Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Mega-Proposal (revision)

[Dan Waldron <wald7330@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Wonko wrote:

> > Give to any rules not specified in either of the above two lists the
> > designation "Mutable Rule"
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why not replace the second list of numbers and that
> last sentence with "Make all other rules mutable"?

Now that you mention it, that would have been a more simple way to write
it.  There shouldn't be any rules that have been missed out from the
lists, however.  The last sentence is only for rules enacted on the same
ballot as this proposal.



> > 
> > Society Rules are of lower precedence than Physical Laws or Mutable Rules.
> > Players are not required to obey Charter Rules except as specified in the
> > Mutable Rules.  Non-player entities are not required to obey the Charter
> > Rules.
> > 
> > }}
> 
> I thought you said above that you removed the Charter stuff... Is that last
> para a mistake?

Oops.  Thought I had got them all.  I'll fix that.

> > Beings may make changes to the rules and game state.  Non-beings may not,
> > except as specified by physical law.
> > }}
> 
> So a non-being object such as, say, a mutable rule couldn't change the game
> state?

This is true.  Mutable rules cannot directly change the game state.

Mutable rules can ask the Administrator to change the gamestate via rule
25.

I know this seems weird, but if you think about it, it makes sense.  Just
because someone passes a law declaring that the grass is greener on the
other side it doesn't mean that the colour will change until someone
actually goes out there with a paintbrush.

The only mutable rule that is left, so far as I know, that tries to change
the gamestate directly is the insta-rule rule.  I'm not quite sure what to
do about this one.  The simplest thing to do would be to move it all to
the physical rules, but that seems inelegant.

> 
> > Revise rule 25 by amending it to read as follows:
> > {{
> > ...
> > }}
> 
> But... This is Mutable rule... Unless it takes precedence over Physical Law,
> it would be impossible to change the Physical Laws...
> 

No, not really.  There are no restrictions placed by the physical laws on
arbitrary changes of the rules and game state.  This rule restricts the
Admin to changes that have been asked for by the rules or by players via
proposal or CFI.  Rule 152 does an equivalent restriction operation for
players.

> > Revise rule 14 by appending the following:
> > {{
> > Forfeiting is equivalent to withdrawal of consent.
> > }}
> 
> Withdrawal of consent of what?
> 

Consent to be goverened by the rules.  One of the requirements of being a
player.  Maybe this needs to be put in here too.

> > Amend rule 152 by revising it to read as follows:
> > {{
> > Changes to the state of the game may only be made by an Action which is
> > permitted (elsewhere) by the Mutable Rules, or by the Administrator
> > performing eir duties.
> > }}
> 
> Not by ministers?

Ministers are permitted to do this by rule 625.  It doesn't need to be
here as well.  Maybe I can take out the bit about the admin as well.  What
do you think?

> 
> > Amend rule 33 by appending the following, first having replaced the string
> > "xxxx" with the serial number of the first rule created by this proposal.
> > 
> > {{ 
> > Chutzpah comparisons shall not be made between rules of different
> > types. As per rule xxxx physical laws always take precedence over other
> > types of rule, and mutable rules take precedence over society rules.
> > 
> > }}
> 
> You just mentioned Society rules again...
> Wonko

This time it is deliberate.  I just want to make sure that some nutcase
isn't going to go around assigning chutzpahs to the rules of society
charters and expecting them to magically take precedence over mutable
rules.  That would be a Bad Thing (tm).

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467






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