Subject: Ruleset comments (was Re: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic)

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 08 Apr 2002 12:44:51 -0400

Interesting ruleset, to say the least. I have no idea how playable it
will turn out to be! I have a number of quibbles and questions (and
one compliment) though:

"Craig" <ragnarok@p...> writes:

> 0.2 Because Thermo is a relatively new Nomic, players are not to try to
> kill it.

Hah! I like this rule. Unenforceable, but...

> 4.1 Every rule shall have a number which uniquely identifies it.

How does it acquire this number? Is the number part of the rule, and
therefore specified when the rule is proposed? What happens if
someone proposes a new rule but fails to specify a unique number for
it? 

Is "4.1" a number, or two numbers? That is, does "number" refer to a
non-integer number expressed in decimal form, or to a pair of integers
separated by a dot? Can a rule number be negative, zero, irrational,
transcendental, imaginary? See also question about 3.2.

> 4.2 A group of rules is any number of rules under a common heading,
> followed by a short commentary on the rules of that group.

How does a new rule acquire its position in the ruleset? Must the
part of the rule number before the dot be the same as that of the
other rules in the same group and different from that of rules in any
other group? Must rules occur in numerical order? No, obviously not,
since they don't. Must rules in any particular group occur in
numerical order? Does it matter?

> 4.6 The Official Mailing List is
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/ and can be accessed by e-mail
> at [email-masked]

Why's this in the Rules group?

> 4.8 The version of the ruleset archived at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/files/ruleset shall be the only
> official version.

Is this taken to mean no rule change takes effect until it is
administered into this file?

> 5.0 A proposal consists of a suggested change to the game.

Exactly one change? If so, then see 1.1 for a possible problem. If
not, then see 6.6 for a possible problem.

"Change to the game" is ambiguous at best -- in some Nomics it's hard
to do better, but in this one, what about something like

A proposal consists of a suggested creation or destruction of a
Thing. 

(This, if adopted without further refinement, would probably have
effects different from what your version intended. For instance,
groups and commentaries would not be able to be changed.)

> 5.2 A pending proposal is a proposal which obeys the Three Sacred Laws, has
> been submitted to the official mailing list, and has not expired.

I see no prohibition of putting multiple proposals in one submission.
Is this intended? If a submission contains multiple suggested changes
is it a proposal, multiple proposals, or neither?

> 5.8 No player may vote on a proposal which is not pending.

What happens to them if they do?

> 6.2 A proposal which does not suggest altering one of the Three Sacred Laws
> passes if and only if...
> 6.3 A proposal which suggests altering one of the Three Sacred Laws passes
> if and only if, 

What about a proposal which suggests altering two or more of the Three
Sacred Laws? Or is that not possible?

Is destruction "altering"?

> 6.4 When a proposal passes, the changes it suggests are adopted.

Which seems to suggest, no, you do NOT have to wait until the archived
ruleset is changed before a rule change takes effect. If so, in what
sense is the archived ruleset an "official version"?

> 6.6 No proposal may modify any individual rule, aside from adding or
> removing it.

If a proposal may make multiple changes, then modifying a rule can be
accomplished by removing it and adding the modified version.

> 9.0 Any in-game item is a Thing, with the exception of Therms.
> 
> 9.1 Currently, the types of Things are as follows: Rules, players,
> proposals, offices, and points.

This seems redundant and/or contradictory. For example: what about
rule commentaries? They are items specified by the ruleset, hence
would seem to be Things according to 9.0, but according to 9.1 they
are not. 

How about something like:

9.0 A Thing is any item declared by the rules to be a Thing.

9.1 Rules, players, proposals, offices, and points are Things.

> 9.6 A rule which is destroyed is automatically removed from the ruleset.

Again: immediately, or when the official ruleset is edited?

> 9.7 Any Thing which is not a player or a Rule must be posessed by a player.

What if that player is destroyed? What happens to eir Things? 

How is the quality of being possessed acquired or lost? Is it legal
to propose a rule which creates new Things (other than a player or a
Rule) without proposing a rule to specify how those Things acquire
possessors? Or would such a rule simply be regarded as contradicting
9.7?

> 9.8 Each individual office shall be declared to exist by the rules of the
> group headed OFFICES
> 
> 9.9 Each individual office carries with it its own duties.

Why not put these as the first two rules of the OFFICES group?

> 10.1 The Speaker shall be in charge of tabulating votes and making any
> random decisions necessary.

What happens if e fails to?

Who tallies and keeps track of the Things?

Who administers the ruleset?

> 10.2 The Speaker may not deregister.

What if e does? Note that the deregistration rules, which have higher
priority than this rule, specify means by which any player can
deregister.

> 1.1 No proposal may be submitted whose passage would increase the number of
> Things in the game, unless it is explicitly permitted by rules in the group
> headed FIRST SACRED LAW.

Does this mean no rule change may add a new rule, unless some other
Thing also is destroyed (or it's submitted as a registration
proposal)? But wouldn't that be two changes, hence prohibited by 5.0?
Therefore there can be no new rules except those proposed in
registration proposals. Unless the new rule itself mandates immediate
destruction of a Thing, but if that's allowable, it's an ugly
loophole in the "a proposal is a single suggested change" idea.

