[Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising

[Adam Biltcliffe]

--On 15 January 2003 11:02 am -0500 Admiral Jota <jota@shelltown.net> wrote:

>> 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.

I don't see how the concept of abstention is useful; given that unanimity 
is required to make a change, abstaining is the same as agreeing.

I'm also withdrawing my support for the rule which reads "Unless specified 
otherwise, when a player leaves the game, portions of the game state 
specifically associated to that player and no other player cease to exist. 
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." I think there are actually very few elements of the game state 
which we'd automatically want to cease to exist when a player leaves the 
game. In the case of scores, etc., if a rule reads "each player shall have 
a score", it's implicit that the score disappears when the player leaves. 
On the other hand, if part of the game state is that I have five Magic 
Lemons, I don't think it's to be assumed at all that my lemons should 
disappear if I leave the game, and this should be handled by the rule 
introducing the ownership of magic lemons.



jw