Subject: New ruleset idea

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:32:01 +1000

People,

I'm working on a new ruleset, following some thoughts I had about
this on the way home. (Trying to be proactive rather than just
complaining as I feel I have been up until now).

My first idea is that "Proposals" take the form of individual emails
that are maintained by the proposer emself (i.e. they take care of
posting out any revisions). A Proposal automatically passes if it's
got everyone's For vote, and if those votes are older than a day or
so (to allow for the idea of the proposer soliciting votes for a
harmless proposal and then modifying it just before sending in their
own vote).

The whole thing is looking fundamentally different from MN as it
started out. Yes, we still have the rule numbers and stuff, but I'm
not trying to define everything as rigidly - there's nothing on Nomic
Weeks (yet), there's no need (from the MN perspective) to have
Players (they will be needed in the MC side, but then again a person
can play without having to contribute to the ruleset...), and the
Speaker has few(er) duties.

I'll let you know more when I'm not quite so tired and I have a bit
more free time to nut things out.

Have fun,

Paul (from his new address)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
Report all bugs to the author. SigClean is FreeWare. (c) 1998-9 PJW

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 19:47:21 +0100

> harmless proposal and then modifying it just before sending in their

You mean a fast-track nomic system. Where have I heard that idea
before? Oh yes, it's what I suggested 6 weeks ago, but everyone else
said either "No, use concensus" or "No, use the current system".

That said, I've been suprised at how well the concensus system has
worked so far (for moving anyway) and don't really want to waste time
thinking about alternatives until it breaks. At the minimum I think we
should get the basic framework mapped out, before we bring in such a
system. Even then the concensus system might be enough.

> Speaker has few(er) duties.

I think you'd need "Players" in the Nomic side, so you know when
everyone had voted FOR (or not), but they needn't be the same as
"Players" on the game side.

-- Snow
Does anyone here believe that someone else has read one of their
emails? Or are we all just talking to ourselves?