[Nomic] some opinions

[Adam Biltcliffe]

My stance on all outstanding issues upon which I have not yet passed 
comment:

I oppose both of Wild Card's proposed 'simplification' changes to Rule 4 on 
the grounds that with the passing of Assumed Consent, it's no different to 
the current situation, and I'd still like to actually alter Rule 4 soon 
enough that I don't see the point.

I consent to Dave's proposed rule "The whole world in your hand". I note, 
however, that if we're going to make this have any effect on the game, we 
should introduce disadvantages to laying claim to a large number of 
extranomic entities, so that people don't just grab every single thing they 
can get.

I'm treating the other two rules proposed in that email as separate, and 
will address them both separately:

I object to "Monopoly!" for a number of reasons. The easiest one is that it 
violates the principle of not requiring actions to be taken by extranomic 
entities.

I don't object to "The contents of vault 37A" in principle, but I must 
object in practice. The wording of the second sentence appears to have an 
unintended effect, in that I take the literal interpretation to be that if 
there is no vaultmaster, anyone who submits a proposal to appoint one can 
then immediately make the appointment themselves without input from any 
other voter.

I reaffirm my consent for "the Law of Lizardmen", since even though I 
believe the original NoC was invalid, I still think it should be in the 
rules. Can it now be passed under Assumed Consent?

I consent to the proposed version of "Screw You, Anti Capitalists" which 
mentions the Chief Cashier, and object to the other one. I also consent to 
"Who's the banker in the black?" and "A job? What's that then?" but object 
to "Bureaucrats (Inc)".

I object to "Oy, that's unfair!" at the moment since it would invalidate 
rules such as "The Minister of Truth shall be ...", but I agree that this 
issue should probably be addressed.

I would consent to JJ's two proposed rules about distances and moving on 
the board, but they don't appear to have names, so I must regretfully 
object.

I object to JJ's proposed change to Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion, since I 
feel it is dangerously vague about what entails being 'affected 
differently'. I think something concrete would be better, and we should 
possibly look into adding rules for election of Ministry positions so that 
we can dispense with rules such as "Mike shall be ..." and implement 
something more akin to Wild Card's proposal.

I consent to 'House of Cards' and 'The Rule of Names'.

Since the rule of assumed consent has now passed, to avoid confusion later, 
I hereby object to all proposals to which I have not explicitly given 
consent.

Notices of Consensus for my five passed proposals are coming up.

adam