Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] a slow hiss

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:51:03 -0600

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Oloros the Blue wrote:
> This message contains more than a couple of suggustions submitted 
> under the Escape Hatch clause of Rule 0. Please be patient as you 
> consider them.
> 
> (Official Action Mailing List, Rule 0) Have we come to agreement on 
> removing mention of Proposal and Accusation Reminders from this list?

There may be a problem with Top Heavy and Tripper in gaining access to
the mailing list. Hopefully that will be fixed today, and we can hear
their voice in this.

> > (Rule 0) We should add the following definition: 
> Game Data: Any data required by the rules.
> (Rule 0) The definition of the Rules Mailing List:
> This list is limited to the posting of enacted and amended Rules, and 
> updates of Game Data.
> (Rule 10) amend to the following:
> Points are Game Data.
<<and asssorted rules for GameData>>

Do we want Gamedata to be in the Rules or in Official Actions? Gamedata
falls under the idea of official actions that do not require votes.
That would leave the RULES list with just the rules, and not any
activity or action resulting from application of the rules. I think it
would be easier deal with gamedata in the Actions mailing list. 

> 
> (Rule 1) Would seem to require that even the initial rules be posted 
> individually to the RML.

Yes it does, but this should make things easier to track. Instead of
reading through the entire ruleset, you would only need to see which
rule was modified or repealed. There is nothing in the
defintions that would prevent someone from posting a condensed version
occasionaly. 

> > (Rule 3) Two sentences: one relates to Proposing, Rule 2, "All rule- 
> changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on", and dangles a 
> preposition; the other to Adoption, Rule 7, "If a Rule-Change is 
> adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were posted 
> to the VML" (also replaceing "they" with "it" to avoid 
> personification of a clause). 

How about this then.
3.	All Rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on
by the Active Players. If a Rule-change is adopted, then it shall
guide play in the form in which it was posted to the VML.

I also capitalized both instances of Rule-change. We don't specify
capitilazation in our rules, but I think it might be a good idea for
consistency.

> > (Rule 7) straightening out the lists: 
> A message "Proposal [n] Adopted" should be posted to the OAML and VML. 
> A message "Rule [n]" should be posted to the OAML and RML.
> (Rule 8) more
> A message "Proposal [n] Defeated" shoul dbe posted to the OAML and 
> VML.

Yes, those actions would seem to be indicated by Rule 0.

> (Rule 0) 
> Abbreviations:
> Official Action Mailing Mist (OAML or AML)
> Rules Mailing List (RML or RULES)
> Does anyone mind running together Ruleset and Rulechange? They coul 
> dbe considered seperately. 

I assume you mean removing the hypehns from those two terms. Either way
my spellchecker will complain, but it is easeir to type without the
hyphen. Along this line, do we want to specify capitilazaion of defined
terms? Personally, I think that is getting to be fiddly, but in a way
it does make sense.

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

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

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:43:31 -0000

>
> Do we want Gamedata to be in the Rules or in Official Actions?
> Gamedata falls under the idea of official actions that do not 
> require votes.
> activity or action resulting from application of the rules. 
> I think it would be easier deal with gamedata in the Actions 
> mailing list. 
> 
Agreed, however tampering with Gamedata should be paramount to 
tampering with Rules. 

> 
> There is nothing in the defintions that would prevent someone 
> from posting a condensed version occasionaly. 
> 
Not at all. It should be welcome, as well as necessary, to track the 
full extent of possible Ruleset conflicts.

> > (Rule 3) Two sentences: one relates to Proposing, 
> > Rule 2, "All rule- changes proposed in the proper 
> > way shall be voted on", and dangles a preposition; 
> > the other to Adoption, Rule 7, "If a Rule-Change is 
> > adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which 
> > they were posted to the VML" (also replaceing "they" 
> > with "it" to avoid personification of a clause). 
> 
> How about this then.
> 3. All Rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be 
> voted on by the Active Players. If a Rule-change is adopted,
> then it shall guide play in the form in which it was posted 
> to the VML.
> 
My asides on grammer might have distracted from the argument that 
these two sentences belong in two different rules, which oul dalso 
trim our Ruleset by one number.

> terms? Personally, I think that is getting to be fiddly, but in a 
way
Absolutely fiddly. I'd like to remove the hyphen, for such reasons as 
mentioned, and suggust that terms defined in Rule 0 be capitalized in 
use. Both suggestions are meant to improve legability of the rules at 
little sacrifice of typing speed and no reliance on email with HTML.