Re: [s-b] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

I revise my refresh proposal to read as follows:

{
All Proposals which have been assigned a number with a status of
Pending or Open become Historical with a win-state
of Lost. No awards or penalties are assessed. All Proposals which have
not yet been assigned a number cease to be proposals.

All Consultations which have been assigned a number and are currently
Waiting become Zotted. All Consultations which have not yet been
assigned a number cease to be Consultations.

The AFO ceases to be a player (if it is one). The AFO ceases to
be a Faction (if it is one).

Agora ceases to be a player or a faction (if it is one).

Dice Master ceases to be a player (if it is one).

All Devices and Blueprints are destroyed.

Repeal rules 3-12 and 3-14.

Amend Rule 1-4 by removing:
{{
He may do this if and only if he fulfills the following requirements:

   * He is capable of passing a Membership Test, although he may not
be required to take said test
   * He is not currently a Player
   * He has a working e-mail address
}}

and by replacing:
{{
The Registrar may refuse to allow any External Force to become a
player, and may refuse to recognize any otherwise-legal name change,
if e believes the External Force's proposed name (or existing player's
new name) would be ambiguous or confusing, or could otherwise damage
the integrity of this game. The Registrar is encouraged, but not
required, to state the reason for such refusal.
}}

with:
{{
The Registrar may cause any Player who has become a player within the
past 12 ndays to cease to be a Player with 2 Support. He must state
the reason for such action, which must be one of the following:
* The Player's name is ambiguous, unclear, or in conflict with the
name of an already existing Player
* The Registrar believes that the new Player is identical to an
already existing Player or Faction.
* The Player was previously denied playerhood for any valid
still-existant reason.
}}

In Rule 5-2 replace:
{{
* The Agreement is not already a Faction
}}
with:
{{
* The Agreement is not already a Faction or Player
}}

Add the following rule to Section 1:
{{
Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and
unregulated. However, for the purposes of this rule an action or object is
regulated if described by a rule.
}}

Append to Rule 1-10 "Game Actions":
{{
Any player (as a Game Action) may declare any Game Action which has
occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid, unless that Game Action
was to declare another Game Action invalid, or to submit a
consultation. An invalid Game Action is treated as if it never
occurred. An Outsider whose Game Action has been declared invalid may
submit a consultation whose text reads "XXX is valid", where XXX is
the Game Action they attempted to perform. When that consultation
becomes Pondered, the Player who declared that game action to be
invalid loses 10 Points.

Any Game Action which has not been declared invalid by the above
within the allowed timespan is considered to be valid in every way,
even if it is in contradiction to the rules.
[[Note: This ensures that illegal actions can not cause the gamestate
to be reversed more than one day]]
}}

Delete the section titled "Oculatiries" from Rule 2-2

Revise the last sentence of the section "Consultations" in Rule 2-5 to read:
{{
A Consultation is in one of the states of Waiting, Answered, ZOTTED
and Pondered. A Consultation is initially Waiting.
}}

In rule 2-5 under the section "The Answer" replace:
{{
At the beginning of the fourth nday (or ndelay if the clock is off)
after the Answer has been submitted to a public forum, the state of
the Consultation becomes Pondered.
}}
with:
{{
When a Priest submits the answer to a public forum that Consultation
becomes Answered. If a Consultation remains Answered for four full
Ndays (or Ndelays if the clock is off), it becomes Pondered.
}}

Delete the section titled "The Whole Point" from Rule 2-5

Append a section titled "Ocularities" to rule 2-5 under the section
titled "The Answer" with the text:
{{
As part of their answer a Priest may submit an Ocularity. An Ocularity
is a lGame Document which includes a list of changes to the rules and
gamestate of B Nomic. By nature, an Ocularity is a transaction and is
implied to be enclosed in "BEGIN TRANSACTION" and "END TRANSACTION"
clauses.

If the answered question is in relation to an ambiguity in the rules,
the Ocularity should address that ambiguity by including changes to
the rules in question to clarify.

