Roger Hicks on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:49:49 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal

On Nov 26, 2007 2:27 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 3:27 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What is flawed about it? I personally never saw this as a flaw, and
> > every other nomic I know of (with the exception of B) has this rule
> > (or a close variant thereof).
> Hose: (lengthy-rebuttal not quoted for brevity)
Again, every other Nomic out there has a "what isn't regulated is
permitted" clause. In my opinion this is much preferable to the
"nothing is permitted except as dictated by the rules" (monopoly mode)
clause. To be quite honest, I think B Nomic only functioned with that
clause in place because people ignored it. Monopoly Mode did not
permit us to:
* Use an Email client to send/receive messages
* Use our fingers to type messages
* Comment on game actions
* Use the english language
* etc.
All of the above were common sense items that were not written into
the rules, and therefore prohibited by Monopoly Mode.

In converse, a "permissible unless regulated" rule is far easier to
maintain. The rules define a way for points to be gained? Then points
are regulated and no player may arbitrarily gain them. Simple, no room
for ambiguity. The only arbitrary actions that can be taken are in
relation to objects which have no bearing on the ruleset, and
therefore no real effect upon the game.

I really suggest you bring up this topic on the Agoran forums, as the
legalists over there should be able to make quite the case for
"permissible unless regulated" (they seem to really enjoy debating
these horrendously abstract concepts on a regular basis). I'm sure
there has been a plethora of Agoran CFJs on the issue. I'm fairly
certain every Agoran player (with the exception of myself) has a PhD
in Logic, Computer Science, Mathematics, Law, and just about any other
topic you could think of.

Now, your second point (that every disputed action creates two
possible quantum gamestates) is a very valid one, and one that must be
addressed to avoid future issues. Agora's solution (which I hate) is
to track every possible gamestate that could exist, and seems to lead
to massive revisions to the gamestate, or else a general consensus to
ignore the past. I have an idea of how to address this issue, and I
will add it to the revised version of my refresh proposal.

spoon-discuss mailing list