[Nomic] Proposal: No finality

[John-Joseph Wilks]

>
>On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>
>>No finality
>>
>>In the event of someone winning the game then the following occur:
>>
>>a) They are recognised to have won the game.
>>b) All gameplay stops, except as mandated by this rule.
>>c) A new rule is created with the following text:
>>---
>>0, No fun here
>>
>>It is not possible to win the game.  This rule takes precidence over
>>all other rules.
>>---
>>d) If it is possible for play to proceed then gameplay resumes.
>>e) If it is not possible for play to proceed then the player who won
>>the game may make whatever changes they wish to the rules for the
>>purpose of allowing gameplay to continue; except that they may not
>>change rule 0.
>>f) Gameplay resumes.
>
>This seems to be about the right spirit, but the implementation is flawed. 
>Specifically, Rule 0, if created as above, would not be permitted to 
>override any rules which state that it is possible to win the game, since 
>it doesn't name them explicitly, and so a contradiction would be created. I 
>suggest a simpler proposal along the lines of "If a player wins, they <are 
>recognised in some glorious way>. Winning the game does not cause the game 
>to end."
>
Good point, and nice, simple plan to solve it.
I suggest recognising them with the title 'Grand High Muck-a-Muck of the 
Kingdom', and the ability to rescind one rule, of their choice, when they 
win, requiring that this still leave the game in a winnable state.

And possibly creating a rule that the same player cannot win twice in 
succession, to prevent nasty looping things.

JJ

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger