Re: [s-d] A different RFJ system (draft)

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

"David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This is a draft proposal that puts justice and the RFJ system into  
> more of a "democratic" light. Since everyone participates in most  
> every other aspect of the game, why not include everyone in the RFJ  
> system too?
>
> Oh, and it has a cooler name. :)

Cool names are a very important part of Nomic.

> One of the things I never much liked about most of our previous  
> iterations of B is that RFJs almost always ended up being decided by  
> one person, and it would have been easy for that person to do  
> something evil and collusive. Hopefully, by having everyone involved,  
> such collusion will be a bit more difficult.

Well, if it requires a majority, a majority of players can do
*anything* anyway, so this shouldn't muck that up more.

> There's no justice like angry mob justice!
> {{
> Create the following rule:
> {{
> __The Mob__
>
> There exists a game object called The Mob. Players may be members of The Mob.
>
> New players, upon joining the game, are NOT members of The Mob.
>
> Any player that is not a member of the Mob, and has not been a member  
> of the Mob for an uninterrupted period of at least two nweeks,  
> automatically joins The Mob.

This sounds to me that a New player joining would then instantly join
the Mod, since they aren't currently a member and haven't been for at
least two nweeks.

> Players may not join or leave the Mob except in manners explicitly  
> permitted or required by the Rules.

I think that's implied by other rules... Players can't manipulate game
objects unless something tells them to.

> }}
>
> Create the following rule:
> {{
> __Mob Justice__
>
> If at any time a player believes the state of this game to be in  
> question or error, that player may request Mob Justice.

Well, the "state of the game" is *never* in question or error. We just
as players might not be aware of what the state of the game actually
is.

> To request Mob Justice, a player must submit a message to a public
> forum, stating in detail the nature of the question or error, and
> explicitly stating that e requests Mob Justice. Such statement may,
> but is not required to, include a suggested remedy for the perceived
> question or error.
>
> All members of The Mob then may respond to the request for Mob  
> Justice, by stating on a public forum whether they agree or disagree  
> with the original request. Each player may make only one such  
> statement; if a player makes more than one such statement, the first  
> statement made on any given request shall be binding.

As Personman stated, I'd like to be able to change my mind if someone
brings up a new point.

> After three ndays have elapsed,

Using ndays means that this won't progress if the Clock is Off, which
may in particular be an issue if the thing being disputed is the
current ntime.

> the Administrator shall tally all statements made by eligible
> members of The Mob. If, and only if, more than half of all members
> of the mob have stated that they agree with the request for Mob
> Justice, the Administrator shall implement the original requestor's
> suggested remedy, if one was given.

Also as Personman stated, mentioning the Administrator explicitly
isn't needed. All the first sentence of r1-5 says is that the
Administrator has the responsibility to inform players about the state
of the game. Whether the Administrator does so or not doesn't affect
the current state of the game. If this is going to change the state of
the game, then it should just do so, much like the last sentence of
r2-2. Then, since the game has been changed, the Administrator
(currently) has the responsibility to inform players what has
happened.

And if there's no remedy made, agreeing or disagreeing with it doesn't
do anything. I think you need a statement with something to the effect
that the Statement made in the Request For Mob is true or false for
the purposes of figuring out the current state of the game. Or
something like that.

> Any player who fails to respond to two separate, consecutive requests  
> for Mob Justice, by stating either agreement or disagreement, is  
> removed from The Mob.

And by an earlier statement, they will be automatically added back in
after 2 nweeks. Perhaps they should have had some sort of activity
(making any Game Action?) in order to be added back in?

> }}
>
> All players are made members of The Mob.
>
> }}
>
> Suggestions for cleaning up the wording and such are welcome. I  
> haven't PLAYED in a nomic in a while, so my memory is fuzzy. :)

All in all, I like the concept. I think we just need to work on the
execution some, or its second use may be about its first use, which
could be a mess. :)

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