Re: [s-d] Why no mutable/immutable?

["Andy Jones" <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is where I show I'm a Nomic newbie.

If you have two rules that each say they supercede the other, doesn't
that in itself break the game?  So the first player that does
something that is dependant on either wins?

Of course, if no-one can agree that the game has ended, it just
continues, which seems a bit pointless...

On 11/20/06, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Andy Jones wrote:
> > Can I ask why the initial ruleset doesn't contain immutable rules?
>
> You can ask. I'm not sure how great an answer you'll get will be, though. :)
>
> > Was this something you just got fed up with?  Or something you'd
> > rather see come out of the gameplay?  Or what?
>
> I've only been involved with the game for almost a couple of years, so we
> may need to wait for Wonko's opinion, as I think he's the one who's been
> with the game the longest (or at least, been active in the game the most
> since it started).
>
> But generally, while I think that some rules have had clauses that made
> them tougher to remove, they can pretty much always be worked around.
> Anything that can make a rule can probably supercede anything in another
> rule that stops a rule removal attempt. Basically, you can make a rule
> that says something like "All rules can be repealed. This rule supercedes
> our current precedence rule, and all other rules, even if they say this
> one can't do that." Or maybe you'd need to go through the trouble to
> creating an entire new ruleset, and then changing the game to follow that
> ruleset instead of the old one. But adding rules to make changing some
> rules harder just makes it harder to change them, not impossible.
>
> And well, if it's an important rule to keep or not to change, then people
> will just vote no on changing it.
>
> With rule changes via loophole (instead of proposal), it's generally
> polite to just use the loophole to fix the loophole, claim a Win, and let
> gameplay continue. If you just irreparibly broke the game, we'd just need
> to start a new game with the rules as they were just before you broke them
> and then not let you join our new game and spoil our fun. But that'd just
> be annoying.
>
> --
> Peter C.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>


-- 
It's Like This

Even the Samurai
Have teddy bears
And even the teddy bears
Get drunk
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss