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

[Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm pretty sure that the Redactor rule doesn't ban unilateral creation of 
rules.  At least, it wasn't intended to.  After all, if you create a new rule, 
there is no rule whose text you are changing.

So the only thing you'd need to submit to the Redactor is something like 
"Replace each occurence of the word Wooble with the word Codae".

Codae




________________________________
From: Eric Stucky <turiski.nomic@xxxxxxxxx>
To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, September 16, 2011 8:33:55 PM
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Initial Rules Set / Meta-Game - An Experiment in 
Thought Gaming


On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Rainbow Wolfe wrote:

> On behalf of Turiski, who did not submit this to the Redactor, I submit if
> for em
> {{{
> Every message containing the string "}}}" and intending to create a rule,
> submits that rule automatically to the Redactor.
> }}}

I claim I did not need to send it to the redactor, since a reasonable case could 
be made to suggest the redactor did not exist at the time I created my proposal. 
Nor, using similar reasoning, did anything demand that I send it to the mailing 
list.

It's irrelevant now, but we might want something like this for the future

{{{
Title: Put the Past Behind Us
No rule may have any effect on any gamestate before the one in which it was sent 
to the redactor.
}}}

> I submit the following to the Redactor:
> {{{
> For reference, rules should be numbered sequentially starting with 1 and
> adding +1 to each consecutive rule.
> }}}

I favor this.

> On behalf of Ed Murphy:
> {{{
> Title: The unwritten Rule
> It's reasonable to interpret that unregulated actions are possible
> }}}

I favor this.

> 
> I submit the following:
> {{{
> Each rule has a point value. Valid rules must have a value of greater than
> 0.
> Players may make one comment (in favour or otherwise) for each rule. The
> latest comment shall invalidate any previous comment by that player.
> A positive comment shall add +1, a negative comment shall add -1.
> A rule having a value of less than 1 is invalid. Invalid rules may be
> deleted.
> }}}

I disfavor this. I would favor it if it said that -1 is the deletion mark.

> {{{
> The phrase "[[" is intended to mean "The following "[[ ]]" delimited text is
> comment text." Comment text has no direct effect on the game although it can
> be read and may aid in the interpretation of the rule it refers to.
> }}}

I disfavor this. If you think about it, it would be very unnatural to introduce 
commentary inside a rule by stating that the next statement doesn't mean 
anything.

I propose
{{{
Title: Comment Text
Any [[ ]]-delimited text is comment text. Comment text has no direct effect
on the game although it can be read and may aid in the interpretation of the
rule it refers to.
}}}

> 
> (Rules have been implimented immediately but may be invalidated now.. and
> possibly re-validated)
> 
> I support rules numbers: 0,1,2,4,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16
> I don't support rule numbers: 3,11
> 
> Rules 13 and 0 are now valid (Re: Rule #12 - Redactor)
> 
> I UPDATE the ruleset to be the following (--- ---)-delimited text, all
> subsets of which are effective immediately and no sooner:

I'm not sure you can do this, you need support because of this rule:
> The Redactor is a game-defined object.  The Redactor can alter the text
> of rules.  Players cannot alter the text of rules.

I think you could probably say that you cause the redactor to update the 
ruleset, but you can't do it as a player. It's a technicality, but as long as 
we're doing this we might as well do it right.

Then again, I'm too tired to figure out if anyone has technically submitted 
anything to the redactor yet except maybe recent rules - because as long as you 
aren't changing the rules, it should only be able to regulate actions if people 
submit them to the redactor. So I may not be seeing something.

By the way, we really shouldn't keep saying "all subsets of which." That could 
get us into even more trouble then we're in now. I did it to suggest that no 
rule would become active before any other rule, so for example I did not need to 
send my non-proposed rule (now 13) to the redactor.

In general, this is not a practice that should be done. In fact, it probably 
shouldn't have even been done when I did it :/

> This includes missing rules (Mars Needs Creampuffs),
Those were missed intentionally, but I like what you did enough that I approve 
anyway.

> Awaiting on approval of 1 Player re: Rule #12 - Redactor
I can't make heads or tails of this sentence.

> 0. The Unwritten Rule
> It's reasonable to interpret that unregulated actions are possible
> [[Value = 2
> Ed Murphy +1 / Rainbow Wolfe +1]]

I favor this rule.

> 1. Players have the right to create, discuss and agree on rules and rules
> changes.
> [[Value = 0
> Rainbow Wolfe +1 / MP Darke -1 - technically "I disagree with the addition
> of a rule to formalise the addition, removal and changing of rules."]]

I favor this rule

> 2. New rules are added to The Rules and have to be followed by whomever is
> required to follow them.
> [[Value = 1
> Rainbow Wolfe +1]]

I favor this rule.

> 3. A proposal is a rules change suggested by a player. The change occurs
> when all other players approve it.
> [[Value = -1 (INVALID)
> Ed Murphy +1 / MP Darke -1 / Rainbow Wolfe -1]]

I disfavor this rule.

> GAME OBJECTS:
> 
> Known Players (re: rule #4):-
> Ed Murphy
> MP Darke
> Wooble
> Paul VanKoughnett
> Codae
> Rainbow Wolfe

:(

add Turiski plz. Or I cry long time.

Okay, I'll sit on this and see what I can think of tomorrow.


[ -Turiski ]

_______________________________________________
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