[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions

[Admiral Jota]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote:

> Some of these proposals obviously depend on others, but for the most
> part I'd be happy to consider them individually.

Woah, rule overload.

> I. Rules governing rules
>   A. Each rule has a number.  Rule numbers start with 1, and each
>      new rule has a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule.
>   B. When two rules conflict, the rule with the greater number
>      overrides the rule with the lesser number.  The rule with the
>      lesser number still applies in matters where no higher-numbered
>      rule applies.
>   C. Rules may not be changed or removed.  The only change to the
>      rule set permissable is the addition of new rules.  (Commentary:
>      This depends on I.B. or some similar mechanism for resolving
>      conflicts.  Also, note that with such a mechanism, this rule
>      itself could be overridden by a later rule, and thus should be
>      seen as only applying to normal rule-making procedures.)
>   D. No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part of
>      the state of the game, except by making it part of the state
>      of the game.
>   E. Changes to the rules do not take effect until midnight
>      GMT following their adoption.  (Commentary:  I'd be happy to
>      accept something else here.  I just want it to be clear exactly
>      when rules go into effect.)

Most of this seems fairly unecessary. The conflicting rules thing can be
dealt with when it comes up, IMO. I'd only keep the last one, part E.
Although, perhaps rules ratified between 2300 and 0100 GMT should be
delayed until the following noon, to prevent any disagreement over clocks?

> II. Decision making procedures
>   A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at
>      nomic02@wurb.com.  (Commentary: At this point, the list is
>      still not part of "the state of the game".  I have taken
>      care to make sure that the following rules comply with
>      I.D. - although posting is a big part of the game under
>      these proposals, no one is ever required to post anything.)

In that case, how about these rules:

Scoring: Each player in the game will have one or more point tallies
associated with him or her, as a part of the game state. These will have
(signed) integer values. Initially, each player will have tallies referred
to as "Brownie" points and "Penalty" points, which both start at 0. Later
rules may add new tallies, remove existing tallies, change the current
values of tallies, or describe methods for doing any of those three things.

The Mailing List: The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered
a part of the game state, and will be refered to as The List. To "post"
something is to send it to the list. Any player who does note post for a
week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest
post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one
penalty point. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest
invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional penalty point.

>   B. "Unanimous consent" refers to the following process:
>      A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit
>      to be decided by unanimous consent.
>      If all other players post a reply to the proposal
>      indicating agreement by using the word "aye",
>      the proposal goes into effect.

Sure. But I'd suggest rewording this to define both "aye" and "nay"
respectively in this rule.

>   C. "Passive consent" refers to the following process:
>      A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit
>      to be decided by passive consent.
>      If no player posts a reply to the proposal indicating
>      disagreement by using the word "nay" within 48 hours,
>      or some other period specified by the rule,
>      the proposal goes into effect.
>   D. "Majority rule" refers to the following process:
>      A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit
>      to be decided by majority rule.  For the next 48 hours,
>      or some other period specified by the rule, players have the
>      opportunity to post a vote, either "aye" or "nay",
>      and may change their vote at any time by posting the
>      new vote.  The proposer is assumed to cast an "aye"
>      vote until changing it.  After the voting period is over,
>      the proposal goes into effect if the number of players
>      voting "aye" is strictly greater than the number of
>      players voting "nay".

Nah, I don't care for much of that, personally. How about...

Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay".
Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the
voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial "aye" (but
may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a
proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted "aye", but may
change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified or vetoed.

I don't like the idea of three players being allowed to force through a
proposal that the fourth player is against -- but I don't mind idlers
being ignored, provided they have sufficient time to make an argument.

[III]

Section III is mainly about majority decisions, which I'm not in favor of,
so.

> IV. Rule-breaking
>   A. Whenever a player performs an action that is forbidden by
>      a rule other than Rule 4, or fails to perform an action that
>      is required by a rule other than Rule 4, a "demerit" may be
>      assigned to that player by majority rule.  Demerits are part
>      of the state of the game.
>   B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed
>      entirely from the state of the game.
>   C. Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that
>      were not part of the state of the game when the violation
>      occurred.

Mmm. I'd made my earlier comments before reading down this far, since
there was so much to read here. I'm fine with this, and with my earlier
rule about not posting be amended to refer to demerits instead of penalty
points.

> V. Endings
>   A. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting
>      intention to do so.  When this happens, the player is
>      removed entirely from the state of the game.
>   B. It is possible for players to win or lose by means
>      to be described in the rules.  A player who loses will be
>      removed entirely from the state of the game, and may not
>      rejoin.  If a player wins, the game will immediately end and
>      all players who have not won will lose.

Sure.

> VI. Let's give this game some content other than itself already.
>   A. The state of the game contains a map, consisting of rooms.
>      The map contains a room called "the Lounge".  All players
>      have a location on the map.  The Lounge is the initial
>      location of every player.

Playgurizm! Er, I mean, how about a map not initially based on ifMUD?

(Note that the only proposals I've formally voted against are IIC and IID.
The only ones I've formally voted in favor of are IIB, VA and VB. The
others I haven't formally voted on, but the rule of unanimous ratification
should still be in effect, so.)

-- 
                                     _/<-=    Admiral Jota    =->\_
                                      \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/