Mike McGann on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:47:47 +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 4:49 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

We've argued a lot on this, but now I finally understand your
reasoning. Yes, that is a valid argument, but...

> All of the above were common sense items that were not written into
> the rules, and therefore prohibited by Monopoly Mode.

Does common sense really apply in a nomic? If you start out the rules
of a card game saying that it uses a 52 card deck, common sense tells
you what the deck is composed of. In a nomic, if that is all you say,
people will argue about what kind of deck it is, what is the actual
composition of the cards, and then submit a Consultation that their
Pokemon deck of 52 cards is valid. It seems to me that in a nomic,
people love to do silly things like registering themselves as a player
with the name of the "empty string".

> 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.

I'm not a first-class player so they probably wouldn't participate.

> 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.

And I'll review this tomorrow when I'm not tired.

- Hose
spoon-discuss mailing list