[s-b] Refresh Proposal Submission - A Pragmatic Solution

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

In light of Antonio's legalistic wrangling (which IMO defies common sense
yet may win the day on technical grounds) I submit the following refresh
proposal, which is directly lifted from BobTHJ.

I urge other PEPs who have submitted nothing to copy and submit Refresh
Proposals that have already been "revised" by other PEPs. WE HAVE TWO HOURS
TO DO IT.

"My" proposal goes like so:

{

[[ALL CREDIT TO THE PLAYER NAMED BobTHJ. ALL HAIL BobTHJ.]]

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 or 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 with the exception of "Holy Hand Grenade of
Antioch" are destroyed.

The Public Display of players found at
http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Players is ratified (that is, accepted as
the true and correct gamestate) with the exception of the AFO and the
current states of panic buttons.

The clock is set to nday 6, nweek 134, nyear 14, Third Era of B Nomic
- Show quoted text -

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:
{{
A Player may cause any other Player who has become a player within the
past 12 ndays to cease to be a Player with 3 Support. He must state
the reason for such action.
}}

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, if the priest answered it Yes, 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]]
}}

- Show quoted text -
Delete the section titled "Oracularities" 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 "Oracularities" to rule 2-5 under the section
titled "The Answer" with the text:
{{
As part of their answer a Priest may submit an Oracularity. An Oracularity
is a Game Document which includes a list of changes to the rules and
gamestate of B Nomic. By nature, an Oracularity 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 Oracularity 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 Oracularity should include a list of
changes to current the gamestate to simulate what it might be if the
action in question had actually occurred.

If the answered question is in relation to the validity of a Game
Action that has been declared invalid, and the priest determines that
the action is indeed invalid, then the Oracularity may contain a
punishment for the player who performed that action in the form of a
gamestate change if in his opinion he deems that the player
intentionally attempted to perform an action that is in contradiction
to the rules.

When a Consultation becomes Pondered, if the answer for that
Consultation is the same as the answer originally supplied by its
Priest, then any Oracularity 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 regarding the Answer and the Oracularity (if one exists). Such
Claims will ultimately state that the player
believes the answer (and Oracularity) 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
- Hide quoted text -
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 Oracularity (if any) is discarded.
}}
}

Thank you,

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