[Nomic02] demerit proposal

[Carbol, Roger]

> I'd agree that we can do without rules that can be violated. =20
> Currently,
> all rules permit things rather than require things, and the=20
> only things
> that are forbidden are unauthorized changes to game state, which fits
> within RC's suggestion that violations are merely impossible.=20
> As long as
> there's someone other than myself willing to veto violable=20
> rules (I don't
> trust myself to always catch these things), I'm willing to do without
> penalty rules.  I just don't want to see a repeat of what=20
> happened in game
> 01: a rule was passed stating "All players must name their=20
> tokens within 5
> days of this rule's passage."  After 5 days, one player had=20
> not named his
> token, and we didn't know what to do about it.

Jota's new proposal is interesting:

>However, any player who "wins Mornington
>Crescent" in this manner will also immediately=20
>lose this game.

Is "losing" an action that the player is required to take
in this situation?  Could he just decline to do so and
take a demerit?  Such is the problem with these things,
I think, and so I remain against legalized rules-breaking.




.. Roger ..


NOTICE::
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity =
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally =
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a =
person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the =
intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, =
or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in =
it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in =
error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or =
delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by =
us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation.