[Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising

[Admiral Jota]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote:

> > "Each rule has a number.  Rule numbers start with 1, and each
> > new rule has
> > a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule."
> > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota)
>
> Aye.

Looks like we have a rule 9.

> > "Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires
> > the unanimous
> > agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye" or
> > "nay" in
> > response to the proposal by posting this vote to the list.
> > Any player may
> > change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is
> > complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an initial "aye"
> > (but may change
> > it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a particular
> > 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 removed
> > from consideration. If at any point any player has voted against a
> > particular proposal, then any other player (including other
> > "nay" voters)
> > may declare it to be dead, and removed from consideration. If
> > at any point
> > all players have voted in favour of a particular proposal
> > (either by voting
> > "aye" or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the original
> > proposer may declare it to be ratified by posting a message
> > containing the
> > text of the proposal, a summary of the votes on it, and the
> > time it will
> > come into effect: the issue under consideration is considered
> > to have been
> > unanimously agreed by all players after a period of one hour
> > from the time
> > of this posting has elapsed."
> > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota)
>
> I'm not terribly happy with this; I'd rather see another
> voting state of 'abstain' and have everyone default to it.
> But it looks like a good start.
>
> Aye.

And rule 10. For the sake of following the spirit of the rule, whether or
not it's yet necessary to follow the letter, I hereby quote the proposal
(above), summarize the votes ("aye" from baf, jwalrus, Roger and myself),
and note that it went into effect when Roger voted (no delay, since this
rule didn't exist before this rule was ratified). So mote it be.

> This is a consistent sticking point in nomics, so here's my view:
>
> A player *can't* perform an action forbidden by the rules.  If
> the player tries, it just fails to happen.
>
> If you allow players to break, say, Rule 8, and only get one
> fat demerit for it, the game will immediately degenerate, I think.
>
> Such is my opinion, anyway.

That may work for performing illegal actions, but what about failing to
perform required actions?

> > "Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed
> > entirely from
> > the state of the game."
> > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota)
>
> I'm still voting against the rule-breaking proposal, but this
> seems fine enough.
>
> Aye.

Rule 11.

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