Re: [s-d] A Proposed new Ruleset

["Martin R Crowther" <cybersanctuary@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can see that it is helpful to ministers. It doesn't really matter as I
assumed the timing was staying the same anyway. :) I just like the idea of
rolling props. Apart from which, I think the timing of things defines the
game as much as anything - and it is (currently) still bnomic.

RW

(and I've realised why I like Wonkos rules - games,etc can be moved to their
own section and declared as independant rulebooks, this leaves them visible
in the rules and yet skippable to players uninterested in them. Whole
sections can also be repealed without affecting the overall game, leaving
the core rules untouched - or at least changed in the relevant section. It's
almost a meta-synthesis of Nomics.

Also with all rules being grouped (and attempting to keep it that way - by 
moving rules to relevant sections if they aren't in one) it is clear what 
sections can be assigned to which Ministers.

One suggestion: cross referenced rules - and there have been many - maybe
amendments to rules regarding cross reference(s) should be made explicit.
ie. if rule X is removed then remove rule amendment Y. This would only work
for single/direct references as further references could tie the game up if
one rule was repealed - although this might help to keep it interesting. :))

RW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Lepage" <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: [s-d] A Proposed new Ruleset


> 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

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