[Nomic] doing it right (possibly)

[Mike Cripps]

Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
> Wild Card's coup attempt raised the issue that the rules have never 
> defined exactly what the List of Voters is. There's a proposal under 
> consideration to fix this, but it hasn't passed yet (and in fact, 
> couldn't do until I issue notice on it anyway).
> 
> Wild Card's coup attempt failed because he attempted to create a List of 
> Voters within the game, which is prohibited by Rule 1, Existence of the 
> Game. I note, however, that there is clear acknowledgement by all 
> parties that extranomic entities can have an effect on the game, viz., 
> the fact that we as extranomic entities change the rules by making and 
> approving proposals.
> 
> I have a piece of paper here upon which is written:
> 
>  List of Voters
>  1. Adam Biltcliffe
> 
> Photographic evidence can be provided on request. In the absence of any 
> other apparent candidate, I submit that this should be considered the 
> List of Voters.
> 
> Therefore, I am the only member of the List of Voters. In addition, 
> since the List of Voters has not until now existed, the only rules 
> currently in effect are actually the initial ruleset. I therefore make 
> and consent to the following proposal (noting that the issuing of a 
> Notice of Consensus is not required):
> 
> ---------- Alter the ruleset to be that which it was claimed to be at 
> 11am on Wednesday, September 29th 2004 on the Nomic website 
> (http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic).
> 
> Append the sentence "the name 'List of Voters' shall be considered to 
> refer exclusively to this list" to Rule 3, List of Voters.
> 
> Enact the following rule:
> 
> Imperious Emperor
> 
> Adam Biltcliffe may make any change to the gamestate he desires by 
> making a public declaration that he is doing so. ----------
> 
> I note that after this proposal, the List of Voters will be the list 
> we've always considered it to be, ie. all of you will still be on it. 
> Also, the power to change the gamestate is less worldshaking than it 
> would be in a game like Axiom, since under my interpretation, proposals 
> and votes are still considered to be extranomic entities, and hence I 
> can't change them.
> 
> So, anyone object?
> 
> adam
> 
I object on the grounds that you aren't actually proposing the motion 
_to_ anyone (due to noone else being on the list of voters). I suggest, 
therefore, that you have failed to obtain "unabiguous consent to the 
proposal from each such entity".

(From Rule 4 - Consensus of Opinion)