[Nomic] Proposals

[Stuart Moore]

John-Joseph Wilks wrote:

> Okay, I'm going to try to do this all in one mail so as not to clutter 
> things up too much.
> 
> The following proposals appear to be around (in no particular order):
> 
> 1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, The List of 
> Voters, since it is no longer necessary now the game exists.
> On this I vote Aye.

Aye

> 
> 2. The Rule of Autoadoption.
> I reserve my vote on this, pending discussion on whether we really want 
> people to be able to arbitrarily join without the notification or 
> consent of any of the current players, which I suggest may not be a good 
> idea. Perhaps a simple majority of the game consenting?

I'm not sure. Seems reasonable

> 
> 3. The Rule of Nicknames:
> I vote aye to this in the current form.

That would be the form Jon Amery originally posted it in?

> 
> 4. The Rule of Structured Names, with the proviso for rules mentioned 
> during proposals included.
> Aye.

I vote aye to the version in the post 22/09/2004 22:07

> 
> 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent:
> I counterpropose this rule in the following form:
> A player shall be deemed to have consented to a proposed change to the 
> Rules if all of the following hold: a) The proposal was made at least 48 
> hours ago. b) They have sent at least one message to the mailing list 
> during that time. c) They have not explicitly expressed that they do not 
> consent for that change to enter the gamestate.

I'm not certain - possibly. Does explicitly mean they have to have 
referred to that by name, or could I say "for the moment I vote against 
any impending changes other than those I have explicitly voted for, but 
I will review this later"

> 
> 6: The Law of Lexicography
> Aye.
> We can argue about who has to keep it up to date later :)

Aye  - it will be useful to be able to give "player" a sensible definition

> 
> 7: The Rule of Dispute Resolution
> Nay, I'm afraid, I don't think the game has time for that sort of 
> process, and a majority of that form is unlikely to work nicely. We do 
> need something to do this, but I'm not sure that's the way. A random 
> selection of judge might work better, or the player on the lowest number 
> of points, should we ever get a points system.

Fair enough, people seem to be against the idea behind the rule. What 
exactly are the alternative proposals?

> 
> 8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability.
> Aye.

Nay.
> 
> I also propose the following:
> 
> N. The Existence of the Committee.
> There shall exist a Committee, which shall contain a number of Posts. 
> Each Post shall consist of a Title, which can be assigned a member of 
> the List of Players, and a list of duties which the member holding that 
> Post shall perform. The list of Posts follows:

I reserve judgement for the moment

I seem to remember why this worked well in a newsgroup - threading made 
it a lot easier to see who was talking about what and count all the 
votes that had been made. I believe it's possible for Mailman to link 
this to the newsgroup, shall we try that?