of MN nowadays is not twisting the Nomic rules
to your own advantage. And if I'm wrong about _that_, then you have the
wrong Speaker.

Anyway, that's what I was trying to do. If I haven't achieved that, then
I'd like to know how I can.

One further omission: I meant to put in a ban on the Proposer Voting
with regard to eir own Proposals. I seem to have missed that out.

> That's pretty much it, yeah. I'm in favour of the Ruleset generally.

Glad to hear it.

I shall put these changes into effect, anyway, and republish this
pre-Proposal for consideration. Still aiming to put it to the Vote next
week, in any case.

-- 
Dunx
There is no spoon.

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:40:20 +1100

>mentioned in Peter Suber's original rules?), whilst Mandate just seemed

Ackanomic is the longest-running (I believe it is still running) game of 
Nomic played on the Internet. It has many interesting features, not the 
least of which being Rules are given a Mutability factor, and repealed 
Rules stay in the Ruleset rather than being discarded (presumably so that 
you don't get an old idea reproposed by the unknowing). It's huge.

>usually at least one Amendment in there too.

I agree that there were a lot of Multiple Proposals because you had to 
update the Action table and/or other tables when proposing a new Action or 
whatever. But I believe that in this new game there will be considerable 
instances where people want to enact entire sets of rules, or amend several 
rules.

I'm also a great believer in the idea of fitting new concepts into old 
structure. Particularly, fitting new items into existing tables, like new 
Actions into the Action Cost Table (1.5.0 or whatever it was). What I'd 
like to see is ways to do this automatically, or at least without having to 
physically raise an amendment.

>Renumber, Resign and Mutability types separate.

This has its merits too.

>thrashed out before hand, the most likely reason for such withdrawal and

I've been wondering about a more formalised 'protoProposal' stage, where a 
Proposal is published but not yet available to be voted on. Only when the 
Proposer feels confident of a response does the Proposal actually have to 
go to Voting. But I think if we informally agree to nut things out on the 
list then this will serve as well.

Have fun,

Paul

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:57:12 -0800

> you don't get an old idea reproposed by the unknowing). It's huge.

Sounds like I should keep away. The main reason I never really got into
Thring was its hugeness.

Incidentally, I was right about Peter Suber's original rules including
Immutability: as published in Hofstatder's "Metamagical Themas", Rules
100-199 are immutable, while Rules 200+ are Mutable.

> instances where people want to enact entire sets of rules, or amend several 

This is exactly my point - if every type of Proposal can be a multiple
of itself, why not pull out the concept of multipleness into a common
Proposal Type?

> physically raise an amendment.

Well, there were mechanisms to do that in the Old Ruleset - the Action
Proposal Type, for instance - but they tended to be pretty rarely used.
There may be scope for that kind of thing again, but not just at the
moment.

If we do have such compound proposal types, I would like to see the same
kind of Proposal Type superclassing I've tried to introduce with Ruleset
Proposals.

Finally, on the subject of automatic updates, are we talking tool-based
updates here? I'm happy enough with such things of course, as long as:

1 - the sources are available
2 - the underlying technologies are free (as in beer, mainly, but as in
speech too for preference) and reasonably stable. Perl and Java work
here; almost any MS language or platform don't (because they tend to
be expensive, closed, and constantly in a state of flux).
3 - the text ruleset is still treated as the master for recovery purposes

My reasoning for all of these points is to ensure that we don't see MN
die in the same way as Thring did. A further reason is to ensure that we
don't build platform dependencies into how the the ruleset is managed.

> list then this will serve as well.

Well, as I say, I resisted trying to formalise that process because it
was so slippery. If you can come up with a sensible and flexible form of
words, then by all means submit it.

-- 
Dunx
Life. Don't talk to me about life.

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:49:14 -0000

Dunx said:
> reconstituted Morning Nomic.

This is much more complicated than I had imagined. I would suggest
something far less complicated:

------------start----------------

The process for making a change to the ruleset:

1) The Speaker will decide a topic for discussion, based on
suggestions from players.
2) The players will discuss the topic until unimity, or until the
Speaker judges further discussion to be unproductive.
3) One or more players will send an email to the list with the subject
line starting [Proposal]. This will contain a description of the way
they intend to change the ruleset and it's repercussions on the other
parts of the ruleset.
4) Players will vote to the list on the proposal in emails with a
subject line starting [Vote].
5) After at least 7 days have passed the votes will be counted. If a
proposal has a majority of the votes cast, then it will be enacted.
6) The Speaker or someone delagated by the Speaker will then update
the ruleset according to the proposal.
7) The Speaker decides which Players are allowed to vote based on
activity.
8) The Players decide who is Speaker by some fair means.

----------------End--------

A lot simpler...

Notes:
a) Assumes only one proposal will get majority.
b) Proposals do not contains the specific words that go into the
ruleset only the ideas that are to be enacted. This avoids overly
complex proposals that talk about change this paragraph and that
sentence, rather than concentrating on what the proposal is on about.
c) Once the ruleset is complete and stable it can be 'staticised' via
a proposal (eg increase the majority needed to change the base ruleset
to 75%).
d) If a more complicated structure is needed later, it can be created
later.

--
Snow
(Mmmm, buscuits)

---

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:50:05 +0100

Paul wrote:
: 
: Ackanomic is the longest-running (I believe it is still running) game of 

Nope. Neither longest-running nor still running. Sorry.

>From http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php?AckaNomic :

"
Ackanomic started January 22, 1996. 

In late 1999 it underwent a Schism into ThinAcka? and FatAcka?. The split involved a proposal to erase the ruleset and start over with a fairly typical initial ruleset. It was quite controversial and passed by a small margin,but its opponents then discovered that, due to an oversight, it had been distributed with the first line missing. Some players claimed that the proposal worked anyway, while others argued that it had no effect, and these twothreads became ThinAcka? and FatAcka? respectively. 

FatAcka? apparently died shortly after the schism. 

ThinAcka? survived somewhat longer, but seems to have been inactive since May 2000. 
"

>From http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php?Agora :

"
Agora Nomic is the longest continuously running Nomic known. Agora started in 1993 and has been running ever since. At any given time, Agora has around 20 players.
"

Ole

--
Ole Andersen
Brøndbyøster, Denmark
palnatoke@g...
http://palnatoke.blogspot.com

"Never apologize, never explain."
- Hunter S. Thompson

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:12:43 -0800

> something far less complicated:

By "this", do you mean the process itself, or the expression of that
process?

I ask because the process you suggest is practically the same as the one
I put forward, except described less rigorously.

Whilst I applaud the brevity of your suggestion, I suspect that more
thoroughness is needed in this section of the rules at least. I'm also
very concerned that you are loading too much onto notes which, because
they are footnotes rather than in the body of the ruleset, are likely to
be ignored.

But to address my individual misgivings...

> suggestions from players.

This point actually embodies most of my issues - too much of a role for
the Speaker in leading the discussion, when that should really be the
province of the Players.

One of the difficulties with the Old Ruleset which I have sought to
eliminate is placing too much workload on the Speaker. Making the
Speaker the discussion leader as well as guarantor of fair play forces
too much back on eir shoulders.

In truth, I would hope that the Speaker _would_ take a lead in focussing
discussion as time permits, but placing this duty as the first rule
makes it a requirement, which I dislike.

> 7) The Speaker decides which Players are allowed to vote based on

All fair enough, barring other concerns I've already raised.

> 8) The Players decide who is Speaker by some fair means.

I do rather like the idea of electing a Speaker, although "some fair
means" seems a bit woolly.

> A lot simpler...

No. Fewer words, and fewer precise definitions, but not simpler. Harder
for the Speaker and less clear for the Players.

> a) Assumes only one proposal will get majority.

Hmm. Optimistic.

> sentence, rather than concentrating on what the proposal is on about.

This really frightens me. I've seen enough examples in this very game
where two people interpret the same words to mean entirely different
things, and what you're suggesting is that Players don't even know what
they're voting on?!

> a proposal (eg increase the majority needed to change the base ruleset

Well, yes - fair enough. Doesn't say what the 75% is of, but still.

> d) If a more complicated structure is needed later, it can be created

If by 'complicated' you mean 'accurately defined', then I think we need
it now as much as ever.

To explain where I'm coming from here: I've put forward the revised
Section 0 using the same format as the Old Ruleset because we know it
works. I am not wishing to imply that the turns of phrase could not be
tightened up a little in spots, but defining terms accurately is
important.

I'm all for simplifying the Mornington Crescent rules as much as
possible, as long as they're still interesting, but if there's one place
where rigorousness is needed then it's in the Nomic mechanics.

---

From: "miKi" <mn_miKi@h...>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:32:01 -0800

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

O great wearer of the Speakership Trousers, or Dunx as he is more widely kn=
own,

I am in favour of the re-write of Section 0 which you suggested. I have a c=
ouple of minor quibbles, mostly about the plethora of Mandates, but they do=
form a complete set as they are currently presented. Will we ever get Tota=
l Unanimity, I ask myself? All in all, it seems fine to me.

Mind the gap,
- miKi

---

From: "miKi" <mn_miKi@h...>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:54:51 -0800

charset="iso-8859-1"

Whilst I like brevity in most things, I find myself agreeing with Dunx - I =
remember one memorable occasion when Kevan and myself were of completely di=
ffering opinions regarding the implied workings of a rule. We were both ada=
mant that the rule clearly indicated our own interpretation. I seem recall =
that Kevan's view prevailed through an EP, but I was able to get round the =
rule by spotting and exploiting a different poorly re-written rule and mana=
ged to get a "Who's a Clever Bear?" award that week.

We need clarity in our rules.
Mind the gap,
- miKi
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Dunx=20
To: [email-masked]=20
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: MN: Re: Mechanical Suggestions

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, you wrote:
>=20

Hmm. Optimistic.

--=20
Dunx

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.=20

---

From: se98gj@d...
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:26:11 -0000

--- In l-nomic-d@y..., Paul Wayper <paulway@e...> wrote:
> [...]

I'm tempted to do away with "Proposal type" altogether and just go 
for something as simple as "A Proposal describes any number of Rule 
changes or alterations to the Game State."

Then we can have Proposals that look like this:

Perform the following actions in sequence:

Enact a new rule in Section 4.2 entitled "Neep Clamps" with the 
following text: "A Player possessing a Neep Clamp must pay fourteen 
black tokens at the end of eir turn."

Append the following text to Rule 4.2.3 ("Bock"): "Cross-hatched 
Players are unaffected by Bock."

Repeal Rule 4.2.8 ("Agate Tring".)

> I think the best way is for each Player to 
> have a prefix which they alone use: e.g. my Proposals would be
> Proposal PW001, PW002, etc. Doesn't have to be specifically two 
> initials: Proposal GrandPoohBah140D_20010301a could be OK as well
> (if somewhat sesquipedalian). Once again, a simple matter of 
> leaving it to the players themselves to sort out.

I like this a lot, although a short, consistent prefix convention 
should be encouraged.

> Of course, having some sort of order to the numbering would be 
> encouraged (i.e. sequential proposals from the same proposer being 
> numbered Thing44 then Ajax921 then THX1138 would be right out). 
> After all, if we can fit it in some kind of database for automatic 
> formatting then that'd be good.

Mmm. I'm sure everyone'll be quite sensible about this anyway.

> # 0.5.2 strikes me as being out of place, because it allows only 
> one week for discussion on a Proposal to take place. But then I 
> may be misunderstanding the intent of the Ruleset as it is. Are we 
> aiming for a Proposal to be patched and amended before being Voted 
> for, or are we aiming at patches and amendments involving 
> discarding the old Proposal and Proposing a new one?

Tricky one this. It gets a bit messy either way. I'd probably steer 
clear of any explicit Proposal amendment/redrafting mechanism at all, 
and simply allow Proposal retraction.

Then, I might post Proposal Grim0042, get some comments on things 
that need changing, and retract it in favour of Grim0042a, which may 
in turn be superseded by Grim0042b. This seemingly-rigourous 
redrafting scheme could work without needing to be specified at all.

After all, if you're drafting a Proposal, it's easy enough to post it 
to the list for comments.

-Graeme.

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:13:31 -0800

[...]

Well, I hope the simplified Proposal Type system will help a bit - I'm a
bit leary of chucking out Proposal Type entirely, because there are
qualitatively different kinds of things which can Proposed which should
really be handled differently; forcing someone to resign seems a different
thing to me than changing the Ruleset.

As I've said before, I intend to leave Section 0 open to change so feel
free to propose a modification.

> > Proposal PW001, PW002, etc.
> 

See 0.4.2 - is that OK?

> and simply allow Proposal retraction.

I agree - Proposal change is a hard thing to manage, as previous
experiences demonstrate.

> redrafting scheme could work without needing to be specified at all.

You read my mind (or read my comments, I'm not sure which ;-)

---

From: se98gj@d...
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:48:52 -0000

Coh. I've been looking at out-of-date versions of the Mechanics 
proposal. The one on the website's much better, and addresses 
everything I said. My apologies. 

-Graeme.

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 22:15:56 +1100

At 10:50 AM 27/02/2001, you wrote:
>Agora Nomic is the longest continuously running Nomic known. Agora started 
>in 1993 and has been running ever since. At any given time, Agora has 
>around 20 players.

Maybe I was thinking of Agora. I don't know. Anyway, I'm wrong.

Ta,

Paul