Re: [s-d] Are we playing?

[bd <nomic@xxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 08:53:14 -0400, Eugene Meidinger <eugman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 01:42 -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:14 PM, Eugene Meidinger wrote:
>>
>> > So in no specific order:
>> >
>> > Players may make drafts at any time.
>> > They must add them to a drafts page.
>>
>> I wonder if this is necessary. Maybe we could run the whole game
>> through email, as has been suggested before.
> Entirely possible, although I would think that be hard to track but you
> could argue we already have to do that.

Agora Nomic does just this, with an aperiodic schedule. It might be worth seeing whether we can get some good ideas from them.

>> > Drafts can be revoked at any time.
>> > If a draft has not been revoked then it can be turned into a proposal.
>> > To convert a draft you need a nomination and a second.
>> > The player to nominate must do the admining.
>>
>> Presumably the drafter has to be the one to turn a draft into a
>> proposal? I certainly wouldn't want my drafts becoming props before I
>> was ready for them to do so.
> Well I was thinking about the possibility of a person making a draft but
> not being around too frequently so it'd be good for a player to be able
> to turn it into law but they could just copy the draft so you are right.
>
>
>> > This includes announcing, counting votes, and implementing the rule.
>> > After a period of time such as 5 ndays person may can voting to a
>> > close.
>> > If the person who ends the voting isn't the nominator then the work
>> > may
>> > default to em.
>> > After the announcement of closing, people have a 2 nday buffer to
>> > still
>> > vote.
> Well The way I suggested it a vote could go on for weeks if there is a
> lull or nobody tries to close it.
> as a result everyone could forget about the rule. It would be
> unfortunate if there was a lull and someone could just close a vote when
> things start back up and noone could vote on it.
>
> A better system might require two people to close the vote just like it
> takes two people to start it.

I know agora has a general system for these kinds of things:

Rule 1728/12 (Power=2)
Dependent Actions

      An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and
      only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N
      Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer.  The phrase
      "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection",
      and the phrase "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1
      Supporter".

      A player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an
      unambiguously described dependent action.  A player may perform
      a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and
      only if:

      (a)  no more than fourteen days have passed since the
           announcement of intent to perform the action;

      (b)  if the action to be performed is an Action Without N
           Objections, at least four days have passed since the
           announcement made under (a) of this rule;

      (c)  either the player who attempts to perform the action is the
           player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or

           (1)  the player who made the announcement under (a) of this
                rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by
                virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and

           (2)  the player who attempts to perform the action is the
                holder of that position when e attempts to perform the
                action;

      (d)  the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the
           action dependently;

      (e)  during the time between the announcement made under (a) of
           this rule and the attempt to perform the action,

           (1)  if the action is to be performed Without N Objections,
                fewer than N players have publicly posted objections
                (and not publicly retracted eir objections) to the
                performance of the action; or

           (2)  if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at
                least N players other than the player who made the
                announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly
                posted support for the performance of the action;

      (f)  the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies
           whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections
           or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit
           the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not
           permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and

      (g)  e announces that e performs the described action.

      A dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).

      The specification in the rules that an action may be performed
      dependently does not prohibit performing that action
      independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.

      A rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may
      restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that
      specific action.

>> > Laws will have an attribute of closer, nominator, and drafter.
>> > Responsibility to do any administrating falls in that order
>> > respectively.
>> > We need a way to determine if a person has been negligent and the next
>> > one down the line should do it or if just all three are allowed to
>> > take
>> > the responsibility.
>>
>> Passing it down the line is probably enough; perhaps it becomes
>> something anyone can do after a while.
>>
>> One thing I like about your system is that even if a proposal passes,
>> it won't actually take effect until somebody takes the time to add it
>> to the rules.
>>
>> What happens if two people try to take responsibility simultaneously?
>> What happens if the effects of two proposals depend on the order in
>> which they are implemented? I don't like it when the game benefits
>> those who are able to be at a machine at odd hours...
>
> Well It should be that unless the person who closed the vote is to
> implement it. If they give up that duty or the game understands them to
> be inactive then the duty goes to the the proposer.

Perhaps closing the vote can be done by anyone at any time (with support), but it doesn't actually take effect unless they handle all the effects at the same time? That way, there's no staking claims; it's just implemented by the first person who cares to do so.

>> > There are offices which may be proposed and created.
>> >
>> >
>> > That's all I can think of for now.
>>
>> There's Justice as well. I'd say we should use voting-based CFIs/CFJs/
>> RFJs/Whatever they're called. The Plaintiff gives a statement/
>> question and names a defendant, and then must count the votes and
>> announce the result emself, just like for a proposal. This should
>> stop frivolous CFJs.
>
> Sounds like a good idea.

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