[BNomic-Public] Checkpointly Recognizer

[Daniel Lepage]

On Sep 18, 2004, at 4.04 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

> I do have to deal with this mess. As Godel, I am ignoring any election
> results until we fix the hole Wonko exploited, since the rules are not
> precisely defined enough to make any of this meaningful.

I disagree. While the rules don't say exactly how we should deal with 
this, I don't think this paralyzes us. I assert the following things:
1) Elections with no candidates don't select anyone. Rationale: They 
can't select anyone, so they won't.
2) Events triggered "in order simultaneously" will happen the same way. 
Rationale: The rules don't say that they won't, so it's really up to 
us. We can agree that this is the way to do it, or somebody can dissent 
and CFI it and we'll let a judge decide. Except we don't have judges, 
so we'll end up going with this method anyway - it's just as consistent 
with the rules as any other resolution method would be.
3) Multiple elections returning the same results will have the same 
effect as one election returning those results. Rationale: The results 
of the election make a gamestate change that isn't based on the current 
state of the game, so regardless of whether you apply the same 'set the 
gamestate' action four times in a row or all at once, you'll get the 
same gamestate.
4) If you agree with 1), 2), or 3), then the elections can be done 
properly. If we assume that everyone who nominates themselves 
implicitly nominates themselves for whichever election other people 
have been nominating themselves for, which happens to be the last one I 
called, then the results of that election will be the ones that happen.

Of course, this interpretation does allow somebody to seize any of the 
open ministries by calling a new election and nominating themselves 
just when the old ones are about to resolve. But so what? If anyone's 
really that eager to get a ministry, then by all means go ahead. 
Fighting for control is half of what Nomic's all about.

> To fix it, I propose the following:
>
> {{__Dutifully__
>
> Add the following to the Ruleset as r1583.A.4:
>
> "If a Duty consists of performing one or more Actions, merely 
> performing
> those Actions is not performing the Duty unless the entity performing
> the Actions states explicitly that e is performing the Duty. No player
> may perform a Duty more than once an nweek. To perform a Duty, a player
> must be able to perform the Actions it consists of regardless of 
> whether
> or not e is performing the Duty."
>
> Make the following Ministries unoccupied: FCC, Change, and Cards.
>
> Call an election for all unoccupied Ministries with Godel as the
> Moderator and Approval Voting as the Selection Method.
> }}

I would rather see this done slightly differently: I think if the 
duty-filler has to do something, e should be implicitly empowered to do 
it as well. I also think that rather than stopping people from doing a 
duty more than once per nweek, it'd make more sense to stop them from 
getting paid for doing it more than once per nweek.

Also, there's a redundant clause in the ministries rule allowing 
players to call elections. I would say either put it in the definition 
of your ministry, or make it a duty, but both is overkill.

I might get around to propping something like this in a day or two.

>> bd plays Stock Crash.
>>    Araltaln discards Jackpot!
>>    bd discards two Investments.
>>    Iain discards Cash In.
>>    Norinel discards Investment.
>>    Phil discards Investment and Cash In.
>>    Scoff! discards Capitalist.
>>    Teucer discards Cash In.
>>    TPR discards Cash In.
>>    theta discards Jackpot!
>>
>> More CFI stuff, some PGo stuff, some winning stuff, some Upper House
>> stuff. Not my business.
>
> I will wait to deal with any of this that's my business until I have 
> the
> records I need.

Which records, exactly? If you want to know who's in the upper house, I 
believe nobody is. Judging by my email records (I have just over a 
year's worth), the Upper House as it currently exists was created by 
p1891 at the end of nweek 67. I didn't have the foresight to include in 
this prop a clause putting some people in the Upper House, so nobody's 
an eligible judge right now.

> We need some way to deal with Wins, so I propose the following:
>
> {{__Respect, again__
>
> Add the following to the Ruleset as r21.A.3:
>
> "A.3 Respect
>
> Players may possess Respect in units of Franklins. After a Player Wins,
> e receives 1 Franklin. It is the responsibility of the Minister of the
> Roster to keep track of the Franklins each Player has."

I'd measure it in Millidaves - one win entitles you to about a 
thousandth of the respect owed Dave for making and sustaining this 
game.

> Add the following to the end of r27:
>
> "When a Player is awarded a Win in this fashion, Deactivate this Rule."