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

["William P. Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 26 nov. 07, à 21:49, Roger Hicks a écrit :

> 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.
>

If I can bring my two cents to the debate, I think your proposal is 
closer to Hose's take on "everything prohibited unless explicitely 
permitted" than he thinks :

you state : "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is 
permitted and unregulated"
then something permitted is either:
-unregulated
-or regulated (that is explicitely allowed, since something regulated 
and permitted would have to be permitted by the regulation)

As such, correct me If I am wrong, but I think it is logically 
equivalent to  "everything that is mentioned in the rules, is 
prohibited unless it is explicitely permitted." Basically a cut down 
version of the strict "unless explicitely permitted, everything is 
prohibited", which only applies to things regulated, that is, mentioned 
in the rules.

It definitely works as far as not having to make silly permission such 
as email clients, fingers, that you mention, and Hose's example about 
marble is flawed, since it assumes someone would pass a winning 
condition on the number of marbles (which requires a vote). The thing 
is, where do you draw the line for regulation. If there is the victory 
condition about marbles, does it mean, that, although marble creation 
is not regulated, since marbles are mentioned in the rules, they are 
regulated?

Although I think your proposal will certainly clear things up, It would 
still require a lot of "common sense" things to be explicitely 
permitted. for example the recent debate about consultation neeeding to 
be asked as a question. The rules clearly state that. However 
consultation 006 http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Consultations/0006 states 
that consultation can be worded as statement.

How would this work under your proposal. Does a Judgement qualifies as 
regulation? if so, don't we go back into the loophole which enabled a 
Priest to use his answer to a Consultation to build a Doomsday 
device... Here again, we lack a proper Oricularity system where 
Judgement only become part of the ruleset once submitted to public 
vote...






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