[Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd)

[Admiral Jota]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote:

> 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.
[....]
> 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).

What if a rule goes into effect one hour after ratification? I'm only
saying that out of concern of message propagation and such -- so you won't
inadvertantly send out a message that breaks a rule because the last vote
didn't have time to get to your inbox before you sent your "move" or
whatever.

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

My penalty for not posting, combined with baf's three demerit disqualifier
would do it, provided they were modified to use the same language for the
penalties/demerits.

> > 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.

Why? If it's actually a *majority* ruling (the rule ought to avoid the
word "rule" here, since a "rule" is a rule of the game), then they'll
presumably be in the minority. Unless they're in the majority :)

> > 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.

How about adding to VA, "portions of the game state specifically
associated to that player and no other player cease to exist, unless
otherwise specified in another rule" and "portions of the game state
associated with both that player and other player(s) will revert to only
the other player(s) with which they are associated", or somesuch?

> 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.

Sure.

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