[Nomic] (proposal) we need this

[John-Joseph Wilks]

>
>On Sep 28 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote:
>
>> >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
>
>Can you give an example of a dispute which can't be sensibly resolved into 
>a statement whose validity is under question, but could be sensibly 
>resolved using this procedure if this requirement were rephrased? I'm not 
>asserting that such statements don't exist, I'm just wondering how you'd 
>like to see them accommodated.

I can't think of any offhand, though I'm still a little wary that they'll 
manage to come up later. So I'll drop this objection.
>
>> >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.
>
>The definition of 'duty' in the rules is 'is encouraged to do that thing'. 
>I believe all the rules in this proposal group continue to be well-behaved 
>if someone fails to perform their duty, although obviously it will piss 
>people off. There should possibly be some sort of disincentive for 
>neglecting one's duty added at some point.

Yes, perhaps confiscation of finances? I'd still like it to be specified 
that the Clerk should try to do this by asking people if they will serve, 
since I presume that was approximately what you meant, though.
I'm not worried about them not doing it, particularly, though

>
>>It might also be worth recording judgements made in a publicly viewable 
>>place, therefore, what do you think?
>
>Quite so. Adding it to the Clerk of the Vatican's mandate seems the obvious 
>solution.

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

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