If the answered question is in relation to the validity of a Game
Action that has been declared invalid, and the priest determines that
action to be valid, then the Ocularity should include a list of
changes to current the gamestate to simulate what it might be if the
action in question had actually occurred.

When a Consultation becomes Pondered, if the answer for that
Consultation is the same as the answer originally supplied by its
Priest, then any Ocularity submitted with that answer is followed and
the gamestate and rule changes it calls for take effect.
}}

Rewrite the section of rule 2-5 titled "Overriding Consultations" to read:
{{
When a Priest submits an answer to a consultation, within three ndays
(or ndelays if the clock is off) since its submission, any player
except the Unbeliever and the Supplicant may, as a Game Action, make a
Claim as to the Answer's (and Ocularity's) Consistency with the
current rules. Such Claims will ultimately state that the player
believes the answer to be Consistent or Inconsistent. If a Player
submits multiple Claims, only the last one submitted shall be counted.

At the end of the third nday (or ndelay) since the Answer has been
submitted the Oracle shall tally any such Claims. If there exist more
Claims of Inconsistency than claims of Consistency, the consultation
ceases to be Answered and becomes Waiting. The Oracle shall then
immediately assign a new Priest to the Consultation. The previous
Priest's answer and Ocularity (if any) is discarded.
}

Let me take a moment here to describe what I am doing in the last
section of this proposal:

Hose brought to light an important point: Any disputed action
essentially causes two different gamestates; One in which the action
is valid and another in which it is invalid. As the only way to
resolve which gamestate is correct is through a consultation, this
requires a minimum of 4 days (usually more) before the correct
gamestate can be resolved. In the interim, players are taking more
game actions which in turn creates even more possible gamestates.
Also, if consultations are not answered clearly, or if the dispute is
over a consultation, there may be no way of clearly resolving the
plethora of possible gamestates.

This proposal attempts to solve this problem. If this were to pass,
every game action would be valid unless it is declared invalid within
1 Nday. Therefore, should a game action be declared invalid, at the
most we would have to reverse only one day's worth of gamestate. Any
player may (within the allotted time) declare any action to be
invalid, with the exception of calling for a consultation (since the
judicial process should be protected). There are of course protections
to prevent players from arbitrarily calling actions invalid (including
a 10 point penalty).

If a player has their action declared invalid, and they believe it is
in fact valid under the current rules, they may submit a consultation
to have this issue resolved. However, their original action remains
invalid. Once the consultation is pondered, if the priest agrees with
them that the action was indeed valid, the priest may change the
gamestate to "simulate" what it might be if the original action was
indeed valid. Notice that this is quite distinct from making the
original action valid. The current gamestate does not need to be
unwound and then re-compiled (incurring a retroactivity headache),
instead the current gamestate is modified according to the priest's
best approximation of what it might be.

Note that throughout this process there is never any question as to
what the current gamestate might in fact be. The current gamestate is
always a known quantity. The largest possible "quantum gap" that can
exist under this system is the time it takes someone to respond to an
action and declare it invalid, which with our current level of
activity should be less than an hour.

There is of course a checks & balances system in place to prevent
priests from using Ocularities to arbitrarily re-write the gamestate
to their liking. This essentially "puts it to a vote" without taking a
large amount of time to do so. If the Priest's Ocularity is found to
be abusive, it is discarded along with the answer to the consultation
and a new priest steps in.

This also neatly solves the Ocularity / stare decisis problem that has
been discussed. The only rules of the game are in the ruleset. There
is no need to hunt through past consultations to find answers to what
is and is not permitted. Also, Ocularities under this revision are not
proposals (although they have a similar effect) and operate under a
separate set of guidelines, allowing them to be implemented more
quickly, and without the extra red-tape. Finally, Ocularities (in a
roundabout way) allow for more rapid changes to the B Nomic gamestate
and rules as has been proposed while still ensuring a protected
process.

BobTHJ
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business