On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >>Proto-Proposal: Rules as Contract >>(AI = 3, II = 2, please) > ... >> A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern >> the game generally. > > This is essentially the current equivalent of the Suber R101. This is > the claim that the rules are sovereign. > >> The rules as a whole are a contract that CANNOT be terminated, > > And this seems to contradict it. A contract is binding only on its > parties, and does not have the capacity to (for example) proscribe the > wearing of hats by non-parties. > >> Semi-players are non-players who act with the clear intent of >> influencing the gamestate. > > Nice criterion. I think with this you don't need to separately handle > players: requesting registration involves clear intent to influence the > game state. > >> The jurisdiction of the rules over non-participants is limited >> to defining portions of the gamestate relevant to them, including >> the revocation of their privileges. > > I'm not clear on what this means. > > I think the bit about the rules being a contract, and being binding on > participants, needs to come first. After that, the existing bit about > "capacity to govern the game generally" can be used, with explicit > reference to the restriction on jurisdiction that comes from the contract > nature of the rules. > > I think the "capacity to govern" paragraph should probably stay with the > "rules have ID numbers" and other text. The whole of the present R2141 > is about individual rules, whereas the new rule text you want to add > is about the ruleset as a whole. I think that's a better division than > the role vs attributes division that you're trying to do. > > How about, say: > > Enact a new power=3 rule, titled "Role of the Ruleset", with text: > > The ruleset as a whole is a contract, and its parties are known > as "participants". This contract CANNOT be terminated, rules to > the contrary notwithstanding. The ruleset consists of all the > rules that currently exist. > > Changes to the set of parties to the ruleset are secured. The > proposal, fora, and registration processes are, prima facie, > considered protective of a participant's rights and privileges > with respect to making and changing the rules and the agreement > to be bound by them. > > Any non-participant who acts with the clear intent of > influencing the game state thereby becomes a participant. Any
Do we need to change R101(iv) to make this really work? Or make attempts to change the game state when R101(iv) consent to the rules has not been obtained INEFFECTIVE? - woggle
