[Nomic] Proposals

[John-Joseph Wilks]

>
>On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote:
>
>> >> 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?
>
>I think this could potentially become very confusing, allowing the posting 
>of unassociated messages to have an effect on the acceptance of a proposal. 
>Can we not just make it 72 hours and eliminate clause b?

yes, fine. I was just hoping to keep things moving a little faster than 
that, but once we get past the start that may well turn out to be plenty 
fast enough anyway, so it'll do. I consent to your revision.
>
>> >>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.
>
>Or alternatively, just by stating that it overrides Consensus of Opinion, 
>once Martin's rule is passed (which I hope it will be).

Yes, much nicer. I don't think I'd read that proposal when I first mentioned 
this.
>
>> >* 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.
>
>I recommend "The Defenders of the Earth".

See my response to your 'Three Proposals'

JJ

_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!  
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/