Woo hoo!
So does this mean we don’t need to spend Iamp’s turn making the rule mutable but can mutate it instead?
I’m a little confused. I had assumed that you voted No specifically to Achernar’s 301 by private email, and zev_steinhardt updated the list accordingly. Or else you did it in this thread, and I missed it. Are you saying that’s not the case?
No, he did not vote by private email.
Zev Steinhardt
I like the spirit of your suggestions, Little Nemo. I have some comments to consider, which I will add in green.
303 (mutable) - Procedure for becoming a player
This procedures of this rule will be retroactively applicable to all players when it is passed. You’ll have to do something about Rule 107 if you want this to have any meaning.
- Any person may join this game as a voting player by posting a message stating their intent to do so in this thread. I think we should also have an email option, in case this thread gets closed. We might also want to specify what “this thread” is.
- All persons keep their status as players until one of the following situations occur:
2a. They state in this thread see above that they are resigning as a player;
2b. They do not participate in the game by voting or posting a message for a period of two weeks;
2c. They are evicted from the game by a majority vote of the other players. While I don’t lack faith that the other players will do something mean-spirited, I think this decision is important enough to require a unanimous vote of the other players. - Players who left the game under the conditions of sections 303.2a or 303.2b may re-enter it at anytime by stating their intent to do so. Players who left the game under the conditions of section 303.2c may re-enter the game by a majority vote of the players.
- Players who left the game and re-enter it will start with the score they had when they left.
I think we should hold off on having multiple proposals on the table until we can handle having one. I think this rule would be good later in the game.
304 (mutable) - Procedure for proposals
- Any player may propose a rule change at any time.
- Players may propose a new rule by posting the proposed rule in this thread and assigning it the next unused number. Every proposal needs to be assigned the next unused number, not just proposals of this type.
- Players may propose an amendment to an existing rule by posting the number and text of the rule they propose to amend in this thread with their proposed new text in italics.
- Players may propose a repeal of a rule by stating this proposal in this thread with the number and text of the rule they propose to repeal. What about a repeal of a part of a rule? I think this needs to be a better option than adding to the end of a rule, “That last sentence is void.”
- Players may propose a repeal of an amendment to a rule by stating this proposal in this thread with the number and text of the rule they propose to repeal and also with the text of the rule as it existed before the passage of the amendment.
- Players may propose a alteration of a rule change that has been proposed but not passed by stating this proposal in this thread with the text of the proposal and also with the text of their proposed alteration with their altered text in italics. The number of this alternative proposal will be the same as the original proposal followed by a letter “a”. If more than one alterative proposal is active, subsequent proposals will be distinguished by consecutive letters of the alphabet.
- Players may make minor changes, such as correcting typographical errors, to proposals if no other players dispute the change by the time the proposal is passed. Any proposal changed in this manner will be considered as being the original proposal for all purposes.
- This rule takes precedence over rules 201 and 202 where it conflicts with them.
305 (mutable) - Procedure for passing a rule change
- Any player may vote on a proposal at any time following the time it is proposed to the time it is passed. A players votes by posting a statement in this thread that they are voting for or against a proposal and giving the number of the proposal.
- Votes cannot be made conditional on any other matters.
- Players may not cast votes for other players or allow other players to cast votes for them.
- A player is assumed to have voted in favor of a proposal by proposing it. I don’t like this, for the same reason that I didn’t like BraheSilver’s Proposed 302.
- Any player who does not cast a vote is assumed not to have made a vote. I don’t understand what this means, I guess. It sounds meaningless.
- A player’s vote remains unchanged unless the player posts a statement in this thread saying they are changing their vote or withdrawing their vote. The most recent posted statement of a vote is the valid one.
- Once a proposal has been passed, no further votes on it or changes of the votes on it may be made.
- Once one version of a proposal is passed, no alternative version of this same proposal may be passed. The proposal will be known by its number and all letters denoting alternative proposals will be dropped.
- A proposal is passed if:
9a. A unanimous vote in favor of it is made among the players;
9b. Two days have passed since it was proposed and a simple majority of all players have voted in favor of it;
9c. Seven days have passed since it was proposed and a simple majority of all players have voted on it and a simple majority of the voters have voted in favor of it. The way you have this, proposals never die. The only way a proposal stops being available to be voted on is if it gets accepted. As such, we could eventually have dozens of pending proposals, any one of which could be passed through a couple of people voting or changing their vote. I think it makes it too difficult for people writing new proposals to consider what will happen given every possible combination of pending proposals passing. So, I think that there needs to be some mechanism for proposals to die. - This rule takes precedence over rules 105, 203, and 302 where it conflicts with them. It will only go into effect if rule 105 is changed to a mutable rule.
OK, then, if Little Nemo meant to vote YES on the real 301 (and not on my abortive effort), then 301 really passed and iampunha can propose a new 303.
I’ll adjust the scores tomorrow.
Does that make sense to everyone?
Zev Steinhardt
Wait wait wait. If Little Nemo changed his vote for prop 301, then my 302 would have been different.
Since my turn isn’t started until 301’s voting is over, either:
A) the second turn isn’t started yet (which seems hard to believe since we were waiting for his vote to finish the second turn), or
B) we are allowed to change votes for turns that have already been completed.
I ask for a Judgement on Achernar’s turn’s completion. Zev, is Nemo’s new vote valid?
And on posting, I see that it is. Drat.
Okay then.
