Subject: MN: Proposed Starting Point

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:27:53 +0000

OK, we need to have something concrete to argue about. This message is an
outline of what I intend to write up more formally over the weekend.

First of all, we should take as the starting point for discussion the last
version of the old ruleset. I suggest this primarily because the core
mechanics of that ruleset have been play tested reasonably thoroughly,
rather than to denigrate the fine work on the newer ruleset.

Secondly, the structure of the rules shall be that a core set of game
mechanics (called the "Basic Ruleset") should remain largely static
(except for bug fixes, but that's a process issue). The Basic Ruleset will
be supplemented by various Special Rulesets which can be much more
mutable.

We may want to classify these Special Rulesets as "Options" or "Variants",
where Options add to the Basic Ruleset but Variants modify the Basic
Ruleset. This may or may not be a useful distinction to draw: after all,
Variants could conceivably modify Options, but the goal would be in this
structure a modular ruleset.

(a point worth mentioning is that the name "Special Ruleset" becomes
misleading since these optional bits and bobs are likely to make up the
majority of text in the ruleset as a whole)

Thirdly, we should accept that in order to get the ruleset sane again, we
need a two phase process:

1/ defining a core ruleset - unanimity required

2/ adding special rulesets - majority voting acceptable

We can't really start playing games again until /1/ has reached some kind
of conclusion.

Finally, the process for modifying Rules will vary depending on which
Rules are being modified: changing the Basic Rules should continue to
require unanimity, whereas Special Rules might be changed by simple
majority.

What I shall flesh out over the next couple of days are the administrative
processes, probably using Section 0 as a basis but simplifying certain
elements.

OK?

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

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:58:00 +1100

>structure a modular ruleset.

An excellent proposition. Although it might be considered to be a small 
difference, the precedence issue alone indicates that this distinction is 
worth making. And to have separate conditions by which proposals for each 
are judged is good too.

>processes, probably using Section 0 as a basis but simplifying certain

100% with you there. Any part I can do, let me know. I've still got days 
free now that I'm on my second week of late shift.

Have fun,

Paul