Subject: Re: Prop 39

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@l...>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:18:58 -0000

I had writen Prop 39 under the impression that we might come to 
another point at which pointing fingers could not get us out of a 
problem in which the Ruleset itself might be seen as inadequate, yet 
unable to jettison the previously built edifice and start again. 

Is this problem not forseen at this point?
Is this an inadequate means to address such a problem?

--- In [email-masked], message 80, "Oloros Luin" wrote, 
under the subject "allegations are against the ruleset", the 
following:

The allegations of Xylen are ones directed against the Ruleset 
itself, and not the fault of any single Player. At this point, it may 
be a simple thing to scuttle the ship and launch it again. With a 
more developed Ruleset, however, it would be difficult to lose the 
accumulated material. It seems to me that we need a means of 
resolving such matters that is consistant with the Ruleset, yet not 
vulnerable to accidental modification, and thorough enough to 
function under a highly reduced core Ruleset. And also gets the game 
started again as quickly as possible. And prevents the abuse of 
itself by Players who might Cry Wolf or have More Sinister Desires.

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:59:59 +1000

>Is this an inadequate means to address such a problem?

My problems with the Containment Jacket are as follows:

* It duplicates the Escape Hatch, but in a formal way

* Should the game grow to great size, it allows only 4 players to
spontaneously start a coup and take over the ruleset, rather than the
"near-unanimous" required for the Escape Hatch.

So that's why I voted Against

Cheers

GT

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@l...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:28:16 -0000

--- In [email-masked], Gallivanting Tripper opined and 
noted:
> spontaneously start a coup and take over the ruleset, rather than
> the "near-unanimous" required for the Escape Hatch.
> 
Very good reasons. Although, as I straighten my cumberbund, I might 
ask what's wrong with formality?

-Oloros, mostly posting just to see himself and GT logged on 
concurrently.

---

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:47:58 -0600

> * It duplicates the Escape Hatch, but in a formal way

Well, I don't mind the formal nature of it. Considering what it does,
it doesn't seem to hurt to have two rules that can solve major problems.

> "near-unanimous" required for the Escape Hatch.

That was my problem as well. It only took four of us to create this
nomic, and in the event of a disaster, four people can really muck this
one up too. I dislike the 'near-unanimous' portion of the Escape Hatch,
but it allows for more players to be involved. Of course, if a group of
players really get upset with this nomic, they can always copy the
rules they want, and go find another list to run it on. 

I'm not sure yet whether I would like prop 39 with something like 'a
majority of players' or a 'majority of Active players' or some other
formula. ((Total Players - Active Players) /(number of rules + my cats
age)) :)

Xylen

-- 
Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked