Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fwd: Initial Rules Set / Meta-Game - An Experiment in Thought Gaming

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rainbow Wolfe wrote:

> {
> *Meta-Rules*
> 
> Meta-Rule #1
> All players have the right to propose, change or amend rules [[via emails
> sent to spoon-business]], and to discuss proposed rules and rule changes
> [[though emails sent to spoon-discuss]].

"All players have the right to propose rules and rule changes"

> Meta-Rule #2
> All players have the right to vote on proposed rules.

"and rule changes"

> Meta-Rule #3
> A proposal becomes a Law when 1/2 or more of the voting players agree that
> it should. LAWs must be followed by whomever is required by Law to follow
> them.

"more than 1/2 of".  And what's a "voting player"?  If the first vote is
FOR, is it immediately adopted?

> Meta-Rule #4
> Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and
> unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is
> permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits
> it.
> *[[reference: The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, Nomic Immutable
> Rule 116]]*

Are laws rules?  Are meta-rules rules?

> Meta-Rule #5
> If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the
> legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or a move appears
> equally legal and illegal, then the Meta-Rules may take precedence.
> *[[reference: The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, Nomic Mutable Rule
> 213]]*
> **

Do they definitely take precedence?  What if the laws claim otherwise?
(reference: http://students.imsa.edu/~dwarf/agora/theses/andre-an.html)

> **Meta-Rule #6
> Meta-Rules may only be created, deleted, or amended when *all* of the active
> players agree to it.
> **
> *Game Conventions*

Does "game conventions" include all laws, or just the initial set of
laws?  Does it have any further importance?

>  Law #01 - LAW
> The oldest pending proposal may become Law if any of the following are
> true:-
> 
>    - It has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum
>    - It has been open for voting for at least 1nweek and more than half of
>    its votes are FOR
> 
> The oldest pending proposal may fail to become Law if any of the following
> are true:-
> 
>    - It has a number of AGAINST votes that exceed or equal Quorum.
>    - It has been open for voting for at least 1nweek and half or fewer of
>    its votes are FOR.
>    - The player who proposed it has voted AGAINST it.

There's some overlap here, most obviously if the author votes AGAINST
and everyone else votes FOR.

Can a player vote ABSTAIN?  What about "FOR, unless <other proposal>
fails, in which case AGAINST"?

> Any active player may update the gamestate by posting an email to
> spoon-business declaring that a proposal has either passed or failed.

What's an "active player"?  How does someone even become a player?

"correctly declaring whether a proposal has passed or failed".  Or, if
the overlap noted above is intentional, then "correctly declaring that
a proposal has either passed or failed, specifying exactly one proposal
and exactly one result".

> Law #02
> A Quorum is defined by any number greater than half the number of active
> players.

"A Quorum is defined as half the number of active players (rounded down
to the nearest integer) plus one."

> Law #04 - ORDER
> With the exception of this paragraph, comment text will be delimited between
> double square brackets as shown: “[[this is a comment]]”. Comment Text has
> no direct effect on the state of the game, although it can be read and may
> aid in the interpretation of the LAW it refers to.
> Comment text in italics is known as ‘flavor text’ and can be used to add
> suggestions or story to the end of rules and sections.

How is flavor text indicated in plaintext?  [[/Like this?/]]

> Law #05 - NTIME
> nTime consists of the following values: A positive number known as the
> nWeek; a positive number known as the nDay.

How are they initialized?

> Law #06 - ERA'S
> The First Era of B Nomic is the time starting with the time creation of the
> game (approx.5 Dec 2001, prompted by a five-month lull in A Nomic) and
> ending immediately before the Second Era of B Nomic.
> 
> The Second Era of B Nomic is from nWeek 85, nDay 1 (approx.4 April 2005,
> prompted by data loss when the bnomic.org server crashed) and ending
> immediately before the Third Era of B Nomic.
> 
> The Third Era of B Nomic is from nWeek 112, nDay 1 (approx.14 Nov 2006,
> prompted by another 5 month lull) and ending immediately before the Fourth
> Era of B Nomic.
> 
> The Fourth Era of B Nomic is from nWeek 135, nDay 1 (approx.10 Dec 2007,
> prompted by a second state of emergency in 2 nWeeks) and ending immediately
> before the Fifth Era of B Nomic.
> 
> The Fifth Era of B Nomic is from nWeek 135, nDay 1 (approx.2 Dec 2008, when
> http://b.nomic.net/index.php/User:Ehird/Make_it_Better passed), and ending
> immediately before the Sixth Era of B Nomic.
> The Sixth Era of B Nomic is from nWeek 156, nDay 1 (approx.2 March 2009,
> when a Fourth Era ruleset was restored as we discovered a broken comment
> rule had messed up the game, and ending immediately before the Seventh Era
> of B Nomic.

"The Seventh Era of B Nomic is from nWeek <whatever>, nDay 1 (approx.
<date>), when we discovered a broken emergency rule had messed up the
game from <whatever> onward, and is currently in progress."

If we stick with "Gamma Nomic", then change each "Seventh Era of B" to
"First Era of Gamma".
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss