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

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

I feel that if, as is The Whole Point of Answers, Pondered
Consultations guide future interpretation of the Rules, that creating
a whole new process to speed Oracularities through isn't really
necessary.  And if we make it so Pondered Consultations don't actually
do anything except produce Oracularities that can change the actual
rules where they are ambiguous (which your proposal doesn't even seem
to do), why not just get rid of the Consultation system altogether,
let the Supplicant propose expedited changes to the gamestate/rules
that go into effect quickly if everyone agrees with him, and save us a
lot of trouble?

In any case, I don't believe this Oracularity solves the actual
problem, which is that there will soon be a Pondered Consultation that
states unequivocally that any Player can Create a Blueprint (and/or,
in the rather liberal interpretation of the Answer that might not be
borne out by the actual Answer, do absolutely anything they want at
any time).


On Nov 29, 2007 3:35 PM, Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Still another revision (by the way, I want some feedback!):
> {
>
> All Devices not named "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" are destroyed.
>
> All Blueprints are destroyed.
>
> Add a rule to Section 1:
>
> {
> If an action is mentioned in the Rules, it is illegal for a Player to perform such action unless the Rules explicitly allow said action to be performed by the aforementioned Player in the current gamestate, or, in a sentence not part of Comment Text, describe such a Player performing said action.
>
> The following actions are legal to perform unless such performance constitutes an illegal action due to a rule other than this one:
> to designate, deem, consider, or say anything to be anything
> to attempt to organize the Procedure described in Rule 0
> to maintain a Public Display
> to Forfeit the game
> }
>
> In the section of Rule 2-5 named, "The Answer," replace
>
> {
> If he deems it necessary the Priest may also submit as a game action an Oracularity detailing changes needed to correct the state of the game.
> }
>
> with
>
> {
> The Priest may also submit an Oracularity as a Game Action, detailing changes to the gamestate required to uphold the Answer to the Consultation.  If the associated Answer is reversed, the Oracularity's Status is immediately set to Historical and its Success state is set to Lost.
> }
>
> Append to the section of Rule 2-2 entitled "Voting":
>
> {
> The XXX Vote Power of a proposal is defined as the sum of the Vote Powers of Registered Voters whose Final Vote is "XXX", where "XXX" is replaced by "FOR", "AGAINST", or "ABSTAIN".
> }
>
> Append to the section of Rule 2-2 entitled "Oracularities":
>
> {
> An Oracularity may not have Conficts or Dependencies.
> }
>
> Append to the end of Rule 2-2 in a section entitled "Impromptu Voting Periods":
>
> {
> As a Game Action with 2 Support, the Oracle or the Chairman may declare an Impromptu Voting Period for a Pending Oracularity.  This Impromptu Voting Period begins once the second Player to pledge his Support for this Game Action does so, and ends immediately after one of the following things happens:
>
> Three ndays have passed since the beginning of the Impromptu Voting Period.
> At least half of the Active Registered Voters have voted on the Oracularity.
>
> A Player may not Give his Allegiance to a Faction during the Impromptu Voting Period if he has voted on the relevant Oracularity.
>
> At the beginning of the Impromptu Voting Period, the Oracularity becomes Open.  No other Proposals are affected by the beginning of the Impromptu Voting Period, although other Oracularities may be affected by their own Impromptu Voting Periods.
>
> At the end of the Impromptu Voting Period:
>
> If five or more Players have voted on the Oracularity, and the AGAINST Vote Power is greater than the FOR Vote Power, the Status of the Oracularity is set to Historical and its Success State to Lost.
> If five or more Players have voted on the Oracularity, and the AGAINST Vote Power is not greater than the FOR Vote Power, the Status of the Oracularity is set to Historical and its Success State to Won.
> If fewer than five Players have voted on the Oracularity, the Oracularity continues to be Pending.  Another Impromptu Voting Period may not be declared for this Oracularity.
>
> Historical Oracularities are, for the purposes of Conflict and Dependency Culling, counted as having a Proposal Number of 0 and infinite Strength.
>
> In all ways not discussed or logically implied by this rule or another, the Impromptu Voting Period is identical to an ordinary Voting Period.
> }
> [[I'm not entirely sure yet how to fit this in with Conflicts, Dependencies, and Vote Power.  Any suggestions?]]
>
> Any Player or Faction by the name of "Agora", "Dice master", or "AFO" ceases to be a Player or Faction.
>
> Rule 0-42 (if it exists) is repealed.
>
> }
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:01:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [s-b] Codae's Refresh Proposal
>
> Yet another revision (based mostly on input on the Oracularities):
> {
>
> All Devices not named "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" are destroyed.
>
> All Blueprints are destroyed.
>
> Add a rule to Section 1:
>
> {
> If an action is mentioned in the Rules, it is illegal for a Player to perform such action unless the Rules explicitly allow said action to be performed by the aforementioned Player in the current gamestate, or, in a sentence not part of Comment Text, describe such a Player performing said action.
>
> The following actions are legal to perform unless such performance constitutes an illegal action due to a rule other than this one:
> to designate, deem, consider, or say anything to be anything
> to attempt to organize the Procedure described in Rule 0
> to maintain a Public Display
> to Forfeit the game
> }
>
> In the section of Rule 2-5 named, "The Answer," replace
>
> {
> If he deems it necessary the Priest may also submit as a game action an Oracularity detailing changes needed to correct the state of the game.
> }
>
> with
>
> {
> The Priest may also submit an Oracularity as a Game Action, detailing changes to the gamestate required to uphold the Answer to the Consultation.  If the associated Answer is reversed, the Oracularity's Status is immediately set to Historical and its Success state is set to Lost.
> }
>
> Append to the section of Rule 2-2 entitled "Oracularities":
>
> {
> An Oracularity may not have Conficts or Dependencies.
> }
>
> Append to the end of Rule 2-2 in a section entitled "Impromptu Voting Periods":
>
> {
> As a Game Action with 2 Support, the Oracle or the Chairman may declare an Impromptu Voting Period for a Pending Oracularity.  This Impromptu Voting Period begins once the second Player to pledge his Support for this Game Action does so, and ends immediately after one of the following things happens:
>
> Three ndays have passed since the beginning of the Impromptu Voting Period.
> At least half of the Active Registered Voters have voted on the Oracularity.
>
> At the beginning of the Impromptu Voting Period, the Oracularity becomes Open.  No other Proposals are affected by the beginning of the Impromptu Voting Period, although other Oracularities may be affected by their own Impromptu Voting Periods.
>
> At the end of the Impromptu Voting Period:
>
> If five or more Players have voted on the Oracularity, and the AGAINST Vote Power is greater than the FOR Vote Power, the Status of the Oracularity is set to Historical and its Success State to Lost.
> If five or more Players have voted on the Oracularity, and the AGAINST Vote Power is not greater than the FOR Vote Power, the Status of the Oracularity is set to Historical and its Success State to Won.
> If fewer than five Players have voted on the Oracularity, the Oracularity continues to be Pending.  Another Impromptu Voting Period may not be declared for this Oracularity.
>
> Historical Oracularities are, for the purposes of Conflict and Dependency Culling, counted as having a Proposal Number of 0 and infinite Strength.
>
> In all ways not discussed or logically implied by this rule or another, the Impromptu Voting Period is identical to an ordinary Voting Period.
> }
> [[I'm not entirely sure yet how to fit this in with Conflicts, Dependencies, and Vote Power.  Any suggestions?]]
>
> Any Player or Faction by the name of "Agora", "Dice master", or "AFO" ceases to be a Player or Faction.
>
> Rule 0-42 (if it exists) is repealed.
>
> }
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:38:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [s-b] Codae's Refresh Proposal
>
> Another revision:
> {
>
> All Devices not named "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" are destroyed.
>
> All Blueprints are destroyed.
>
> Add a rule to Section 1:
>
> {
> If an action is mentioned in the Rules, it is illegal for a Player to perform such action unless the Rules explicitly allow said action to be performed by the aforementioned Player in the current gamestate, or, in a sentence not part of Comment Text, describe such a Player performing said action.
>
> The following actions are legal to perform unless such performance constitutes an illegal action due to a rule other than this one:
> to designate, deem, consider, or say anything to be anything
> to attempt to organize the Procedure described in Rule 0
> to maintain a Public Display
> to Forfeit the game
> }
>
> In the section of Rule 2-5 named, "The Answer," replace
>
> {
> If he deems it necessary the Priest may also submit as a game action an Oracularity detailing changes needed to correct the state of the game.
> }
>
> with
>
> {
> The Priest may also submit an Oracularity as a Game Action, detailing changes to the gamestate required to uphold the Answer to the Consultation.  If the associated Answer is reversed, the Oracularity's Status is immediately set to Historical and its Success state is set to Lost.
> }
>
> Append to the section of Rule 2-2 entitled "Voting":
>
> {
> As a Game Action with 2 Support, the Oracle or the Chairman may declare a Voting Period for Oracularities only.  This impromptu Voting Period begins once the second Player to pledge his Support for this Game Action does so, and ends three ndays later.  In all other ways this Voting Period behaves like an nweekly Voting Period.
> }
> [[I'm not entirely sure yet how to fit this in with Conflicts, Dependencies, and Vote Power.  Any suggestions?]]
>
> Any Player or Faction by the name of "Agora", "Dice master", or "AFO" ceases to be a Player or Faction.
>
> The Player named Hose receives an M. C. Hammer commemorative CD.
>
> Rule 0-42 (if it exists) is repealed.
>
> }
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 8:09:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [s-b] Codae's Refresh Proposal
>
> I am revising my Refresh Proposal (but I still think Hose (not Wooble) won.).
>
> Proposal:
> {
>
> All Devices not named "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" are destroyed.
>
> All Blueprints are destroyed.
>
> Add a rule to Section 1:
>
> {
> If an action is mentioned in the Rules, it is illegal for a Player to perform such action unless the Rules explicitly allow said action to be performed by the aforementioned Player in the current gamestate, or, in a sentence not part of Comment Text, describe such a Player performing said action.
>
> The following actions are legal to perform unless such performance constitutes an illegal action due to a rule other than this one:
> to designate, deem, consider, or say anything to be anything
> to attempt to organize the Procedure described in Rule 0
> to maintain a Public Display
> to Forfeit the game
> }
>
> Any Player or Faction by the name of "Agora", "Dice master", or "AFO" ceases to be a Player or Faction.
>
> The Player named Hose receives an M. C. Hammer commemorative CD.
>
> The Minister of Questions is required to update the "Justice" section of the B Nomic wiki as soon as possible.  [[I'm the Priest for Consultation 42, but I can't find its text.]]
>
> Rule 0-42 (if it exists) is repealed.
>
> }
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>



-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss