Subject: Prop 45 reasoning plus social standing

From: topheavy@s...
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:20:00 -0000

I noticed that the time limitation on points doesn't really make 
sense with the tax-man, so i thought we could get rid of it.

Also, I notice that the final paragraph in Rule 13 might be a bit 
heavy handed (must provide reasoning for all changes) and possibly 
not often enough. I have absolutely no idea what the current social 
standings are, and I don't want to try and figure it out. Perhaps we 
need to streamline the process somehow. Unfortunately i don't have 
any super ideas on that front, Though i did have the idea that 
perhaps social standing should be voluntary...

i.e. social standing is only reduced if a message is posted. So 
failure to use the proper 'in' word will only reduce your standing if 
someone sends the message to the AML detailing your loss. And such a 
message must be within 7 days of the offense (or activity). This 
would mean that social standing will only change when a person causes 
it to change.. which seems proper to me.

What do y'all think?

-TopHeavy

---

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:44:44 -0600

> sense with the tax-man, so i thought we could get rid of it.

Good idea. The points still dissapear, but with the Tax man we know
where they are going.

> it to change.. which seems proper to me.

Considering that Social Standing in RL is sometimes
falsefied, I think we should allow each Player to track and publish
their own version of their Social Standing. Any Player could claim to
have a Standing of +10, and thus get invited to all the best Parties,
but once someone figures out that the Player has falsely claimed a
higher SS than they are entitled to, they must suffer the consequences.
There are certain things in the Rules that grant gain or loss of SS, so
anybody could track the official Standing if they wanted. But if no one
wants to do so, a Player can continue to enjoy the benifits of the
false SS. A possible recourse would be an article
in the Social Pages(post to the AML) stating that so-and-so is not the
Earl of Sedwich, but is an imposter, with a full rendering of the
evidence. Then the imposter could get un-invited to any parties, and
Players could refuse to attend any party held by the false Earl, thus
afffecting their SS as well as thier financial standings for a failed
party.

Fortunetly, these actions do not require any changes to the ruleset.
Social Standing is Gamedata, so posting the correct SS is possible.
When the assortment of Parties is passed, the un-invite or refusal to
attend a party can be accomplished within those rules. 

btw, any thoughts on titles that go with assorted SS? 

Xylen,
Pariah (SS of -2)

-- 
How many programmers does it take to debug an AI? Just one,but the program has to really, really want to change.

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:30:52 -0000

> a Player can continue to enjoy the benifits of the false SS. 
> A possible recourse would be an article in the Social Pages
> (post to the AML) stating that so-and-so is not the Earl of 
> Sedwich, but is an imposter, with a full rendering of the 
> evidence. 
> 
That might be fun.

> [Xylen]
> any thoughts on titles that go with assorted SS? 
>
I think that once the Parties get running, our Social Standings will 
constantly increase. Perhaps titles based on relative Social Standing 
would be best.

> [TopHeavy]
> standings are, and I don't want to try and figure it out. 
>
It's all pretty voluntary, as I see it. If you want to dock someone a 
few Standing points, post the update after you catch 'em not 
expressing themselves properly. The 'reason' should probably 
reference the specific (if not obvious) precedent for your new 
table "time for a new table", "b/c you didn't use the word 'runny-
toadstool' last week in message 554", or whatever.

Social Standing is currently:
Oloros: 8
The Governor: 5 
TopHeavy: 3 
Tripper: 2 
Xylen: 1

Such a listing is not actually GameData, as it has been posted only 
to the DML, not to an official organ of SocialNomic. Errors might 
have been introduced to the benefit or detriment of others.

As of 28/06/2000, Social Standing was:
The Governor: 5 
Oloros: 4
TopHeavy: 3 
Tripper: 2 
Xylen: 1

-Oloros

---

From: "Gallivanting Tripper" <s3036845@s...>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:04:48 -0000

<Decloaks, weighs in on numerous weighty issues>

--- In [email-masked], "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...> 
> > Sedwich, but is an imposter, with a full rendering of the 

Aargh! I have a bizarre hallucination that this was the whole point
of 
regulating Game Data posts and Accusations. We had enough trouble 
digging ourselves out of our one and only previous accusation, so the 
concept of Players _deliberately_ obfuscating Game Data seems rather 
suicidal.

I'm considering another rather anal proposal based on P38, which
would 
be along the lines of

"Game Data is funda-bloody-mentally important information that is 
stored in the AML. The current state of any set of Game Data is 
considered to be that given in the last _legal_ post to the AML 
concerning that Data set."

Of course, Players could still attempt to obfuscate Game Data, but
the 
idea is that if a certain post is found to be illegal, then it is 
possible to backtrack out of the mess.

Another thing I'd like to add to Accusations is the power of 
Injunction, by which any message under Accusation is considered to be 
Illegal until shown otherwise. I believe the penalty for improper 
Accusations should be enough to discourage Players doing this for 
reasons of gamesmanship. And perhaps the Accused could be given the 
power to call an Accusation vote at any time in order to get the 
Injunction of their back.

> constantly increase. 

Not neccessarily, as the SS rules aren't exactly clear on what
happens 
when several players change SS simultaneously........

>Perhaps titles based on relative Social Standing 
> would be best.
> 
> > [TopHeavy]

Preeeeee-cisely. And as stated above, the current social standing is 
the same as last week because no-ones made the calls. Perhaps there 
should be a time limit on making said calls, to stop people dredging 
the depths of the archives looking for muck to rake. Or perhaps we 
_do_ want that! 

I can also see that there is no requirement for making the calls in
the 
order of the actions they are commenting on. For example, a Player 
could muckrake several Persons in order such that they are
"exchanged" 
up the Social ladder in quick succession! 

> have been introduced to the benefit or detriment of others.

Such as, I can't remember how one Gains SS at the moment, (or am I 
missing something?) Hence the official posts, showing working.

> As of 28/06/2000, Social Standing was:
And still is. Dan doesn't have long to post his In word, otherwise
all 
manner of hell will break loose!

Later

GT

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:07:51 -0000

> [GT]
> happens when several players change SS simultaneously........
> 
Which, I must say, I do not quite understand the utility of the final 
paragraph of Proposal 46, which, otherwise, I find rather oomny, but 
it doesn't rapt my gulliver.

> [Prop 46]
> Append the following paragraph to Rule 13:
> "If, at any time, more than one Person would change Social 
> Standing simultaneously, the Social Standing changes (and
> concomitant Exchanges) are made in decreasing order of initial
> Social Standing." 
>
Alright, so something happens to change several Player's Social 
Standing (like a Party, but we don't have that yet), because the 
rigarmarole with exchanging the Social Standings of any two Players 
with the same SS, we need to dole out these changes on a serial 
ordering of the Players. Ok. I guess I'm fine with that.

> [GT]
> Perhaps there should be a time limit on making said calls, 
> to stop people dredging the depths of the archives looking 
> for muck to rake. Or perhaps we _do_ want that! 
> 
I might not devote the time to researching whether or not someone was 
sporting dress of the wrong color at a party 5 years ago, but I see 
no reason to disallow that course of action. It's an action 
perpetrated by the news media all the time, ask any candidate for the 
presidency.

> [GT]
I don't think anyone can gain SS at this point, unless a Trendsetter 
does not post eir In Word on time. 

> [GT]
> Dan doesn't have long to post his In word, otherwise
> all manner of hell will break loose!
>
I should report that I did prompt the Governor wednes-or-thurs-day. 
And, as Xylen noted, his window for posting the Negative In Word runs 
out Tuesday 13 July.

-Oloros