Re: [s-d] A Solution?

[Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----
From: comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>
To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:31:55 PM
Subject: Re: [s-d] A Solution?

On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Justin Ahmann wrote:
> Gamestate 2a: A Game Action can be undone within 1 nday. I think I've
> been using this interpretation.
> Gamestate 2b: A Game Action takes effect 1 nday after its announcement,
> unless it is declared invalid.
In 2b I intended to say that it takes effect 1 nday after its announcement 
*if it was otherwise invalid*.  If it was in fact valid according to the 
rules, then it took effect immediately.

What if its validity is in dispute?


> The two possibilities below:
>
> In the first one, I again fail to see why I'm not dictator.  I am not
> dictator through declaring actions invalid; I am dictator through
> changing the gamestate in a way that, based on this interpretation, is
> not even a Game Action.

See the chess argument.  There is always a metarule among games that the 
gamestate only changes in ways the rules allow it to.  If you look in the 
rulebook of Monopoly, you will not find a Monopoly Mode rule; it is 
implied.

Nomic is about pushing the envelope of the rules.  If the rules require such a metarule, then that's fine for chess and Monopoly, but in a full-scale nomic, it is the perogative of the players to push the envelope of the metarules.



The rules do not mention that posting a message to the Public Forum can 
cause you to change the gamestate, whether or not that's by a Game Action, 
so you can't.  




So how do we change the gamestate?  I'd say that there's also a metarule here saying that if something looks like a gamestate change, walks like a gamestate change, quacks like a gamestate change, and isn't by definition NOT a gamestate change, it is a gamestate change.

Somebody also said something recently about doing away with metarules.  That is the purpose of the rule changes below.





> I suggest the following changes/additions to the ruleset (Note that they
> are not fully polished and formalized):
>
> A Game Action is defined as any action that changes the gamestate.

I don't like this definition.  Game Actions are how Outsiders change the 
gamestate; if the rules autochange the gamestate, then that has not been 
considered a Game Action.




Good point.




> An External Force can only take a Game Action if explicitly allowed by
> the Ruleset.  If an External Force (henceforth the Actor) attempts to
> take a Game Action not so allowed by the Ruleset, a Player may point
> this fact out.  If the Actor fails to present a Rule allowing said Game
> Action as of the time the Actor attempted it within 1 nday, said Game
> Action becomes Invalid. [[It may be in dispute as to whether the Rule
> does, in fact, allow said Game Action.  If so, a Consultation is
> suggested.  External Forces are encouraged to refrain from attempting to
> take Game Actions whose validity hinges on the validity of said Game
> Action.]]

This seems like it won't actually do anything, because in most cases the 
action would be invalid whether or not this rule made it so.




This is really to flush (flesh?) out the details of the marginal actions.




Anyway, if we get into the whole proposing-fixes phase, I will probably 
make my own proposal.  But you realize that we pretty much need to go 
through the Rule 0 procedure to collapse any potential gamestates.  If you 
were to implement such changes as Grand Chancellor, we would be just as 
stuck as we were in the first place.

See 4.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss