Re: [s-d] A Proposed new Ruleset

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 7, 2005, at 7.15 PM, Martin R Crowther wrote:

> Admittedly I haven't (still) completely read through Wonko's rules. I 
> will so shortly, when I get time, but the initial look was good.
>
> ...I missed the rolling prop thing, I assumed it would (had I read it 
> fully) have followed the procedure we currently have. Personally, I 
> would prefer rolling props as it gives a continuation letting people 
> vote on items that are up for voting at the time they log in. I can 
> see the problem though, that with inactivity, we could end up with 
> many historical docs - although we could have just as many daft props 
> active - but then that would give people an incentive to vote... 
> maybe.

The reason I changed my mind about that was because I wasn't sure how 
well it would interact with the Ministry of Change. It's awfully 
convenient as the Minister of Change knowing that everything you need 
to do will happen at two set times - the beginning of voting, and the 
end.

The timing isn't actually hardwired into the tracking scripts - the 
Minister of Change just knows when to move everything around. It 
wouldn't be hard to adapt the scripts to a rolling schedule; it would 
mostly just mean renaming a few things so it looked like it made sense 
("Ballot" -> "Open Props" for example).

The thing I like about the periodic schedule, though, is that we can 
stop the clock and wait for these things. If a prop contains many, many 
rule changes, then the Clock will stay off for as long as the GM needs 
to get the rules up-to-date; this is fine because it only happens at 
most once an nweek. If each prop has its own resolution time, though, 
then the GM will have a lot of work to do all the time.

> I'll vote for it anywhich way it goes though, although I would have 
> suggested the rolling props except I though that the timing was pretty 
> much set up anyway. (as far as definate things go in Nomic) :) I 
> thought it'd be impractical to set up from the system we are on. Oh 
> well. Maybe we'll keep it to one side (maybe toggle :P ) for a rainy 
> day. We can always test it to see how it goes.
>
> Suppose I better go and read the rules propoerly now.
>
> (And does that mean sub games can now have their own numbered 
> section?? Assuming something is defined as a subgame - and I suppose 
> that someone would have to suggest that it had its own numbered 
> section.)

Depending on the subgame, it may even have its own rulebook. I see 
Sections as dividing the rules up based on their logical content, so a 
Subgame defined in the Ruleset would probably have its own section. 
Rulebooks are designed to separate rules based on administration, so 
that a single player is responsible for all the rules in any given 
Rulebook, but you might assign a book like the Book of Piece to the 
Minister of the Board, for example.

This weekend I hope to get some revised ruleset-tracking scripts up 
that will make it easy to divide rules into books and sections.

--
Wonko

< > ! * ' ' #
^ @ ` $ $ -
! * ' $ , _
% * < > #4
& ) . . /
| { ~ ~  System Halted

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