Subject: Observers

From: dmarsh@v...
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:19:21 -0000

I received the invitation to join Socialnomic, and I'd like to make a 
pair of suggestions.

First: Since I wish to keep up with developments in the game, and 
probably comment on them, but don't want to officially participate 
(I'm involved in another Nomic), I'd like to suggest that you 
explicitly define Observers in the ruleset, and what they can and 
cannot do.

Second: I'd like to receive Discussion, and Proposals, and have the 
ability to read the current ruleset. So: I should subscribe to 
Socialnomic-DML and Socialnomic-RULES. And I should subscribe to 
Socialnomic-VML, but I don't want to read "I vote FOR proposal XYZ,"
I just want to read the proposals. So: I suggest that the rules be 
modified so that a proposal goes to -AML, and votes go to -VML. That 
way an observer, or a player who never wishes to be an Adopter, can 
completely ignore votes.

I'd point out again that I'm not a player, and players don't have to 
do or even listen to anything I say. But I was a player in the early 
days of Ackanomic (according to the archives, my earliest proposals 
seem to have been in the 600's), and some of the best insight into
the game was provided by non-players. (Hmm, and now I've set high 
standards for myself. Ach, well.)

--
Dan Marsh, aka The Governor

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:51:50 -0000

I was just about to make such suggestions. Something along the lines 
of a Proposal gets posted to -VML and -AML, Approvals posted to -
RULES and -VML and -AML, and Defeats posted to -VML and -AML.

At the time being, at least until the Escape Hatch is closed, 
Observers and Players are equivalent. With Agora, were observers 
considered to be prospective players?

-Oloros

---

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:56:04 -0600

> explicitly define Observers in the ruleset, and what they can and 

I don't think it's a case of defining what an Observor can do, but more
restricting who can take official actions. I don't have
a problem with your commenting on anything, but if you wish to
participate in the sub-games or voting, then you would need to be an
active player. Simply by not signing up for all of the lists, you fail
to meet the defintion for player, and hence active player. I think
some of the changes suggested by Oloros should make an observors life
easier. Just the DML, RULES, and the AML should keep you up-to-date on
everything. Reading the VML may give you some sense of what 'may'
happen slightly before it actually occurs. Others may wish to just
read the RULES list, or some people may prefer to just read the DML. It
all depends on what you want to observe and how much in-depth
information you want to see. 

The only real problem comes from someone who signs up for all four
lists, discusses things, but doesn't want to vote. We may need to
define Active player a bit more stricly if that sort of thing starts to
be a problem. Perhaps something like posting a message saying they want
to be an active player. Something to think about for future proposals.

Xylen 

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

---

From: Dan Marsh <dmarsh@v...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:45:00 -0400

> considered to be prospective players?

Acka was the one I had experience with, tho' among our most prolific
Observers was the Speaker of Agora. People might have considered them
prospective players, but the rules didn't consider them anything but
Observers. I seem to remember the rules required that once a month or so,
some functionary had to ask Observers whether they preferred to continue as
Observers, become Players, or leave entirely. Kind of a waste, except for
cleaning up mailing-lists. (My experience with Acka actually goes back
before it had ANY mailing-lists, but didn't continue. I don't recall that I
was around long enough to see Proposal 1000.)

Anyway, my recollection of SN's ruleset is that I'm not a Player, since I'm
not subscribed to all of the mailing-lists. I don't know what that makes
me. Perhaps the ruleset doesn't actually need to recognize Observers,
though. Perhaps the ruleset doesn't need to do anything at all. It would
be a good idea, though, to make sure that it continues to refer to "any
Player" instead of "any person."

("Hi! I'm Joe Schmoe from Idaho, and under rule 123.456, I hereby declare
the entire ruleset invalid.")

--

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:42:03 +1000

>to be an active player. Something to think about for future proposals.

I liked one of the earlier ideas about an official pledge of "citizenship"
posted to the AML. This would sort out all the Observer/Active/Stasis
rubbish. No-one can do any Game Actions apart from Discussion before
they've pledged alleigance, and one they have, they're bound by all the
Rules.

Will add this to my list of Proposals when I have time

GT

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:18:09 -0000

--- In [email-masked], Gallivanting Tripper wrote:
> 
> I liked one of the earlier ideas about an official pledge 
> of "citizenship" posted to the AML. This would sort out 
> all the Observer/Active/Stasis rubbish. No-one can do any 
> Game Actions apart from Discussion before they've pledged 
> alleigance, and one they have, they're bound by all the
> Rules.
> 
This came to mind as I saw noticed another person joined the mailing 
lists today. I guess the definition "Active Player: A player is known 
as active if they have posted to the DML during the previous 14 days" 
(Rule 0) holds for prospective players as well as vacationing 
players. How's that for involving non-players, Governor Marsh? (which 
is all very surreal, addressing a non-player as 'governor', for his 
opinion on relations with non-players, as if he is their non-
representative or something)

Speaking of which, I was not able to find anything on summit-level 
relations between Agora and Canada. Have you?

So, a pledge or announcement from a new player. Something along the 
lines of a Pledge to conduct oneself as defined by Rule 1, and then 
an updated list of Players, by Active/Static, or whatever. 
Would an observer take the Pledge? Hmm. Doesn't really matter, as 
their actions on the mailing list would be answerable to the rules of 
the mailing list, and they would remain subject to our accounting. 
Operating in a foreign country without diplomatic immunity, as it 
were.

-Oloros

---

From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" <dmarsh@v...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:49:00 -0400

> representative or something)

Surreal indeed. But: "a PLAYER is known as active". I'm not a player,
since I don't get all of the groups. So I can't be an active player. But
yes, prospective and vacationing players might become "active" by this
definition. That might cause problems, but I'm not sure it'll break
anything.

>From the Net Nomic Database:
"Canada has officially been recognized to be a peer Nomic by Agora. Their
Proposal number 2031 had as its text: 'The present Directive on Foreign
Policy Business of the Agora Nomic recognizes the nation of Canada as a peer
Nomic. The Ambassador of Agora is hereby instructed to present official
Greetings from the Players of Agora to the Citizens of Canada, along with a
copy of this Directive,' and passed with 9 votes for, 4 against and 3
abstentions. "

However, a search on "Canada" within Agora's current ruleset returns
nothing, and they're up to Prop 4016. So it's now, apparently, of only
historical interest. But I'm interested nonetheless: If you find out
anything, let me know.