IMHO, it seems (there being nothing expressly in the rules about changing a prior vote), that :
[ul]
[li]Prop 301 is passed;[/li][li]Achernar’s score is now +10;[/li][li]Rule 105 is now Mutable; and[/li][li]BraheSilver’s score is now -4.[/li][/ul]
On preview, zev, yes it makes sense to me.
When I originally voted on rule 301, I was voting on Zev’s rule not Achernar’s. So essentially, I never voted on Achernar’s. I’ll admit I voted no because of my misinterpretation of rule 203 and my belief that the rule would eventually be passed over my no vote.
For what it’s worth, I think you need to give us a little while to discuss this before making all these game-altering decisions. Because what seems to invariably happen is somebody’s going to disagree anyway and we’ll have to backtrack. Can we agree on where we are in the game right now before we try to go on?
OK, so it’s my turn?
C&Ped from Achernar’s post above:
Someone will probably want to make an amendment to this in the future regarding how players regain their eligibility, since I can’t seem to come up with the language suitable for defining it, and under the current system a player who went AWOL could hold up voting such that we could only pass Proposals every other day. I think for it to be easily-definable we have to set up:
- Timetable for voting on Props
- Timetable for Props themselves (i.e. how long someone has between the end of a turn and the last possible second when a Prop can be Propped)
- Exemptions, if deemed necessary, for “fair warning”, as PoignantSod so courteously did in this thread. If someone says they’re going to be gone for a week, then when they return they are back in play, so to speak, without having to worry about their eligibility. And their turn can be skipped and their voting abilities frozen etc.
1 and 2 really ought to be addressed soon re: 48 hours’ time limit for not voting.
Suggestions, criticisms and such things are very much welcome and appreciated. It’s been a while since I did writing of this sort, and when I did it it was more a Mad Lib than anything else.
Well, if indeed
then I might sit here and send zev mails every half hour with different votes about 301. Per rule 213 the legality of Achernar’s move cannot be determined with finality, thus Achernar’s turn cannot be completed, thus making Achernar the winner.
Not that I would, but damn this is chaotic. Which is the point, I guess. 
All Official Proposal Stuff above is, of course, moot if it isn’t my turn as of when I posted that (turns seem to be in short supply and rather contended, so I’m not gonna waste mine:D).
BraheSilver, if you’re only now seeing this as chaotic, you might want to go ahead and read those 150 posts you slept through;)
Achernar, in response to your comments on my suggested rules, I agree that all of them could use refinement. I would certainly plan on changes myself. As I wrote in a previous post, I felt the rules as they now exist have several problems becuase they are too oriented towards face to face play rather than the realities of online play. I was trying to establish a bare minimum set of procedures so that they game would survive its birth and we would have a set of viable rules for moving on.
As for your specific question on the opening phrase in rule 302 was intended to address what I see as our most serious problem; the lack of a legitimate procedure within the rules for becoming a player. We have essentially stepped outside of the rules with Zev’s acclimation. I was trying to legitimize the procedure we’re already using. As for a possible violation of rule 107, I’d argue that the rule prohibits rules from having effects before their passage. My proposed rule’s effect would occur at the time of passage. A legalistic finepoint admittedly, but the alternative is that none of us can ever officially be players within the rules.
Most of your other questions concern different procedures. I agree with several of the points you made about changes that will be needed in the future. Obviously these are issues people will have to settle over the course of the game.
To be honest, I don’t think your effective rewrite of a few other rules (in 304 and 305) is very minimalistic. I think that, instead, putting a time limit on voting, and making it more clear when voting is actually over, will allow the game to survive its birth with little difficulty.
I think your 303 is pretty good, and can be adopted soon without complicating the game (although I definitely think 303.2c should require unanimity from the get-go, and shouldn’t be left up to future modifications). It’s just putting into words something that we already understand. I don’t think it’s urgent that we define a player, but I certainly don’t see any harm in it.
I think it is important to note that 303.2C could be used to oust from the game someone one point shy of victory.
My suggested 303 was intended not to change anything. I was just trying to formalize what appears to have become the accepted practice. Maybe it’s a philosophical point, but I feel the essense of Nomic is the fact that everything in the game is explicitly contained within the rules.
I also didn’t see 304 as being a major change, with the exception of eliminating the concept of turns. The game’s new and everybody is actively playing now, but what’s going to happen the first time someone loses interest and the game gets to their turn? I prefer the flexibility of letting the players who are interested play on without having to worry about the pace of those who are less interested.
The other suggestions I made in 304 are attempts to create a formal system. I wouldn’t like to see proposals like “I think we should have a rule saying there should be a limit on how many posts you can make in a single day. Ten posts a day is too many.” It’s easy to argue the pros and cons of something like “Proposed Rule 375 - No player may post more than nine times a day in this thread.”
As to what you wrote about my suggested 305, I’m guilty as charged. I intended that rule to change the voting procedure and to head off possible future problems. But I do think the changes are necessary. Look at the problems that have already occurred.
Meanwhile, I’m going off to bed. Looking forward to the 200 new posts on this thread that will await me on my return.
Make it 201. 
You’re absolutely right. I didn’t think of this. I agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, but I don’t think that eliminating turns is the easiest way to do it.
While I’m not opposed to the idea of eliminating turns, I don’t think it can be done as simply as it sounds at first. I think that allowing a player to come in and make 500 proposals at once, and then come back a minute later and propose 100 amendments to each of those proposals, would be a bad thing. Perhaps a system wherein any given player can have no more than one (or maybe two or three) active proposal at any given time. This would require a means of defeating a proposal if it doesn’t get accepted.