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

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gee, I was already halfway through :(

I will await your second batch of comments.

BobTHJ

On Nov 26, 2007 4:05 PM, William P. Berard
<william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Will
>
> 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
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss