[Nomic] (proposal) we need this

[John-Joseph Wilks]

yes, we really do.
>
>I would like to propose some more rules, since we're getting to the point 
>where it would be really nice to be able to resolve disputes. Here are four 
>separate new-rule proposals, since people might want to plug-and-play with 
>parts of this:
>
>----------
>Clerk of the Vatican
>
>The Ministry shall contain a post called the Clerk of the Vatican. The 
>duties of the Clerk of the Vatican shall include maintaining and making 
>publically available a list of entities who are willing to judge disputes 
>over the interpretation of the rules or gamestate. ----------
>
Aye

>----------
>Judgement Procedure
>
>If a member of the List of Voters wishes to assert the validity of a claim 
>which refers solely to the rules or gamestate, that entity make invoke the 
>Judgement Procedure by publically claiming to be invoking the Judgement of 
>the Pope and supplying the statement whose validity is under question. The 
>invoking entity may also present an argument suporting the statement. 
>----------

Couple of points on this one. I think 'rules and/or gamestate' is clearer 
than just or. Make is a typo for may, I presume. And I'm not sure whether 
all such disputes can plausibly be resolved into a single 'statement whose 
validity is under question'. So I'm voting Nay for the moment, but I look 
forward to the rule in general
>
>----------
>White Smoke
>
>When an entity invokes the Judgement of the Pope, it shall be the duty of 
>the Clerk of the Vatican to select an entity to act as Pope in the 
>resolution of that claim. This selection shall be performed by uniform 
>random selection from the set of all entities which:
>  a) have informed the Clerk of the Vatican that they are willing to act as 
>Pope, and not subsequently retracted that statement
>  b) are not considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV
>  c) are not the entity invoking the Judgement of the Pope. If this set is 
>empty, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Vatican to cause it to 
>cease being so. ----------

Aye, although I'd prefer more definition in how and when the Clerk is to 
cause it to cease being so, and preferably what happens if they don't.
>
>----------
>Papal Edicts
>
>When the Judgement of the Pope has been invoked and the Clerk of the 
>Vatican has selected an entity to act as Pope, the Pope may pass judgement 
>on the claim.
>
>Legal judgements shall be:
>TRUE if the Pope believes the claim to be true with respect to all aspects 
>of the current state of the game
>FALSE if the Pope believes the claim not to be true with respect to all 
>aspects of the current state of the game
>Either TRUE or FALSE if the Pope believes the claim to be ambiguous with 
>respect to all aspects of the current state of the game, depending on the 
>Pope's beliefs about the original intent of the rules and the entities 
>which have acted on the game, which interpretation makes more sense and 
>which interpretation will lead to a more enjoyable game
>AN OFFENCE AGAINST GOD if the Pope believes that the invocation of 
>judgement was not correctly made or that it would be otherwise 
>inappropriate to pass judgement
>
>When the Pope rules a claim TRUE or FALSE, that ruling shall be used to 
>determine future interpretations of the rules and gamestate. ----------

Aye.
It might also be worth recording judgements made in a publicly viewable 
place, therefore, what do you think?

JJ
>
>adam
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nomic-talk mailing list
>Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org
>http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement