[Nomic] Proposals

[John-Joseph Wilks]

>
>Here are my current standings and opinions on each of them, since we seem 
>to have something approaching a summary going:
>
>>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.
>
>Yep, I've already given consent to this.
>
>>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 don't consider this to be a particularly likely problem, which is why I 
>consented to this proposal anyway, but I feel that Martin's proposal that 
>before a player can join an existing member must assert that they are not a 
>lizardman from Antares IV handles the situation perfectly.
>
>>3. The Rule of Nicknames:
>>I vote aye to this in the current form.
>>
>>4. The Rule of Structured Names, with the proviso for rules mentioned 
>>during proposals included. Aye.
>
>Yep, yep.
>
>>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 object to your counterproposal on the grounds that it still doesn't 
>address the primary objective of introducing assumed consent, namely that 
>it should allow a way for the game to progress in the face of complete 
>inactivity on the part of one or more players.

Oh, good point, it was supposed to, I must have gotten confused somewhere in 
there.
How about changing that to at least 24 hours ago with a message posted 
during that, or 72 hours without?
>
>>6: The Law of Lexicography
>>Aye.
>>We can argue about who has to keep it up to date later :)
>
>I'm not giving consent to this, but I will happily do so to any version 
>which makes it clear how updates are to be made (unless I don't like it, of 
>course).
>
>>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.
>
>I also decline to give consent.
>
>>8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability.
>>Aye.
>
>Refusing to pass comment until it could be introduced without creating 
>inconsistency in the rules.

This could be solved by changing Rule 4 to read:
A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when one 
entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all entities named 
on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to that change from 
each such entity. The entity proposing the change is considered to have 
given consent, though e may retract eir consent, in which case the change 
shall no longer be under consideration.
>
>>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:
>
>In essence, I approve. However, I prsent the following (short) list of 
>objections:
>
>* There is no List of Players, only a List of Voters. If people think the 
>two should be synonymous, fine, but right now we're still open to the 
>possibility that there can be a separate list of people who want to 
>interact with the game in other ways but not vote, or people who want to 
>vote but nothing else.

That was just a misremembering, it should read List of Voters.
>
>* I feel the phrase 'duties which the member holding that Post shall 
>perform' is dangerous. The rules have no mandate over the behaviour of any 
>entity which exists in the real world; specifically, the rules cannot 
>require a player to do something without allowing for the possibility that 
>they do not. I'd suggest changing this to 'duties which the member holding 
>that Post is expected to perform', and later we can introduce a rule 
>allowing us to impeach them or something if they don't.

good call.
>
>* The sentence 'The list of Posts follows' should be removed, since it does 
>not. I'd prefer for later rules to just say "The Committee shall contain 
>the Post of Librarian" rather than go back and modify this rule every time 
>we want to add something to the Committee.

OK
>
>* Let's have a more exciting name than 'committee'.

Yes, but I'm still failing to think of one. I think it'll be best thought of 
twinned with a good name for the game itself, I'm just drawing blanks.

JJ

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger