William P. Berard on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:05:41 +0100 (CET)

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

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

Just a quick note to BobTHJ :

do not answer those comments yet if you are intending to, I'm going to 
make an updated version based on your last revision.


Le 26 nov. 07, à 22:55, William P. Berard a écrit :

> 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