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

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

I strongly believe that a refresh proposal should make the bare minimum 
of changes to the gamestate to reverse the phenomenon that caused the 
panic in the first place.

Le 26 nov. 07, à 19:57, Roger Hicks a écrit :

> Here is my refresh proposal:
>
> {
> All Proposals with a status of Open become Historical with a win-state
> of Lost. No awards or penalties are assessed.
>

Is this really necessary? This pops up in a lot of refresh proposals, 
but I see many good proposals that will have to be re-submitted. After 
all, I do not think the game stability is endangered by any proposal, 
and even if it was, those will still be voted upon... what do you 
think?



> All Consultations which are currently Waiting become Zotted.

Fair enough, but again, is it really necessary? the current crisis 
spawned from the problem on how Consultations, or, more accurately, 
their answers, effectively changed the ruleset. What we need is a 
stronger stance on how this should happen. One could argue, after all, 
that someone could have exploited the device creation loophole before 
the consultation, since the Judgement merely confirmed that the 
loophole existed.  Here again, I think we need a more efficient 
oricularity system, and something that states that either game actions 
are only regulated by rules, and that Judgements (Answers to 
Consultations) can only be acted upon once they have made it to the 
ruleset, or that game actions can be based on judgements only at the 
beginning of the nWeek after the judgement was passed (or some other 
time delay that would leave time for objection, and ponderation. The 
problem with objections, and I agree with 0x44 which was on IRC not too 
long ago, is that the recent change in active status condition makes 
the Quorum very hard to reach, and hence enable Judgements to pass 
anyway.

>
> The AFO becomes a player (if it is not one already). The AFO ceases to
> be a Faction (if it is one).
>
> Agora ceases to be a player or a faction (if it is one).
>
> Dice Master ceases to be a player (if it is one).
>
> All Devices and Blueprints are destroyed.
>

Okay, but, here again, I'm sticking to my "minimum changes to the 
gamestate"... what about the Holy Hand Grenade? I am new to the game 
and don't know the context of its creation, but it was prior to the 
device crisis we are facing. If anything, players having spend money on 
devices should have their money back.

> Repeal rules 3-12 and 3-14.
>

This is my main point of disagreement. The device crisis did not stem 
from those rules, it started  because of a lack of details about the 
conditions of device creation. I was the one who submitted the three 
consultatiosn on device and blueprints, because I liked the idea of 
having them in the game, and would like to submit proposal to build 
some sort of economy and industry in the game. repaling those rules 
would have us start from scratch device-wise, and this would be lenghty 
process.

Assuch, I think amending them to specifiy the creation conditions for 
devices and blueprints should be enough. furthermore, even if 3-12 and 
3-14 were to stay the same, your "Whatever is not prohibited or 
regulated by a rule is permitted an unregulated." rule would 
effectively prevent anyone abusing the creation loophole until it is 
fixed.

> Amend Rule 1-4 by removing:
> {{
> He may do this if and only if he fulfills the following requirements:
>
>     * He is capable of passing a Membership Test, although he may not
> be required to take said test
>     * He is not currently a Player
>     * He has a working e-mail address
> }}
>
> and by replacing:
> {{
> The Registrar may refuse to allow any External Force to become a
> player, and may refuse to recognize any otherwise-legal name change,
> if e believes the External Force's proposed name (or existing player's
> new name) would be ambiguous or confusing, or could otherwise damage
> the integrity of this game. The Registrar is encouraged, but not
> required, to state the reason for such refusal.
> }}
>
> with:
> {{
> The Registrar may cause any Player who has become a player within the
> past 12 ndays to cease to be a Player with 2 Support. He must state
> the reason for such action, which must be one of the following:
> * The Player's name is ambiguous, unclear, or in conflict with the
> name of an already existing Player
> * The Registrar believes that the new Player is identical to an
> already existing Player or Faction.
> * The Player was previously denied playerhood for any valid
> still-existant reason.
> }}
>

I see the point in this, but I think you are attcking the problem with 
the wrong angle : your proposal would effectively wipe out objective 
condition of playerhood to replace them by an individual decision by 
the registrar. I think this is contrary to the spirit of the game, and 
dangerous. because even though you propose that the Registrar need 2 
support to kick a player, there is no such democratic safeguard to 
_allow_ player in. as such, were the position of Registrar to be 
compromised, the game would be open to lots of trouble.

It seems to be a major flaw in this proposal, and I have to point out 
for the record that, although I am new to Nomics in general, I have 
noticed on Wikinomic that you are a player of Agora...


> In Rule 5-2 replace:
> {{
> * The Agreement is not already a Faction
> }}
> with:
> {{
> * The Agreement is not already a Faction or Player
> }}
>

This would imply that Agreement could be players. If we want to be 
tight about this, I'd suggest amending 5-1 to state that no Agreement 
can be, nor become, a player. On the grounds that a player, anyway, has 
to pass a membership test which can consist of speaking of himself in 
the first person without awkwardness, a thing that an Agreement (by 
definition constituted of at least two external forces) could not do 
unless it was desperately poor in grammar. ;-]


> Add the following rule to Section 1:
> {{
> Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and
> unregulated. However, for the purposes of this rule an action is
> regulated if described by a rule.
> }}
> }

This is a wiiiide topic. I think this is a good compromise without 
being prohibitionist, but it might be a bit of an overkill. If this is 
to pass, and stay in the game, we can expect a much slower paced game 
as we probably will have to pass lots of rules to explicetely permit 
otherwise accepted things.

In my spirit of bringing the minimum changes to the gamestate, I have 
to point out that it seems that you included this to try and solve the 
loophole of device creation. As I mentioned previously, if this rule is 
to pass, then you do not need to repeal the device rules. And if you 
repeal or fix the device rules, and possibly, as soon as the pani is 
over, quickly try and implement a workable, efficient system or 
oracularities, maybe we could do without that.


I think we all want the panic to end quickly, and I agree with the 
general spirit of your proposal, but my philosophy of a minimum changes 
to the gamestate is based on the fact that the less changes you 
propose, the less likely you are to have people voting against your 
proposal. This rule is very controversial, and has a far larger scope 
than solving the present crisis. It would shift a lot of paradigms in 
the game, and I think it needs to be discussed independently, once the 
panic is over.

to sum up, If I were you, I would remove it for the time being to 
insure I would not lose vote because of it, since you can already 
adress the critical issues without this rule, then propose it, as a 
stand alone proposition, once the panic is over.

>
> Note that the purpose of this refresh proposal is to resolve our messy
> gamestate. You may not agree with the changes, but I have attempted to
> address every point of possible ambiguity as it presently stands.

I think you did well. However, I don't think it is necessary to repale 
completely the device rules. And I think you introduce a serious 
potential danger in the playerhood system. Fix this, and you'll get my 
vote, although I would also like not to have to resubmit my proposal, 
and Ideally I think the last permitted/regulated/prohibited rule is too 
important to be bundled along with other measures, it needs to have a 
proposal of its own.


-- 
Will

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