From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 07:24:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:24:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] test Message-ID: OK, I think this is finally working properly. Test test test, test. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 07:31:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:31:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > OK, I think this is finally working properly. Test test test, test. Test wop a lubop, a test bang boom? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 15:26:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:26:41 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] test Message-ID: > OK, I think this is finally working properly. Test test test, test. Hello, fellow players. .. Roger Carbol .. 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. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 19:26:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:26:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: <14903530.1042153519@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Rule 7. The state of the game may not be altered in any manner not > prescribed by the rules. (Commentary: This means that players may only > alter the gamestate as prescribed by the rules, as intended, but also that > non-players or external agencies cannot alter the rules either unless a > rule specifically allows it.) > > Perhaps also: > > Rule 8: "The state of the game" shall consist of the current set of players > and the current list of rules, as well as anything added to this definition > by a future Rule. I'm willing to accept these two, and perhaps even leave out Rule 6. But I would like them to be in the opposite order. Just an aesthetic thing; if there's a rule defining a term, the definition should come before it is used. In addition, Greg Travis is backing out. Thus, I wish to remove him from Rule 3 of my proposal. (Since we haven't agreed on an initial ruleset yet, I'd say that the game hasn't really started, so this is just pre-game planning still. If this troubles you, think of it as the last game entering a dead state through the nonparticipation of one member, and me proposing that we start a new game.) I have dropped him from this mailing list, which is currently outside the scope of the proposed rules anyway. With Greg's departure, it is now the case that all participants are on ifMUD. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 20:35:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:35:59 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40696808.1042230959@cornelius> > I'm willing to accept these two, and perhaps even leave out Rule > 6. But I would like them to be in the opposite order. Just an > aesthetic thing; if there's a rule defining a term, the > definition should come before it is used. Yeah, I'd agree about the order. With regards to removing Rule 6, though, unless I'm mistaken this would leave us with no mechanism for altering the rules, which is probably not what we want. For the sake of formalities I'll also mention that I'll accept the removal of Greg Travis from rule 3. Would it be possible for you to modify the mailing list to include a Reply-To: nomic02@wurb.com header, to make replying easier? jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 21:11:31 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:11:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: <40696808.1042230959@cornelius> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Yeah, I'd agree about the order. With regards to removing Rule 6, though, > unless I'm mistaken this would leave us with no mechanism for altering the > rules, which is probably not what we want. I meant rule 5. The Limitation of Scope rule. The proposed rules 7 and 8 seem to express everything I want from rule 5. > Would it be possible for you to modify the mailing list to include a > Reply-To: nomic02@wurb.com header, to make replying easier? I could, but I'm a little reluctant to because that's Considered Harmful. (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) Given a reasonable mail client - and even the command-line-based Unix "mail" command counts as "reasonable" by this criterion - replying to the list is no more difficult than replying to the author of a message. However, there is also the reasonable argument that using the reply-to-all function usually replies to both the list and the sender who is also on the list, which is redundant and wasteful and potentially snowballs until everyone on the list is receiving two copies of every reply. So I'll make this change unless someone objects. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 03:03:56 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 03:03:56 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63974109.1042254236@cornelius> > I meant rule 5. The Limitation of Scope rule. The proposed rules 7 and 8 > seem to express everything I want from rule 5. I disagree. Rule 5 as it stands states that the game cannot affect things that are not part of it, as well as the other way around. Without it, we could (in theory) pass a rule to the effect of "Carl Muckenhoupt must pay each of the other players $5 each time he wishes to perform any action within the game". Possibly this could be incorporated into Rule 7, but I think it ought to be mentioned. >> Would it be possible for you to modify the mailing list to include a >> Reply-To: nomic02@wurb.com header, to make replying easier? > > I could, but I'm a little reluctant to because that's Considered > Harmful. (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) Given a > reasonable mail client - and even the command-line-based Unix > "mail" command counts as "reasonable" by this criterion - replying to > the list is no more difficult than replying to the author of a > message. However, there is also the reasonable argument that using the > reply-to-all function usually replies to both the list and the sender who > is also on the list, which is redundant and wasteful and potentially > snowballs until everyone on the list is receiving two copies of every > reply. So I'll make this change unless someone objects. Well, Mulberry manages to make replying to the list somewhat more complicated than replying to just the author, but having looked again it turns out it is at least possible (without having to copy the emails addresses by hand). So, given the reasons listed in the web page you cited, I'm willing to retract this request - though by all means do it anyway if you think it'll reduce the frequency with which we receive two copies of each reply to posts to the list ... jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 03:11:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:11:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: <63974109.1042254236@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > I meant rule 5. The Limitation of Scope rule. The proposed rules 7 and 8 > > seem to express everything I want from rule 5. > > I disagree. Rule 5 as it stands states that the game cannot affect things > that are not part of it, as well as the other way around. Without it, we > could (in theory) pass a rule to the effect of "Carl Muckenhoupt must pay > each of the other players $5 each time he wishes to perform any action > within the game". Possibly this could be incorporated into Rule 7, but I > think it ought to be mentioned. I don't see where you get that from, exactly. Why would #5 prevent us from making a rule like that? baf's in the game since he's one of the players, and even if he weren't, we could make a rule adding him to the game state. Of course, baf would probably vote against such a rule, but that's a different matter. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 11:50:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:50:32 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <769716.1042285832@cornelius> > I don't see where you get that from, exactly. Why would #5 prevent us > from making a rule like that? baf's in the game since he's one of the > players, and even if he weren't, we could make a rule adding him to the > game state. Of course, baf would probably vote against such a rule, but > that's a different matter. baf as a player is in the game, but the current Rule 5 prevents the game from having any effect on real-world concerns like, in my example, money. I don't think that the argument that we could pass a rule adding it to the gamestate is valid here, as by that argument none of the initial rules count for anything since they can all be altered. To be honest, I'm not overly bothered about this, but I thought I ought to point out that we are losing something if we remove Rule 5. I'm suspecting that in practice this is unlikely to be an issue, so remove it if you like. jw ps. Do we really need to send emails to one member of the list and cc them to the rest of the list, so that the intended receipient gets them twice? From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 11:52:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 06:52:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: <769716.1042285832@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > baf as a player is in the game, but the current Rule 5 prevents the game > from having any effect on real-world concerns like, in my example, money. I > don't think that the argument that we could pass a rule adding it to the > gamestate is valid here, as by that argument none of the initial rules > count for anything since they can all be altered. By that logic, you couldn't make a rule saying that rules can only be submitted via email without making a rule to include the players' computers in the game state, no? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 16:05:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:05:08 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16045982.1042301108@cornelius> > By that logic, you couldn't make a rule saying that rules can only be > submitted via email without making a rule to include the players' > computers in the game state, no? Since I've already said that I don't object to dropping Rule 5, I think this easiest thing may be to let this debate rest. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 19:03:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:03:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rule 5 specifically limits its exclusion to "things that are not explicitly mentioned in the rules". If we add a rule that mentions money, Rule 5 no longer excludes money from the game. Yes, it's a trivial rule. All the rules in my proposal are trivial. I'd be willing to try something more formal - say, adding a distinction between Rules and Definitions, and stating that only terms with Definitions may be used in Rules - but I'd like to pass the simpler proposed ruleset first. Also, I'm starting to change my mind about leaving Rule 5 out. It is good to have it there in addition to the proposed rules about "the state of the game", because actions are not part of the state of the game. For example, Rule 5 makes it clear that discussion of rules on this list is not a part of the game, so if the "Carl pays money for any action in the game" rule were to pass, I could still participate in game discussions on this list for free. Finally, having seen no strong objection to munging reply-to (other than my own), I've decided to go ahead with it. If anyone complains, I'll undo it. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 19:35:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:35:41 -0500 Subject: [Nomic02] Updated initial rules proposal Message-ID: To summarize, here's an initial ruleset that incorporates all suggestions made so far. Can we agree on it? And "aye" from all of you and it's done. Not that I want to pressure you or anything. Feel free to object to anything you find objectionable. Rule 1. This is a game. Rule 2. A rule is a series of one or more statements in English. This game has a set of rules, consisting of Rule 1 and all the rules that follow it. Rule 3. This game has a set of players. At the start of the game, this set consists of Adam Biltcliffe, Roger Carbol, Admiral Jota, and Carl Muckenhoupt. Rule 4. All players must obey the rules. That is, all players must, to the best of their ability, behave in such a manner that the rules are satisfied. Rule 5. Any action or thing, whether actual or notional, that is neither explicitly mentioned in the rules nor otherwise brought into the game in a manner described by the rules is not a part of the game. Rule 6. The players may change the rules by unanimous agreement. Rule 7. "The state of the game" shall consist of the current set of players and the current list of rules, as well as anything added to this definition by a future Rule. Rule 8. The state of the game may not be altered in any manner not prescribed by the rules. In addition to the above, I'm starting to think about a rule to explicitly state the point that Adam saw in Rule 5 that Jota disagreed with. Something like "No rule may specifically require any effect on anything that is not part of the state of the game." But this is a separate matter, not part of the above proposal. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 12 00:09:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:09:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Updated initial rules proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > To summarize, here's an initial ruleset that incorporates all suggestions made so far. Can we agree on it? > And "aye" from all of you and it's done. Not that I want to pressure you or anything. Feel free to object to > anything you find objectionable. Aye. > In addition to the above, I'm starting to think about a rule to explicitly state the point that Adam saw in > Rule 5 that Jota disagreed with. Something like "No rule may specifically require any effect on anything that > is not part of the state of the game." But this is a separate matter, not part of the above proposal. As a separate rule, to be voted on once we ratify the main ruleset and formally start the game? Sure. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 12 02:40:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 02:40:23 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Updated initial rules proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54160809.1042339223@cornelius> > To summarize, here's an initial ruleset that incorporates > all suggestions made so far. Can we agree on it? And > "aye" from all of you and it's done. Aye! jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 13 15:40:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:40:32 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Updated initial rules proposal Message-ID: > To summarize, here's an initial ruleset that incorporates all=20 > suggestions made so far. Can we agree on it? =20 Aye. =20 .. 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. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 13 19:13:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:13:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Web site Message-ID: I've created a web site for this game at http://www.wurb.com/nomic/02. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 14 23:38:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:38:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions Message-ID: 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. 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. C. Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the rule set permissable is the addition of new rules. (Commentary: This depends on I.B. or some similar mechanism for resolving conflicts. Also, note that with such a mechanism, this rule itself could be overridden by a later rule, and thus should be seen as only applying to normal rule-making procedures.) 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. 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.) II. Decision making procedures A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com. (Commentary: At this point, the list is still not part of "the state of the game". I have taken care to make sure that the following rules comply with I.D. - although posting is a big part of the game under these proposals, no one is ever required to post anything.) 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. 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. 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". 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.) 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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 09:58:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:58:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Some of these proposals obviously depend on others, but for the most > part I'd be happy to consider them individually. Woah, rule overload. > 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. > 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. > C. Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the > rule set permissable is the addition of new rules. (Commentary: > This depends on I.B. or some similar mechanism for resolving > conflicts. Also, note that with such a mechanism, this rule > itself could be overridden by a later rule, and thus should be > seen as only applying to normal rule-making procedures.) > 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. > 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.) Most of this seems fairly unecessary. The conflicting rules thing can be dealt with when it comes up, IMO. I'd only keep the last one, part E. Although, perhaps rules ratified between 2300 and 0100 GMT should be delayed until the following noon, to prevent any disagreement over clocks? > II. Decision making procedures > A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at > nomic02@wurb.com. (Commentary: At this point, the list is > still not part of "the state of the game". I have taken > care to make sure that the following rules comply with > I.D. - although posting is a big part of the game under > these proposals, no one is ever required to post anything.) In that case, how about these rules: Scoring: Each player in the game will have one or more point tallies associated with him or her, as a part of the game state. These will have (signed) integer values. Initially, each player will have tallies referred to as "Brownie" points and "Penalty" points, which both start at 0. Later rules may add new tallies, remove existing tallies, change the current values of tallies, or describe methods for doing any of those three things. The Mailing List: The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game state, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Any player who does note post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one penalty point. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional penalty point. > 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. Sure. But I'd suggest rewording this to define both "aye" and "nay" respectively in this rule. > 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. > 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". Nah, I don't care for much of that, personally. How about... Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay". Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a 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 vetoed. I don't like the idea of three players being allowed to force through a proposal that the fourth player is against -- but I don't mind idlers being ignored, provided they have sufficient time to make an argument. [III] Section III is mainly about majority decisions, which I'm not in favor of, so. > 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. Mmm. I'd made my earlier comments before reading down this far, since there was so much to read here. I'm fine with this, and with my earlier rule about not posting be amended to refer to demerits instead of penalty points. > 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. > 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. Sure. > 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. Playgurizm! Er, I mean, how about a map not initially based on ifMUD? (Note that the only proposals I've formally voted against are IIC and IID. The only ones I've formally voted in favor of are IIB, VA and VB. The others I haven't formally voted on, but the rule of unanimous ratification should still be in effect, so.) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 10:32:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:32:25 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) Message-ID: <94734561.1042626745@cornelius> 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 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 ---------- From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 10:43:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 05:43:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <94734561.1042626745@cornelius> Message-ID: 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 =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 10:47:48 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:47:48 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95656606.1042627667@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 4:58 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > Woah, rule overload. Indeed. Since we don't have a formal mechanism for dealing with proposed rule-changes in place yet, I hope this doesn't get too confusing. >> 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. >> B. When two rules conflict, the rule with the greater number >> overrides the rule with the lesser number [...] >> C. Rules may not be changed or removed [...] >> 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. >> 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.) > > Most of this seems fairly unecessary. The conflicting rules thing can be > dealt with when it comes up, IMO. I'd only keep the last one, part E. > Although, perhaps rules ratified between 2300 and 0100 GMT should be > delayed until the following noon, to prevent any disagreement over clocks? I've already voiced my disagreement with I.C here. I.A I think we should have just for ease of reference in discussing the rules. I.B is perhaps not necessary since a proposed rule can be phrased to take account of the rules existing at the time (assuming there's nothing here which causes a problem with rules which state they override other rules). I guess it might be useful for resolving conflicts in the rules which aren't noticed when the rules are originally passed. I still disagree with I.E, since Jota's suggestion doesn't change anything: people can still disagree about whether a rule was passed before or after 2300. I'm still in favour of having rules come into effect when the original proponent announces that the rule has been ratified. >> II. Decision making procedures >> A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at >> nomic02@wurb.com. (Commentary: At this point, the list is >> still not part of "the state of the game". I have taken >> care to make sure that the following rules comply with >> I.D. - although posting is a big part of the game under >> these proposals, no one is ever required to post anything.) > > In that case, how about these rules: > > Scoring: Each player in the game will have one or more point tallies > associated with him or her, as a part of the game state. These will have > (signed) integer values. Initially, each player will have tallies referred > to as "Brownie" points and "Penalty" points, which both start at 0. Later > rules may add new tallies, remove existing tallies, change the current > values of tallies, or describe methods for doing any of those three > things. Are you withdrawing this suggestion in favour of baf's demerits? > The Mailing List: The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered > a part of the game state, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" > something is to send it to the list. Any player who does note post for a > week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest > post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one > penalty point. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest > invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional penalty point. I'm still not convinced that it's desirable that the content of the mailing list be considered part of the state of the game. >> 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. > > Sure. But I'd suggest rewording this to define both "aye" and "nay" > respectively in this rule. Actually, I'm not agreeing to this yet; I think it would be simpler to use Jota's passive dissent rule below to determine when a unanimous agreement has been reached and use that for all decision-making. >> C. "Passive consent" refers to the following process: [...] >> D. "Majority rule" refers to the following process: [..] > > Nah, I don't care for much of that, personally. How about... > > Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay". > Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the > voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial "aye" (but > may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a > 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 vetoed. This would be simpler, and I'd be content for it to replace all three of baf's proposed ruling methods. The only actual difference would be that, as Jota says, three players couldn't force through a proposal the fourth player is opposed to, and I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. > [III] > > Section III is mainly about majority decisions, which I'm not in favor of, > so. I'd suggest that the suggestion outlining the "Active Dissent" process be reworded to the effect that, if no-one vetoes the suggestion,the players be deemed to have reached unanimous agreement. In that case, this mechanism can be used to change the rules according to the existing Rule 6, removing the need for baf's proposal III.A. With regards to III.B, I suggest a new rule: "Players may be added to the state of the game by unanimous agreement", assuming again that we employ Jota's suggestion for determining when unanimous agreement has been reached. [rule-breaking discussion snipped] [endings discussion snipped] >> 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. > > Playgurizm! Er, I mean, how about a map not initially based on ifMUD? Just calling the initial room "the Lounge" hardly means that the whole map has to be based on the MUD. Do you have an alternate suggestion? > (Note that the only proposals I've formally voted against are IIC and IID. > The only ones I've formally voted in favor of are IIB, VA and VB. The > others I haven't formally voted on, but the rule of unanimous ratification > should still be in effect, so.) So, VA and VB have been ratified by everyone except Roger ... nothing else seems to be in danger of passing just yet. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 11:02:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:02:23 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96531825.1042628543@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 5:43 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > 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. I'm hoping we don't reach the point where what we're allowed to talk about on this list is restricted (this is why I've been against the content of the list becoming part of the state of the game - but at present Rule 8 allows things which are not part of the game to influence it anyway if the rules say so). Having rules come into effect an hour after ratification would be fine by me, but it'd still be nice (especially if we're using active dissent) to see a message from the proponent to the effect of "the period of dissent for this rule has ended; the rule will come into effect at 14:30 GMT". >> 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. Right. As it stands that could prevent us from making any 'unanimous' decisions for three weeks, but if we use the active dissent rule the issue of inactive players becomes less important anyway. >> > 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 :) As it stands, this means that only one player other than the player being courtmartialled need object for the demerit not to pass. If that's what we want, fine. (For the sake of simplicity, though, I'm still in favour of eliminating "majority ruling" altogether and using active dissent for everything, in which case we'd need to prevent the violating player from vetoing their own demeriting but would end up with basically the same suggestion as you have here.) Also, the first half of V.A could perhaps be more elegantly rephrased as "whenever a player violates Rule 4 ..." >> > 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? Sure. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 11:13:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 06:13:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: <95656606.1042627667@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I've already voiced my disagreement with I.C here. I.A I think we should > have just for ease of reference in discussing the rules. OK. I'll vote aye on I.A. > I still disagree with I.E, since Jota's suggestion doesn't change > anything: people can still disagree about whether a rule was passed > before or after 2300. Fair enough. > I'm still in favour of having rules > come into effect when the original proponent announces that the rule has > been ratified. Mrm. That still leaves people operating under rules they have no reasonable way of knowing about yet, though. It seems to me that *some* kind of delay would be of value, even if it's just 'one hour from announcement/ratification/whatever' -- even if people disagree about when the hour's up, anyone who's taking game actions near that time would have no excuse to not know that the rule was about to come into effect, and would be acting at their own risk. > Are you withdrawing this suggestion in favour of baf's demerits? Yeah. I can propose brownie points separately. > > The Mailing List: The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered > > a part of the game state, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" > > something is to send it to the list. Any player who does note post for a > > week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest > > post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one > > penalty point. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest > > invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional penalty point. > > I'm still not convinced that it's desirable that the content of the mailing > list be considered part of the state of the game. Not the *content* of the list, necessarily. Just the list itself, as a notional entity that one can act on (or fail to act on). > I'd suggest that the suggestion outlining the "Active Dissent" process be > reworded to the effect that, if no-one vetoes the suggestion,the players be > deemed to have reached unanimous agreement. In that case, this mechanism > can be used to change the rules according to the existing Rule 6, removing > the need for baf's proposal III.A. OK, how's this: Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay". Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified. If at any point, all players have voted in favor of on a particular proposal (either by actively voting "aye", or by failing to vote "nay" within the alotted 72 hours), the proposer of the rule may officially declare it to have been ratified by unanimous consent. > With regards to III.B, I suggest a new rule: "Players may be added to the > state of the game by unanimous agreement", assuming again that we employ > Jota's suggestion for determining when unanimous agreement has been reached. I'll vote for that. > > Playgurizm! Er, I mean, how about a map not initially based on ifMUD? > > Just calling the initial room "the Lounge" hardly means that the whole map > has to be based on the MUD. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Nah, just feeling contrary. I retract my complaint, and vote aye :) > > (Note that the only proposals I've formally voted against are IIC and IID. > > The only ones I've formally voted in favor of are IIB, VA and VB. The > > others I haven't formally voted on, but the rule of unanimous ratification > > should still be in effect, so.) > > So, VA and VB have been ratified by everyone except Roger ... nothing else > seems to be in danger of passing just yet. And now I.A and VI.A are 75% in as well. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 11:19:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 06:19:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <96531825.1042628543@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I'm hoping we don't reach the point where what we're allowed to talk about > on this list is restricted (this is why I've been against the content of > the list becoming part of the state of the game - but at present Rule 8 > allows things which are not part of the game to influence it anyway if the > rules say so). Yeah, I didn't mean breaking rules about message content. I meant about game actions. Like if you said, "OK, I move from the Lounge to Washington DC, and drop a banana there", at the same time a rule prohibiting bringing produce into national capitals was ratified, it'd get messy. > Having rules come into effect an hour after ratification > would be fine by me, but it'd still be nice (especially if we're using > active dissent) to see a message from the proponent to the effect of "the > period of dissent for this rule has ended; the rule will come into effect > at 14:30 GMT". Sure. > As it stands, this means that only one player other than the player being > courtmartialled need object for the demerit not to pass. If that's what we > want, fine. (For the sake of simplicity, though, I'm still in favour of > eliminating "majority ruling" altogether and using active dissent for > everything, in which case we'd need to prevent the violating player from > vetoing their own demeriting but would end up with basically the same > suggestion as you have here.) OK. So, a unanimous ruling is needed to apply extra demerits, but the demeritee can't veto that ruling. Works for me. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 12:04:13 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (amgb2@cam.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:04:13 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <181843196.1042632252@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Splicing together my responses to both the conversation threads here, in a vague effort to reduce confusion: --On 15 January 2003 06:19 -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >> I'm hoping we don't reach the point where what we're allowed to talk >> about on this list is restricted [...] > > Yeah, I didn't mean breaking rules about message content. I meant about > game actions. Like if you said, "OK, I move from the Lounge to Washington > DC, and drop a banana there", at the same time a rule prohibiting bringing > produce into national capitals was ratified, it'd get messy. Oops, you're entirely right. The suggestion I made about having rules come into effect an hour after final ratification and having the proponent post a message stating that the rule has been passed and exactly when it comes into effect covers all our concerns about this nicely, I think. > OK. So, a unanimous ruling is needed to apply extra demerits, but the > demeritee can't veto that ruling. Works for me. Right. > > I'm still not convinced that it's desirable that the content of the mailing > > list be considered part of the state of the game. > > Not the *content* of the list, necessarily. Just the list itself, as a > notional entity that one can act on (or fail to act on). Again, at present, I can't see any reason for this: just acknowledging the existence of the list doesn't really fit with my ideas about what "the state of the game" should cover. If you can give a concrete example of a rule or situation where it would be important for the list to be part of the state of the game I might change my mind. > Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay". > Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time > as the voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial > "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't > voted on a proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have > voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the proposal is > officially ratified. If at any point, all players have voted in favor > of on a particular proposal (either by actively voting "aye", or by > failing to vote "nay" within the alotted 72 hours), the proposer of > the rule may officially declare it to have been ratified by unanimous > consent. Perfectly happy with this in spirit, but I think the wording should reflect the fact that this is a general decision-making process, not only one which applies to the introduction of new rules. A "proposal" should cover any change which the rules require to be agreed unanimously: although at the moment this is just changes to the rules, phrasing this properly means that passing rules such as "players may be added to the state of the game by unanimous agreement" becomes very simple since unanimous agreement is already defined. We seem to be a little closer to reaching consensus on some of these, although Roger hasn't had a chance to raise any objections yet ... I'm having trouble keeping track of what's been agreed to by whom, but I think the only rules that are immediately likely to pass are those from baf's initial proposal which both Jota and I agreed to unchanged: I.A, V.A, V.B and VI.A. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 12:12:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:12:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <181843196.1042632252@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > Oops, you're entirely right. The suggestion I made about having rules come > into effect an hour after final ratification and having the proponent post > a message stating that the rule has been passed and exactly when it comes > into effect covers all our concerns about this nicely, I think. Yeah, I'm all for it. > Again, at present, I can't see any reason for this: just acknowledging the > existence of the list doesn't really fit with my ideas about what "the > state of the game" should cover. If you can give a concrete example of a > rule or situation where it would be important for the list to be part of > the state of the game I might change my mind. For one, if we wanted to demerit people for not taking part. For two, if we wanted to propose rules for the formatting of rules or votes. For three, you can't make a rule saying that someone has to post 'This rule has been ratified' to the list unless the list exists as an entity you can act on. > Perfectly happy with this in spirit, but I think the wording should reflect > the fact that this is a general decision-making process, not only one which > applies to the introduction of new rules. A "proposal" should cover any > change which the rules require to be agreed unanimously: although at the > moment this is just changes to the rules, phrasing this properly means that > passing rules such as "players may be added to the state of the game by > unanimous agreement" becomes very simple since unanimous agreement is > already defined. Feel free to posit an alternative phrasing that you're comfortable with. > We seem to be a little closer to reaching consensus on some of these, > although Roger hasn't had a chance to raise any objections yet ... I'm > having trouble keeping track of what's been agreed to by whom, but I think > the only rules that are immediately likely to pass are those from baf's > initial proposal which both Jota and I agreed to unchanged: I.A, V.A, V.B > and VI.A. Any others would require consent from both RC *and* baf, at this point. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:06:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (amgb2@cam.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:06:33 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185582944.1042635992@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> --On 15 January 2003 07:12 -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > > For one, if we wanted to demerit people for not taking part. For two, if > we wanted to propose rules for the formatting of rules or votes. For > three, you can't make a rule saying that someone has to post 'This rule > has been ratified' to the list unless the list exists as an entity you can > act on. Hm, I've been looking too hard at the current Rule 8 and ignoring Rule 5. According to Rule 5, we do need to acknowledge that the list is part of the game, but this is different from it being part of the state of the game (which I don't think makes sense, since the game state consists of information, not things). So: "The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit." (The only changes from your original rule here are the removal of the word 'state' and the change of 'penalty point' to 'demerit'. > Feel free to posit an alternative phrasing that you're comfortable with. Here we go: "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. 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 proposal is ratified. The issue under consideration is considered to have been unanimously agreed by all players after a period of one hour from the time of ratification has elapsed." And, to get this down in writing: "Once a proposal has been ratified, the original proposer should post to the list saying that the proposal has been ratified and giving the time at which it came or will come into force." My only concern at the moment is that if a proposal receives any "nay" votes, it currently remains as a proposal forever. I'm against this since it means I can vote "nay" to a proposal everyone else has ratified and then change my vote weeks later and have the proposal come into effect an hour later before everyone else has even remembered what it is. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:08:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:08:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > 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. So that the set of rules contains its complete history. This strikes me as desirable mainly because of the amusement I have derived from browsing the rulesets of other games of Nomic and seeing how they developed. > 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. I like this. This has my support. Also, if this passes, I no longer desire the "midnight GMT" rule. Just one concern: What if there's a majority rule decision, and the proposer changes his mind, but there's still a majority? Perhaps "the player who proposed the rule" should be replaced with "any player". > 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?) That is my understanding as well. > > 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. I guess it would be a good idea to add a clause requiring the support of at least one player, just in case the definition of passive consent changes. > 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. Hm. I'm not sure if I like this. I think I might prefer a game where a person who scares everyone else away loses. > 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? I guess it would be a good idea to state this explicitly in the rule. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:09:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:09:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Reply-to Message-ID: I noticed that the reply-to munging still wasn't working right, and sure enough, I had missed a step in configuring that. It should be working now. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:19:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (nomic02@wurb.com) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:19:22 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <186352630.1042636762@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> (leaving all of baf's comments intact since his original reply went only to me rather than the list) --On 15 January 2003 07:57 -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >> > 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. > > So that the set of rules contains its complete history. This strikes me > as desirable mainly because of the amusement I have derived from browsing > the rulesets of other games of Nomic and seeing how they developed. True, but the entire archive of this mailing list is also publically available, which gives a far fuller picture of how the rules have developed than an archive of past rules does. >> 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. > > I like this. This has my support. Also, if this passes, I no longer > desire the "midnight GMT" rule. Just one concern: What if there's a > majority rule decision, and the proposer changes his mind, but there's > still a majority? Perhaps "the player who proposed the rule" should be > replaced with "any player". Jota and I are currently attempting to move away from the use of majority rule decisions anyway. If decisions do end up being taken this way, some change will be necessary, but I'd like to keep the sense that it's the duty of the proponent to announce the passing of rules where possible. > > 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?) > > That is my understanding as well. As Jota has pointed out, Rule 5 implies that we need to recognise that the list is part of the game, but that's not the same thing as being part of the gamestate. >> > 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. > > I guess it would be a good idea to add a clause requiring the support of > at least one player, just in case the definition of passive consent > changes. If we introduce the "active-dissent" mechanism as I proposed it in my last post, this rule can become simply "new players may be added to the game by unanimous agreement", and would work in the same way as suggested here. >> 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. > > Hm. I'm not sure if I like this. I think I might prefer a game where a > person who scares everyone else away loses. Depends on the circumstances of the other players' leaving, I guess. If every other player is legally eliminated, that seems as though it should be a win, but if everyone leaves the game of their own volition that's not true. Perhaps a better rule might be "if at any time there are only two players remaining in the game, and one of them loses, the other shall be deemed to have won"? >> 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? > > I guess it would be a good idea to state this explicitly in the rule. Ok. It'd be nice if we could find a phrasing which would avoid having to write "this is part of the state of the game" every time the map is mentioned, though. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:46:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:46:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <185582944.1042635992@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > So: "The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it > to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day > period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of > day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long > delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur > one additional demerit." (The only changes from your original rule here are > the removal of the word 'state' and the change of 'penalty point' to > 'demerit'. Aye. > My only concern at the moment is that if a proposal receives any "nay" > votes, it currently remains as a proposal forever. I'm against this since > it means I can vote "nay" to a proposal everyone else has ratified and then > change my vote weeks later and have the proposal come into effect an hour > later before everyone else has even remembered what it is. So, it's not officially ratified until the original proposer declares it so, and can also be officially be removed from consideration if voted down: 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. And, to reply to stuff from jwal's other message (to baf): > Perhaps a better rule might be "if at any time there are only two > players remaining in the game, and one of them loses, the other shall be > deemed to have won"? Sounds fair to me. But what if there are three players, and two lose simultaneously? Also, this would probably require that being demerited out counts as a loss. > Ok. It'd be nice if we could find a phrasing which would avoid having to > write "this is part of the state of the game" every time the map is > mentioned, though. It'd only have to be mentioned once, in the rule that defines it as such. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:01:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:01:15 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <107263767.1042639275@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 8:46 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > 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. Aye. > Sounds fair to me. But what if there are three players, and two lose > simultaneously? Also, this would probably require that being demerited out > counts as a loss. Ok, so: "If the number of players in the game is ever reduced to one by an action other than a voluntary departure, the remaining player shall be deemed to have won." >> Ok. It'd be nice if we could find a phrasing which would avoid having to >> write "this is part of the state of the game" every time the map is >> mentioned, though. > > It'd only have to be mentioned once, in the rule that defines it as such. Ok, my proposed revision for baf's VI.A: "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:35:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:35:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: <186352630.1042636762@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > Jota and I are currently attempting to move away from the use of majority > rule decisions anyway. The proposal about I was commenting on seems to me to not be dependent in any way on majority rule. As long as there is some mechanism for making changes of the rules (or, more generally, the state of the game), the idea that the changes need to be announced before they take effect is a good one. And I think it should be kept separate from the processes for passing said changes, so it will still apply if those processes change, and so it will automatically apply to any new process that get adopted. > Perhaps a better rule might be "if at any time there are only two > players remaining in the game, and one of them loses, the other shall be > deemed to have won"? If there's one player left, he can simply pass a rule stating "I win". So any single-player win condition seems unnecessary. Single-player lose conditions, now... From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:47:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:47:55 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <110064434.1042642075@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 9:35 am -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > If there's one player left, he can simply pass a rule stating "I win". > So any single-player win condition seems unnecessary. Single-player lose > conditions, now... You're right. I withdraw my proposal. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:46:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:46:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > 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. I'm willing to accept this, although don't think you can still claim that it's simpler than my proposals. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:53:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:53:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <107263767.1042639275@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Ok, my proposed revision for baf's VI.A: "The game contains a map, > consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have > a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any > information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part > of the state of the game." Aye. And I simultaneously retract my vote in favor of the original version of course, lest we inadvertantly ratify two almost identical proposals :) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:58:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:58:07 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <110675633.1042642686@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 9:46 am -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > I'm willing to accept this, although don't think you can still claim > that it's simpler than my proposals. You may have a point there; however, it's less confusing than having three different decision-making procedures for different decisions. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:54:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:54:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > I'm willing to accept this, although don't think you can still claim > that it's simpler than my proposals. Was it supposed to be simpler? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:03:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:03:38 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising Message-ID: <111007079.1042643018@cornelius> Ok, since at present there's simultaneously no mechanism for keeping track of proposals and and awful lot of half-formed proposals flying around, I'm making some attempt to summarise the rules which have been suggested so far and not absolutely rejected by anybody. I've tried to only mark proposals down as having been accepted by certain players when I'm sure this is the case, but I wouldn't consider any of this authoritative to be on the safe side. PROPOSED RULES ============== "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) "Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the rule set permissable is the addition of new rules." (Accepted by baf) "No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part of the game, except by making it part of the game." (Accepted by jwalrus) "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) "Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent." (Accepted by jwalrus) "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 unanimous agreement. The player being demerited may not veto the issuing of the demerit. Demerits are part of the state of the game." (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) "Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed entirely from the state of the game." (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) "Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that were not part of the state of the game when the violation occurred." (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) "The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit." (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) "Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do so." (Accepted by jwalrus) "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." (Accepted by jwalrus) "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." (Accepted by baf, jwalrus) "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game." (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:17:26 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:17:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: <111007079.1042643018@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the rule set > permissable is the addition of new rules." > (Accepted by baf) I'd agree to this if instead it were: "No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous agreement." Thus, one could effectively change a rule by making a proposal to simultaneously add a new rule while removing an old one, but a rule number will only ever refer to one rule, whether it's an extant or deleted one. > "Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent." > (Accepted by jwalrus) I'll vote for this. > "Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do so." > (Accepted by jwalrus) Sure. > "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." > (Accepted by jwalrus) I'm fine with that. > "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." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus) Yup. I assume that "is removed" qualifies as "leaves", in the terms of the above rule? > "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the > Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the > Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it > shall be considered part of the state of the game." > (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) In light of the above rules, about players leaving the game, I'm going to have to posit an addition to that: "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game. The map and the locations it comprises will be considered associated with all players, in the sense described above." Also, would it be possible for the summary to mention who is the proposer for the current version of each proposition? Admittedly, that information isn't vital yet, but it will be if the rule about unanimous ratification and active dissent and all that is passed. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:41:02 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:41:02 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <113251436.1042645262@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 10:17 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > I'd agree to this if instead it were: "No individual rule may be changed > after it's been added, except to remove it from the game, which can only > be done by unanimous agreement." Thus, one could effectively change a rule > by making a proposal to simultaneously add a new rule while removing an > old one, but a rule number will only ever refer to one rule, whether it's > an extant or deleted one. Ok, that's fine by me. Isn't "which may only be done by unanimous agreement" redundant, though? >> "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." >> (Accepted by baf, jwalrus) > > Yup. I assume that "is removed" qualifies as "leaves", in the terms of the > above rule? I was intending it to. Does the wording need to be clearer? >> "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called >> "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially >> the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything >> on it shall be considered part of the state of the game." >> (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) > > In light of the above rules, about players leaving the game, I'm going to > have to posit an addition to that: > > "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the > Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the > Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it > shall be considered part of the state of the game. The map and the > locations it comprises will be considered associated with all players, in > the sense described above." I was assuming that the 'default' for parts of the game state would be for them not to be associated with any player, which would seem to make more sense than for the map to be associated with all players. > Also, would it be possible for the summary to mention who is the proposer > for the current version of each proposition? Admittedly, that information > isn't vital yet, but it will be if the rule about unanimous ratification > and active dissent and all that is passed. I think (unfortunately) if the rule defining unanimous agreement is passed, all the 'informal' proposals above will have to be proposed again more formally. Perhaps we could argue a way around this. In any case, I'll see if I can make a note for the next summary, if there is one. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:45:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:45:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: <113251436.1042645262@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Ok, that's fine by me. Isn't "which may only be done by unanimous > agreement" redundant, though? Probably. But redundant is better than ambiguous. > > Yup. I assume that "is removed" qualifies as "leaves", in the terms of the > > above rule? > > I was intending it to. Does the wording need to be clearer? Nah. Just so long as we all understand it that way. > I was assuming that the 'default' for parts of the game state would be for > them not to be associated with any player, which would seem to make more > sense than for the map to be associated with all players. That would be OK, too. Just so long as the definition of the map and its locations clarify that the locations aren't "associated with" the players in them in any form that'd make them get deleted. How about: "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game. The map and the locations it comprises will be considered associated with the game itself, as opposed to being associated with any individual player(s)." -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:51:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:51:41 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising Message-ID: > "Each rule has a number. Rule numbers start with 1, and each=20 > new rule has=20 > a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) Aye. =20 > "Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the=20 > rule set=20 > permissable is the addition of new rules." > (Accepted by baf) I'm not sure this does anything. I think under this proposal, a rule such as "Rule X: Rule Y is not a part of the game" is still legal. Nay. > "No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part=20 > of the game,=20 > except by making it part of the game." > (Accepted by jwalrus) I think we're still a bit shaky for this at this point. I'd be surprised to say any of the sort of abuses that this rule might prevent. Nay. > "Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires=20 > the unanimous=20 > agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye" or=20 > "nay" in=20 > response to the proposal by posting this vote to the list.=20 > Any player may=20 > change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is=20 > complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an initial "aye"=20 > (but may change=20 > it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a particular=20 > proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted=20 > "aye", but may=20 > change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified=20 > or removed=20 > from consideration. If at any point any player has voted against a=20 > particular proposal, then any other player (including other=20 > "nay" voters)=20 > may declare it to be dead, and removed from consideration. If=20 > at any point=20 > all players have voted in favour of a particular proposal=20 > (either by voting=20 > "aye" or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the original=20 > proposer may declare it to be ratified by posting a message=20 > containing the=20 > text of the proposal, a summary of the votes on it, and the=20 > time it will=20 > come into effect: the issue under consideration is considered=20 > to have been=20 > unanimously agreed by all players after a period of one hour=20 > from the time=20 > 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. > "Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent." > (Accepted by jwalrus) Aye. > "Whenever a player performs an action that is forbidden by a=20 > rule other=20 > than Rule 4, or fails to perform an action that is required=20 > by a rule other=20 > than Rule 4, a "demerit" may be assigned to that player by unanimous=20 > agreement. The player being demerited may not veto the issuing of the=20 > demerit. Demerits are part of the state of the game." > (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) 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. Nay. =20 > "Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed=20 > entirely from=20 > 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. > "Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that=20 > were not part of=20 > the state of the game when the violation occurred." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) I'm still not happy with the idea that the rules CAN be violated, so I can't support this. Nay. =20 > "The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a=20 > part of the=20 > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something=20 > is to send it=20 > to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that=20 > is, a seven-day=20 > period of non-posting following their latest post, counted=20 > from the time of=20 > day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long=20 > delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will=20 > each incur=20 > one additional demerit." > (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) I'll support this. Although, technically, the concept of "time passing in the world outside the game" isn't well-defined within the game. Aye. =20 > "Any player may leave the game at any time by posting=20 > intention to do so." > (Accepted by jwalrus) Aye. =20 > "Unless specified otherwise, when a player leaves the game,=20 > portions of the=20 > game state specifically associated to that player and no=20 > other player cease=20 > to exist. Portions of the game state associated with both=20 > that player and=20 > other player(s) will revert to only the other player(s) with=20 > which they are=20 > associated." > (Accepted by jwalrus) I don't think this is required, but I'll go along with it. Aye. > "It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be=20 > described in the=20 > rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the=20 > state of the=20 > game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will=20 > immediately end=20 > and all players who have not won will lose." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus) The concept of 'rejoining' is probably meaningless given the other proposal about removing all the gamestate about a player who leaves. But I don't like that part anyway, so I'm happy with it. Aye. =20 > "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which=20 > is called "the=20 > Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is=20 > initially the=20 > Lounge. The map and any information about the location of=20 > anything on it=20 > shall be considered part of the state of the game." > (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) Yeah, this sort of thing can be fun. Aye. .. 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. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 16:02:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:02:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 16:15:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:15:18 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] demerit proposal Message-ID: >> 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. =20 > That may work for performing illegal actions, but what about=20 > failing to perform required actions? I think the two are interchangeable from a logical standpoint, but for some rules it would be torturous. My recommendation would be to either avoid rules that required actions, or to specify the penalty within the rule itself. If we had a hypothetical rule such as "Rule X: Each player must submit a proposal to The List at least once every 72 hours." It's my opinion that we'd still need another rule or part of a rule to describe what happens if this fails to occur, even if the demerit-handing-out rule was in effect. But I'd rather avoid this sort of rule altogether. .. 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. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 18:56:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:56:49 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <124997566.1042657008@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 11:02 am -0500 Admiral Jota 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 From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 19:13:26 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:13:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals Message-ID: In light of Rule 10, I'm going to formally propose the suggestions that have been made, but have neither been ratified nor vetoed at this point: I. Joining and leaving the game A. Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent. B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed entirely from the state of the game. C. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do so. II. Stuff in the game A. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. B. The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game. If I missed any, feel free to propose them yourselves, of course. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 19:49:31 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:49:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Forgot one: III. Miscellaneous A. No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous agreement. Also, just for fun, I'll add some new ones: IV. Winning and losing A. Each player currently in the game at the time this rule is ratified receives 10 "brownie points" when this rule goes into effect. Any new player added to the game also automatically receives 10 brown points. Any player who manages to accrue two-hundred fifty (250) brownie points will immediately win the game. B. There will be a room on the map called "Mornington Crescent". Any player whose location is this room will be said to have "won Mornington Crescent". However, any player who "wins Mornington Crescent" in this manner will also immediately lose this game. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 21:40:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:40:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] demerit proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd agree that we can do without rules that can be violated. Currently, all rules permit things rather than require things, and the only things that are forbidden are unauthorized changes to game state, which fits within RC's suggestion that violations are merely impossible. As long as there's someone other than myself willing to veto violable 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 happened in game 01: a rule was passed stating "All players must name their tokens within 5 days of this rule's passage." After 5 days, one player had not named his token, and we didn't know what to do about it. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 21:51:36 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:51:36 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] demerit proposal Message-ID: > 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. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:11:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:11:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rules 9, 10, and 11 have been added to my website (which, lest we forget, has no official status in the game, and you are all free to ignore it and keep your own lists of rules.) I'm a little displeased that we now have a rule referring to demerits, but not a rule stating how they're earned or whether they're part of the state of the game. Consider this a formal proposal: Remove Rule 11. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:23:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:23:23 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising Message-ID: > I'm a little displeased that we now have a rule referring to demerits, > but not a rule stating how they're earned or whether they're=20 > part of the state of the game. =20 I like it. I'm of the opinion that anything referenced by the rules is implicity part of the game state. Consider Rule 2 and its reference to 'English', for example. My general nomic style is to introduce small, atomic, axiomatic-ish sorts of rules, and let them interact, rather than trying to fully define things all in one big rule. > Consider this a formal proposal: Remove Rule 11. Nay. .. 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. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:25:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:25:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rules 9, 10, and 11 have been added to my website (which, lest we forget, > has no official status in the game, and you are all free to ignore it and > keep your own lists of rules.) > > I'm a little displeased that we now have a rule referring to demerits, > but not a rule stating how they're earned or whether they're part of the > state of the game. Consider this a formal proposal: Remove Rule 11. Does that imply that you intend to vote against proposal II.A, in my earlier message? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:33:28 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:33:28 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals -- Roger's Votes Message-ID: > I. Joining and leaving the game > A. Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent. Aye. > B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be=20 > removed entirely > from the state of the game. Aye. > C. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting=20 > intention to do > so. Aye. > II. Stuff in the game > A. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered=20 > a part of the > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post"=20 > something is to > send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a=20 > week (that > is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their=20 > latest post, > counted from the time of day the last post was made)=20 > will incur one > demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the=20 > latest invocation > of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. Aye. > B. The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of=20 > which is called > "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is > initially the Lounge. The map and any information about=20 > the location > of anything on it shall be considered part of the state=20 > of the game. Aye. > III. Miscellaneous > A. No individual rule may be changed after it's been added,=20 > except to > remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous > agreement. Nay. > IV. Winning and losing > A. Each player currently in the game at the time this rule=20 > is ratified > receives 10 "brownie points" when this rule goes into=20 > effect. Any new > player added to the game also automatically receives 10=20 > brown points. > Any player who manages to accrue two-hundred fifty (250) brownie > points will immediately win the game. Aye. > B. There will be a room on the map called "Mornington Crescent". Any > player whose location is this room will be said to have "won > Mornington Crescent". However, any player who "wins Mornington > Crescent" in this manner will also immediately lose this game. Aye. ..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. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:40:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:40:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > In light of Rule 10, I'm going to formally propose the suggestions that > have been made, but have neither been ratified nor vetoed at this point: OK. I think that this make you the proposer for the purposes of Rule 10, even for those rules initially suggested by other people. > A. Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent. Aye. > B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed entirely >