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

["Andy Jones" <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx>]

I thought that it might be something like that.

Your test case still requires a majority to vote for a proposal which
then casts votes for them.  I for one would be very suspicious of such
a proposal.  And in any case the current ruleset states only that
players may submit proposals.

I guess the only way to find out for sure is to try it.  I'll think about that.


On 11/21/06, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
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