[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd)

[Adam Biltcliffe]

oops, I sent this just to baf the first time by mistake, so here it is for 
everyone:

--On 14 January 2003 6:38 pm -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt <nomic02@wurb.com> wrote:

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

Sounds simple enough, although something bothers me about the phrasing. My
instinct would be "one greater than the greatest number currently assigned
to any rule"; I can't work out whether this is actually any different.

>   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.

Sure.

>   C. Rules may not be changed or removed.  The only change to the
>      rule set permissable is the addition of new rules.

I'm not dead against this, but I'm curious as to why you're suggesting it.

>   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.

Yes. I think that's the effect that I felt was missing from Rule 5.

>   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.)

I can see situations where this could needlessly slow things down. I think
this rule could be better covered by the rules defining decision-making
procedures below.

> II. Decision making procedures
>   A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at
>      nomic02@wurb.com.

Aye.

>   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.

Suggest changing the ending to "may be brought into effect as soon as the
last player has replied" (see my new proposal II.E below).

It might be wise to introduce some means of coping with inactive players at
some point.

>   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.

"... may be brought into effect as soon as this period has elapsed."

>   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".

"... may be brought into effect as soon as the voting period is over,
provided that the number of players ..."

Then add:

 E. When the rules specify that a change "may be brought into effect",
    the player who proposed the rule may post an announcement that the rule
    has come into effect (along with a summary of the voting if it is felt
    that this would be helpful). The rule comes into effect as soon as this
    announcement is posted. It does not come into effect before this.

    (Commentary: this makes players responsible for tracking their own
    proposals and so makes it harder for one to be 'missed'. It also makes
    it clear exactly when a new rule has come into effect. I assume the
    mailing list is fast enough that it can be assumed that all players
    will be aware of everything that has been posted to it immediately?
    Even if not, we can't end up in a situation where someone is penalised
    for posting something now forbidden by a new rule since posts to the
    list are not part of the state of the game. Also, I hope I'm right in
    thinking that the wording of Rule 8 allows changes to the rules to come
    into effect when they're announced on the list without the list being
    part of the state of the game?)

> III. Specific decision-making
>   A. Rules may be added by majority rule.  (Commentary: Note that
>      this only concerns adding rules, not removing or changing
>      existing rules.  Rules may still be removed or changed by
>      unanimous consent, unless we pass I.C.)

On the other hand, if we didn't pass I.C, adding new rules would require
majority consent while changing or removing them would require unanimous
consent, which seems like a good situation. I'm not sure I see the point in
forbidding anything which the players agree to unanimously.

>   B. Any person who posts a request to join the game may be
>      added to the players by passive consent.  (Commentary:
>      As passive consent is defined in II.C., there still has
>      to be a proposal by a player.  Thus, each new player
>      needs a sponsor.)

I agree in principle, but it seems as though the official wording ought to
make the need for a sponsor clearer.

> 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.

This all seems fine, except that I would suggest that IV.A be amended to
prohibit the rulebreaking player from voting on their own demeriting.

> 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.

We'll need to bear in mind that additions to the state of the game which
are associated with a player may need to specify what happens when that
player is removed from the game, but yes.

>   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.

Yes. I also suggest:

 C. If at any time there is only one player remaining in the game then the
    game shall end and that player shall be deemed to have won.

> 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.

Sure, why not? Also, am I correct in thinking that as the map is part of
the state of the game, all its properties (such as the locations of players
within it) are also part of the state of the game?



jw

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------