Suppose rule 1.2 were destroyed, and someone proposed a "new rule"
with the same text as the destroyed rule 1.2. Its passage would
create a new rule, and a new player (if, as argued above, this could
happen only in a registration proposal). So far so good. But now
another registration proposal comes along, it passes, and at least one
new Thing is created. Indirectly, the first proposal (to restore rule
1.2) made this possible, so one could say that proposal has increased
the number of Things by 3.

I assume that's not the sort of thing you meant. Perhaps the word
"directly" before "increase" would clarify this. But what does
"directly" mean? 

> 1.3 Whenever a player Registers and the number of Therms exceeds the number
> of players by at least five, all players recieve a point and all Therms are
> destroyed.

I see no effect defined in the present rules of the creation,
existence, or destruction of Therms. Is this intended?

> 3.1 If a rule in one of the Three Sacred Laws conflicts with another rule,
> the rule in the Sacred Law takes precedence.

By what means is it determined that such conflicts exist? And in
general, by what means are actions of disputed legality handled?

If a rule in one of the TSLs conflicts with another rule in one of the
TSLs, then what does "the rule in the Sacred Law" refer to?

Probably what was intended that 3.2 would apply in this case, but it
would reduce ambiguity to replace "another rule" with "a rule not in
one of the TSLs".

> 3.2 If two rules contradict one another, the rule with the lower number
> takes precedence.

Is, e.g., 4.10 lower or higher than 4.9?

-- 
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY

---

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 08 Apr 2002 13:13:05 -0400

> of players by at least five, all players recieve a point and all Therms are

Also... here and elsewhere, "receive" is misspelled.

-- 
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:56:03 -0400

>Hah! I like this rule. Unenforceable, but...

Of course. This is just a gentle reminder to all who are contemplating
anything.

>someone proposes a new rule but fails to specify a unique number for
?it?

The number is part of a rule. Perhaps we should add a stipulation about
that.

>transcendental, imaginary? See also question about 3.2.

4.1 is meant to be a single number, which happens not to be an integer. 4.0
is also a single number, but it is an integer. I'll put something in about
making the numbers have to be real.

>numerical order? Does it matter?

I don't think it matters what position they are in, though I would assume
that the group they are in is specified by the proposal - though not
necessarily, so if you have any ideas about what to do then, say so.

>Why's this in the Rules group?

Oopsie.

>administered into this file?

Oopsie again. I'll just delete that rule.

>not, then see 6.6 for a possible problem.

I meant it to be 'one change' in that it happens all at once, but you could
change five rules and ten commentaries in one fell swoop.

>groups and commentaries would not be able to be changed.)

Hmm... how about:

A proposal consists of any number of suggested creations or destructions
of Things, and the creation, destruction, or alteration of any number of
comments and group headings in the ruleset.

>is it a proposal, multiple proposals, or neither?

See my answer to 5.0. It is a proposal.

>What happens to them if they do?

That's a good question. Ideas, anyone?

>Sacred Laws? Or is that not possible?

I'll change those to one or more.

>Is destruction "altering"?

Yes.

>sense is the archived ruleset an "official version"?

I agree, and will strike the 'official version' rule.

>accomplished by removing it and adding the modified version.

Is that bad? If that is what you have to do to modify a rule, it will be
less common than simple addition and deletion, but I for one would not want
to rule it out entirely. Do you?

> 9.1 Rules, players, proposals, offices, and points are Things.

Wow. Much better.

>Again: immediately, or when the official ruleset is edited?

Immediately.

>What if that player is destroyed? What happens to eir Things?

Hmm. I suggest that they be randomly redistributed, but I bet that would be
unpopular. I will propose that as soon as we begin the game.

>possessors? Or would such a rule simply be regarded as contradicting

Very good questions. Any ideas?

>Why not put these as the first two rules of the OFFICES group?

Good idea, I will.

>What happens if e fails to?

All rules which require or forbid things need penalties. I don't have any
clue what to do for those myself; if anyone else does then speak up.

>>Who tallies and keeps track of the Things?

The speaker probably should, I'll add that.

>>Who administers the ruleset?

Well, if we delete the official version rule, anyone who feels like it.

>priority than this rule, specify means by which any player can

Ick. How about if we get rid of this?

>proposal)? But wouldn't that be two changes, hence prohibited by 5.0?

Yes, but the way 5.0 was meant and the way I'm phrasing it for the next
draft, it would be permitted.

>"directly" before "increase" would clarify this. But what does

Yeah, you're right. I'll include a directly.

>existence, or destruction of Therms. Is this intended?

Hmm... I thought I included a bit about how they appear, and I will rephrase
that as 'the number of Therms is set to zero.' at the end.

>general, by what means are actions of disputed legality handled?

I don't see a need to put a judiciary in the initial ruleset, though I would
encourage proposals of them when we begin, and I will support any decent
ones.

>would reduce ambiguity to replace "another rule" with "a rule not in

I will do so.

Since 4.10 = 4.1, it is a lower number.

---

From: rsholmes@m...
Date: 08 Apr 2002 22:13:07 -0400

Most of my comments and questions, of course, addressed fairly minor
things. But this ruleset is missing two things which, I believe,
ought to be present in at least rudimentary form in any ruleset: a
graceful way to transfer responsibilities when necessary (with or
without the cooperation of the person whose responsibilities are being
transferred), and a judicial system. Neither needs to be very
elaborate at the start, but I absolutely believe it's a mistake to
omit them and hope they'll be defined once the game gets going. All
too many Nomics have died in infancy due to a lack of one or the
other. 

-- 
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY