Subject: RE: Re: RE: Whither Mornomic?

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 09:04:28 +1000

On Tuesday, May 16, 2000 4:39 AM, Snow [SMTP:snowl@s...] wrote:
> I think some form of democratic system will be needed. But if we carry
> on with the Nomic system we will have to make quorum 70-80% to make
> sure the Ruleset is fairly static. And at the moment that could give
> any one person a veto. We should keep in mind that we are trying to
> produce a static version of the ruleset (if we decide that we are).

Why exactly are we trying to produce a static version of the ruleset? If
that's the case, I suggest each person goes off and writes their own little
version and tries to convince other people to play it, because that's what's
going to happen if we go down this 'one person rewrite' track. I would
change quite a lot of things that are in the current MN ruleset - Remote
Controls, pigeons, hats, and courier calls would all go. But because we're
playing a _co-operative_ game, I don't continually try to force people to
accept this point of view by proposing repeals all the time. Likewise, I
accept when other people don't particularly like a modification to the game
that I propose.

I'm not threatening here, just making a real-world prediction. One big
advantage of this game is that another person with their own idea of how MC
should be played could come along and add eir opinions into the formula. If
we go down the track of fixing the ruleset in stone that new player could
cause a schism by writing eir own ruleset and draining our already sparse
player resources in some sort of virtual bun-fight. No-one wants that.

> At the moment there's a lot of gubbins in the Ruleset that is not
> directly related to playing the game, mostly Volume 0 and the Rule
> concerning points in Volume 1. I think there should be a more distinct
> separation. Something like a constitution to deal with which Lounges
> games are played in, changes to the Ruleset (when needed) and other
> bureaucracy. And the ruleset itself kept separate and unsullied by
> "politics".

I think you're seeing problems where none exist. The Volume 0 rules haven't
been updated in ages, nor have they needed to be. They don't interfere in
the playing of MC except in the most ephemeral way - i.e you don't need to
know a whole lot about Volume 0 in order to actually play.

Likewise, there are a lot of rules in Volume 1 that can be ignored when
contemplating one's move. These are identifiable, and it's my belief that a
guide book makes that task easier. 

And what 'politics' are you talking about? Surely you can't be suggesting
that people are being less than honest in their dealings with MN?

> If you need to refer the the ruleset it's too complicated. If you need
> to write a guide to the ruleset it's unplayable. Unless your guide
> could act as a ruleset unto itself I can't see the point (other
> opinions are available).

Put bluntly, I think you're talking through your hat.

Look at the rules of Monopoly some time. It's not a simple document. But
everyone knows how to play because of the 80/20 rule - 80% of the rules are
used 20% of the time and vice versa. You only need to know about moving
your counter and what happens when you land on properties for most of your
actual play, but the rules have to cover what the bank can and cannot do,
what happens if someone cannot pay, or various things like that. All rule
systems are like that.

People write guides to chess! This is not because it has a vast, unwieldy
set of rules, but they are simplifying the learning process and teaching
people how to get beyond the simple constructs of which pieces can move how.
And remember this conversation next time you try to teach a person a
trick-based card game (e.g. 500 or Up And Down The River).

Play a couple of Cheapass Games (http://www.cheapass.com) sometime. They
spend a lot of time making the rules as simple as possible without
sacrificing the fun factor. They too aren't particularly simple documents,
although most of them just take up an A4 page. They're a good example of
how to write rules for intelligent people. They set out the bulk of the
rules you need to play first, and then 'cover the bases' later with
explaining what happens in complicated circumstances.

What I'm saying here is that the ruleset is a way of simply defining what
can be done. A guide is a way of explaining how to play normally - it
outlines the general principles and then refers to the specific rules so the
reader can see the actual definitions.

I'll post what I have so far in a separate message. Hopefully this will
make what I'm attempting to do clearer.

Have fun,

Paul Wayper -- DPI IS&S ITO Computer Systems Officer
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