[Nomic] Proposals

[Mike Cripps]

John-Joseph Wilks wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>

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?
>>
>>

Has this been subsumed?

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

Aye

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

Aye

>>
>>> 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.
>>

Nay, for reasons stated by someone else.

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

Aye.

>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>

Nay.

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

Nay, once a proposal is introduced it should remain unless demonstrated 
to cause a contradiction or paradox.

>>> 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.
> 
> 

I agree with this analysis.

Mike