Subject: Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:38:24 +1100

This is a Order-set that combines Rules (Standing Orders) and game data
(Executive Orders) on the one list, with the interesting properties that
Orders cannot be repealed, only overruled by subsequent orders, and the
possibility of Executive Orders with Rule-like powers, especially over
_other_ nomics.

Don't know how it would stand up to out favourite Tool, but hopefully the
set of Orders would never get _that_ complex........

Orders defining the set or Orders!

SO 001 The set of Orders posted on this Newsgroup comprises the rules of
LNS. Each Order may be a Standing Order (SO) or an Executive Order (XO)
SO 002 If there is a conflict between a SO and a XO, the SO takes
precedence, except if the XO is an Overrule. If there is a conflict
between two SOs or two XOs, the most recently posted Order takes precedence.
SO 003 A SO is legal iff at the time of posting:
… A ballot specifying the text of the SO had been active for the
voting period
… quorum was attained for that ballot
… the number of votes FOR that ballot outnumbered the votes AGAINST
that ballot
SO 004 A ballot is an egroups poll with the following properties:
… There may only be two options - FOR and AGAINST
… Only Councillors may vote (the poll must not be anonymous)
… Each Councillor may only vote once
SO 005 The voting period is 7 days. Quorum is 20% of the number of
Councillors.
SO 006 A XO is legal iff it was posted in a way prescribed by the Orders in
effect at the time of posting
SO 007 If a SO or XO is not legal, any Councillor may post an XO with one
or both of the following effects
… To Overrule the illegal Order
… To remove the Councillor who posted the Order from Council

Orders governing Nomic Players

SO 008 In order for a Nomic to become Recognised by LNS, a Player of that
Nomic must post an XO, containing the Ruleset and Player List of that
Nomic, or links to that information. Subsequently, an XO must also be
posted adding that Nomic to the set of Recognised Nomics and all Players of
that Nomic to Council. A Nomic cannot become Recognised if it has been
previously Recognised by LNS.
SO 009 In the event of changes to the Ruleset or Player List, of a
Recognised Nomic posted according to the above SO, or of the links to this
information, any Councillor may post an XO updating this information.
SO 010 Scrutiny: If the Ruleset or Player List of a Recognised Nomic is
inconsistent with directives specified in this set of Orders, any
Councillor may post an XO removing that Nomic from the set of Recognised
Nomics.

Orders describing Winning conditions

SO 011 Machiavelli: There exists a Nomic known as Machiavelli. The first
Rule of Machiavelli is: "The Rules of Machiavelli may only change as
directed by the Orders of LNS". The second Rule of Machiavelli is "The
Player List of Machiavelli may only change as specified by the Orders of
LNS".
SO 012 If a Recognised Nomic ever has exactly two Players as determined by
its Player List, any Councillor may post an XO removing that Nomic from the
set of Recognised Nomics and adding those two Players to the Player List of
Machiavelli.
SO 013 If only one Nomic is Recognised by LNS, any Councillor may post an
XO awarding that Nomic the title of "Last Nomic Standing", and adding the
Players of that Nomic to the Player List of Machiavelli.
SO 014 If a Nomic is entitled "Last Nomic Standing", and there is only one
Player on the Player List of Machiavelli, any Councillor may post an XO
awarding that Player the title of "Devious Conniving Bastard", and
declaring that no more Orders may be posted.

At this point, there are no Orders describing how to acheive and enforce
these winning conditions. I thought that these should be left up to the
game's Nomic Nature! Also note that this game does not require initial
Players. Anynomic can join by posting an XO of intent.

---

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 25 Oct 2000 10:31:14 -0400

> … Only Councillors may vote (the poll must not be anonymous)
[...]
> Subsequently, an XO must also be
> that Nomic to Council. 

The Council, and Councillors, are undefined terms. Is a Councillor
defined to be a Player of a Recognized Nomic (RN)? Or is a Councillor
simply anyone who is on the Council, and the initial rules specify
only one way to join the Council, namely, by being a Player of a
Recognized Nomic?

If a RN's Player List is updated, are the new Players automatically added to
the Council? Are the old Players who are no longer on the RN's Player
List still Councillors?

> Player List of Machiavelli may only change as specified by the Orders of

I guess I'm a little unclear as to the purpose of Machiavelli.

> set of Recognised Nomics and adding those two Players to the Player List of

If a Nomic becomes derecognized, are its Players still Councillors?

> Players of that Nomic to the Player List of Machiavelli.

If a Nomic is designated Last Nomic Standing, are its Players still
Councillors?

> declaring that no more Orders may be posted.

This suggests there are, or will be, mechanisms by which Players of
Machiavelli can be removed from its Player List; however, no such
mechanisms are defined initially. Do I understand correctly?

-- 
Doctroid

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:01:18 +0100

Thanks for the (incredulous) analysis...

Obviously this is all pretty open and up in the air, but I'll clarify how I
see each point...

>> Ö Only Councillors may vote (the poll must not be anonymous)
>[...]
>> posted adding that Nomic to the set of Recognised Nomics and all Playersof
>> that Nomic to Council.
>

A councillor is effectively a Player of LNS, I decided to use the terms
Council/Councillor for that purpose to avaoid confusion. Initially, when a
Nomic is Regognised, all of its players become councillors.

>the Council?

Presumably. Although I suspect that Orders may be enacted to stop Nomics
recruiting new Players....

>Are the old Players who are no longer on the RN's Player
>List still Councillors?

As I see it, the only way to remove someone from Council is by an Overrule
of an illegal order. Which is, I belive, a little extreme and I hope would
not be used often. If Players are eliminated from RNs of if RNs are
eliminated by SO 012, I would like to see them stay on the Council as
impartial judges, so to speak.

>I guess I'm a little unclear as to the purpose of Machiavelli.

Basically, the goal of LNS for a Nomic is to eliminate the other nomics,
whereas for a Player it is to win Machiavelli by a) getting into
Machiavelli and b) eliminating all other Players from Machiavelli. a) can
be acheived either by being in the winning Nomic, or by eliminating enough
players from your Nomic !

>If a Nomic is designated Last Nomic Standing, are its Players still

Certainly. At this stage, the role of the council is to supervise
Machiavelli, and if neccessary, choose the winner from the two last Players.

>mechanisms are defined initially. Do I understand correctly?

Precisely. Again it's up to the council to specify this. They may give
Machiavelli a degree of autonomy, or just use it as a plaything (although
members of Machiavelli are still Councillors). I would envisage something
like the elimination process in all those horrible reality-gameshow
programs. But ultimately,it's up to the Nomic.

Do you think there are enough Nomics active to do this?

I make:
SocailNomic (coma)
spoon (~g1 at nomic.net)
Polynomic(s) - now that would be interesting
I guess FRC doesn't count

---

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 26 Oct 2000 22:40:57 -0400

> I guess FRC doesn't count

If that's a list of all the active Nomics you know of, there are
more. At least there seem to be, although I'm not active in any
others at present. See
<http://web.syr.edu/~rsholmes/games/nomic/index.html> for a
non-comprehensive list.

Hmm, I just thought of a possible improvement to the initial rules:
Disqualify Agora for "Last Nomic Standing" status...

-- 
Doctroid

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:10:24 +0100

<5 nomics + FRC + Polynomic (shudder)>

>Disqualify Agora for "Last Nomic Standing" status...

No no not at all! In fact, I have the feeling that the wise, gentle and
venerable Agora may not take kindly to losing Players and being bullied
about by the Council. Of course I might be wrong.....

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:45:51 +1100

Hmm

With Nomic.net now hosting a couple of games and being a bit of a focal
point, perhaps LNS could be hosted on a bulletin board there, with a bit of
tweaking to the proposal/vote format (a post with vote replies would do)

Somehow it would have to look better than BB Nomic, which is not absolutely
transparent and is still (shudder) Administrated.

---

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 08 Nov 2000 10:20:56 -0500

> transparent and is still (shudder) Administrated.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "absolutely transparent"...

-- 
Doctroid

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:51:41 +1100

>I'm curious as to what you mean by "absolutely transparent"...

Oh I dunno. I guess I'm not such a big fan of the "threaded reversed"
format - or maybe I'm used to reading SocialNomic from the comfort of my
POP mail. At least the current BB ruleset is easy to find, though...

The inevitable problem of LNS is that it wouldn't have the facility of a
"current ruleset" - in fact its format disallows the whole concept, as its
Orders can never be modified or repealed, only overruled.....

[offtopic]
so what's going to happen to this round of FRC then - everyone else appears
to have nodded off for the time being - including the Judge - is it _that_
uninspiring?!

---

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 09 Nov 2000 10:55:10 -0500

> to have nodded off for the time being - including the Judge - is it _that_

I dunno what the Judge is up to (or not) but as for everyone
else... you and I are the only ones still eligible.

As I reckon it, your eligibility expires 2000-11-13 04:22:08 GMT.
Mine expires 2000-11-10 16:49:39 GMT. Hmm, that's about 24 hours from
now. 

I was going to forfeit unless I came up with a really cool idea for
another rule, which I haven't. But if you want to evade Judgeship,
contact me ASAP and I'll cobble something together and you can
forfeit. Better email me at <hrholmes@m...> as well as
here, if that's the case, to make sure I see it in time.

Actually this has been the best round in some time... even if (or
because?) we were essentially the only two players... I think Kunne's
rule probably stifled some participation. Or not.

-- 
Doctroid

---

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 10 Nov 2000 14:25:52 -0500

I have to say thus far I haven't found myself being very favorably
inclined to the idea of LNS. But maybe I just need to think about it
more.

Anyway, it seems to me a discussion of LNS would much more profitably
occur on the Nomic Bulletin Board... and the NBB could use a little
action, anyway!

-- 
Doctroid