Subject: spamming the lists

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:41:31 -0000

A bouquet of small fiddly proposals to adjust the Ruleset I just 
spammed to the VML and AML. Switch all power to forward deflector 
shields.

I hope that by tomorrow we can start on the sweet fleshy parts of the 
nomic, rather than carving at the pith.

I would like to bring up the possibility that instead of going with 
the co-operative (or socialistic) theme that is exhibited by the 
mechanics of the meta-game, we devote some thematic space to other 
ideas that include the word 'social':
socials (tea and crumpets)
socials (muddy feelings woh woh woh)
social grace
social standing
society pages
social climbing
social contract (actually, GT, are you working on this?)
social darwinism (perish the thought)
social drinking

And I would like to open that discussion with the following:

Social Standing is Game Data.

The Player with the highest Social Standing may be referred to as 
the Alpha Trendsetter.

The Player with the second highestt Social Standing may be referred 
to as the Almost Trendsetter.

Any Player with negative Social Standing may be referred to as a 
Pariah.

A new Player shall be given Social Standing equal to the median of 
that of the current Active Players.

The Adopter of this Proposal shall give each current Player a 
Social Standing of range 3-8, by random determination; and then 
remove this sentence from the Rule. 

I have a few ideas on to what 'trendsetter' refers, like the ability 
to dictate a word that must be used in any-player's posted opinion. 
maybe any-observer's as well, I mean, why not keep score for some 
types of non-player?

-Oloros

---

From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" <dmarsh@v...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:31:45 -0400

>maybe any-observer's as well, I mean, why not keep score for some

Interesting: I'm not sure whether I object or not. On the one hand, this
stretches the definition of "observer." On the other hand, the extension of
this is to apply it to people who've never heard of Socialnomic, Nomic
generally, or even the Internet. This, I find an interesting experiment.

Actually, speaking of people who've never heard of Nomic, I hear that Agora
Nomic initiated diplomatic relations with Canada. I wonder whether that
came to anything?

---

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:02:04 -0600

> nomic, rather than carving at the pith.

I think we could have fiddled with the intial ruleset for weeks before
we got it perfect. At least we got most of the major problems dealt
with, so the minor things can be fixed by proposal.

> socials (tea and crumpets)
So a new player would be referred to as a debutantee?

> social standing
The start of a caste system.

> society pages

In today's news, Martha was seen proposing a new rule. The rule was
nicely presented with a garnish of comments, and accented with a color
coordinated Voting announcement.

Humourous comments aside, some of these themes may work out. It will be
interesting to see how the game develops.

> Social Standing is Game Data.

<<Alpha Trendsetter, Almost Trendsetter, Pariah and other comments>>

I suppose no matter what the titles are, there will develop a power
structure, with some players being able to do things that other players
cannot. I'm just not sure if I like the terms for Social Standing.
Personally, I would rather see serf, Lord, Knight, and King, but the
Social Standing system would be unique in the nomic world. 

Xylen
-- 
Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of
contents may have occurred during transmission.

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:36:35 -0000

> Social Standing system would be unique in the nomic world. 

Xylen, dahr-ling, you're so-oh old-faashaund. Positive-ly medieval. 

Actually I am hoping for a power structure of the paltry.

-Oloros

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:57:06 -0000

--- In [email-masked], "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" 
wrote:
> 
> Oloros the Blue wrote:
> > maybe any-observer's as well, I mean, why not keep score for 
> > some types of non-player?
> 
> Interesting: I'm not sure whether I object or not. On the 
> one hand, this stretches the definition of "observer." On 
> the other hand, the extension of this is to apply it to people
> who've never heard of Socialnomic, Nomic generally, or even the
> Internet. This, I find an interesting experiment.
> 
>
But the definition of "observer", and its impariality has been under 
siege since Heisenberg, at least in a very narrow arena. One might 
say, though, that the good art attacts any sort of impartiality in 
its audience, by attempting some sort of emotional sympathy.

I think that in this context, that of a nacent nomic, that as many 
accords that can be made to non-players that would invite them into 
the game as players should be taken. Even if it means a little more 
work on the part of the other players. A couple of statistics on any 
non-players seems facile, and perhaps amusing.

It would be difficult, though, to attempt to track any off-list 
discussion regarding Socialnomic, and bring that (random) person into 
the game for an off-hand remark. Even if that person were already a 
player.

-Oloros