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

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andy Jones wrote:
> Well, yes.  Same with the suberian ruleset.  Harder is what I had in mind.

By harder, I meant that "it requires more work to write the
rule/prop/whatever to work correctly", not that "it places more
restrictions on what can make it happen".

>> There are two main differences between Immutable and Mutable rules in
>> Suber's ruleset. Firstly, immutable rules require a 2/3 vote to
>> change, while Mutable rules only require a majority. Secondly, an
>> Immutable rule requires two rule changes, and hence two turns, to
>> change, because it has to be transmuted and then modified.
>>
>> The first isn't an obstacle in our system. I could, for instance,
>> make a proposal that created a new proposal, set each player's vote
>> on the proposal to FOR, and then resolved the proposal. The new
>> proposal would pass unanimously if and only if the original proposal
>> passed at all.
>
> I'm not exactly sure I follow that, but I think that you are
> suggesting a proposal that would vote for me.  I wouldn't vote for a
> proposal that voted for me, and I suspect that I would not be alone.
> That 2/3 third, or unanimous or whatever, majority is a genuine
> barrier that makes immutable rules more difficult to change.

Let's use an example. Suppose that we had a Rule 1 in our ruleset, that said:
__Rule 1: Test Tough-to-change Rule__
{{
This rule can only be amended or deleted by a proposal that passes
unanimously.
}}

Now, the following prop would apparently only work if it were passed
unanimously:
__Prop 1: Test Change rule__
{{
Change rule 1 in its entirety to read:
{{
The purpose of B Nomic is to give everyone Fluffy Bunnies.
}}
}}

However, the following prop would work even if it were only passed by a
normal majority:
__Prop 2: Test Change Rule with just a Majority__
{{
Create a Prop. 3 as follows:
__Test Change Rule that actually does the work__
{{
Change rule 1 in its entirety to read:
{{
The purpose of B Nomic is to give everyone Fluffy Bunnies.
}}
}}

Set all players' current vote on Prop. 3 to be FOR.

Change Prop. 3 to be Historical. [[Which then causes it to pass,
unanimously.]]
}}

You see? Since props can do *anything*, they can meet whatever constraints
the rule-to-be-changed requires in order to change it. Even if it has to
remove all players and/or rules from the game first in order to do it.

Now, maybe we could try to put more restrictions on the props we normally
are playing the game with. But I think that it's a part of Nomic (and
might even be proven) that as long as you allow the rules of the game to
be changed, you allow *any* part of the game to be changed, since the rule
you create can supersede control from the part of the game that's trying
not to be touched. It may require effort on the part of some (or all)
other players (depending on the rules for passing props), but at the very
least you can do *anything* with unanimous consent, if only because
nobody's going to object to the game changing in that way, even if the
rules don't say they allow it.

At some point, I'll try to dig up some stuff on the inevitability of rules
changes being able to change anything, and maybe some of the interesting
things that passed in B Nomic's past that just worked around these
restrictions. Or maybe Wonko or others have some recollections.

Thanks for asking questions, though. Things like dealing with what you can
and can't actually do is part of what makes Nomics fun.

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