Once the game goes out of convention, what is the starting ruleset?

[Johnson Earls]

I don't see anything in the convention rules that state what, if any,
of the rules from the previous round are discarded before moving into
convention. The only mention of rules management when creating a new
round is the creation of an immutable rule holding the round's title.

Are we continuing on from the previous ruleset?

- Johnson

[Jef]

Typically, we have had a motion to replace the existing ruleset with a
starting set again (usually all or most of the rules from the ending
set under rule number 300)... there has not been such a motion yet
this convention. Barring this, the rules would remain the same as the
end of the previous round. You are certainly welcome to create a
motion to replace the ruleset if you'd like...

I was hoping to hear from more people about joining the next round...
with only 3 players, Nomicron has not been shown to be particularly
fun... ideally, I think 8 - 10 players is best.

-Jef

[Elliott Hird]

For what it's worth, Nomicron still sits in my label list beside Agora
and B Nomic, and I would likely play if it were more email-oriented.

[Jef]

The problem with email-oriented nomics is that someone needs to take
the task of managing things manually... vote tallying, ruleset
updating, etc. I'd be up for playing that way so long as someone else
takes on the administrative tasks.

-Jef

[Elliott Hird]

On 18 April 2011 01:12, Jef <j...@nomicron.org> wrote:
> The problem with email-oriented nomics is that someone needs to take
> the task of managing things manually... vote tallying, ruleset
> updating, etc. I'd be up for playing that way so long as someone else
> takes on the administrative tasks.

Though I can't find it right now, Suber's quote about automation in
nomic recordkeeping seems to apply here -- basically, if it can't keep
up to date with the rules, it causes more harm than it solves.

I suspect this is not true in practice, and instead what happens is
the _existence_ of the automated system prevents people innovating in
that area.

I'm all in favour of lessening the burden on recordkeepers -- would
the current website be suitable if it was a recordkeeper's job to
enter things like votes themselves, and get whether a proposal passed
or failed as a result?

Or, thinking out loud here -- what if it was a collective
responsibility to update the site to match various actions taken, with
rewards given for doing so, and a crime to enter false records (with a
reward for those who notice someone doing so)?

Basically, I think recordkeeping can be worked into the game, with
rewards. I think having actions separate from discussion, like a
website forces, makes things awkward and stalls the nomic.

A half-way solution may be the best thing.

[Elliott Hird]

On 18 April 2011 03:10, Elliott Hird <penguino...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Though I can't find it right now, Suber's quote about automation in
> nomic recordkeeping seems to apply here -- basically, if it can't keep
> up to date with the rules, it causes more harm than it solves.

Here it is:

"Players who try to go beyond text processing and actually put some
Nomic bookkeeping in a program are warned that the complexities are
subtle. First, such a program should be as easy to modify as the rules
of the game, or else the difficulty of changing it will put an
unwanted brake on play. Moreover, it is very easy inadvertently to
give the program decisions to make that are not actually clerical and
that belong to the players, that is, to change Nomic without realizing
it. This is true even of the most deceptively simple decisions such as
renumbering rules after amendment, computing scores, and deciding who
plays next. For the same reasons, mere word processing can introduce
distortions. Decisions necessary to write a program or edit text may
require a precision not explicit in the rule as written, in which case
the programmer usurps the power of the game Judge if she simply
chooses a reading of the rule. In any case, the game Judge should be
the final arbiter of all questions and decisions, even those made by a
program, unless of course a rule has changed the role of the Judge."

[Jef]

I certainly think that what Suber says is true... in several rounds,
Nomicron became limited by the web app and players wanted many changes
that were too hard for me to keep up with. That said, I don't
personally have the drive to do manual bookeeping--I did that for the
first round of Nomicron and quickly tired of it. Some shared
bookeeping responsibility could work, but you'd have to have a core
group dedicated to keeping it up to date.

-Jef

[Elliott Hird]

Well, if responsibilities were split up, I would certainly be
interested in recordkeeping an aspect of the game.

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jef <j...@nomicron.org> wrote:
> I certainly think that what Suber says is true... in several rounds,
> Nomicron became limited by the web app and players wanted many changes
> that were too hard for me to keep up with. That said, I don't
> personally have the drive to do manual bookeeping--I did that for the
> first round of Nomicron and quickly tired of it. Some shared
> bookeeping responsibility could work, but you'd have to have a core
> group dedicated to keeping it up to date.

This sort of thing is why I've always wanted to try a hybrid codenomic
where there's automation subject to democratic modification but also a
non-code aspect to the game. Arguably, Agora had a limited form of
this for a while when the Perlnomic Partnership was the Promotor,
although extending that model to cover all recordkeeping isn't
something I've seen done successfully yet.