Rule 301
In accordance with Rule 201, I will go first and I propose the enactment of Rule:
301. The play of this game shall be facilitated by a website at the domain nomic.us. Thaddeus shall maintain nomic.us, shall maintain a true and correct copy of the ruleset on the website, and the contents of the website shall be considered authoritative and authentic subject to Question. A player may raise a Question by alleging, in writing, that there is an error in a posted document, detailing the alleged error and proposing a correct state. Players shall vote on the Question within 24 hours with majority ruling and play shall not continue until either all votes have been cast or 24 hours have passed. Players who do not vote on a Question within 24 hours shall be penalized 10 points. Only votes cast shall be used in determining the majority. A tie vote defeats the Question. The proposer of a defeated Question shall be penalized 10 points.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I vote to approve 301
March 18th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Referencing rule #111 I chose to debate against this rule.
First, this rule contains too many different points specifying our website and judgment in matters of dispute concerning the website.
Secondly, I would point out that should a question involve a rule change and someone not vote, this rule would become completely void (#105 and #110 these rules require all people vote and determine the precedence of immutability over mutability) leaving the matter of question unanswered.
Lastly, this rule is not an enactment but rather an amendment to rule #212 which concerns judgment in matters of dispute.
I would suggest to the proponent of rule 301 that the final form of this rule altered before a vote be cast.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:12 am
I will answer the gentleman’s objections in his order.
First, Rule 301 is the website rule. It establishes the use of a website and the manner in which errors shall be addressed. The two items are inextricably linked in a small game. The web admin will always hold an increased amount of influence in the game due to the record keeping duties inherent therein. In order to protect the integrity of the records, all players should have an appeal process. It is only right that the appeal process be established in the same rule that the authority is established. Rule 301 provides for that appeals process in an orderly manner. Does the Gentleman propose to grant an authority without an avenue of appeal for those under it or to set up a system of appeals with nothing to appeal? This matter is further clarified in addressing the other related items.
Second, raising a Question will not involve a rule change. The scope of Question is limited to alleging that there is an error in a posted document and voting upon such an allegation. Your objection does yield one issue — what happens to a passed Question? I believe adding as a final sentence, “The result of an adopted Question is that Thaddeus must make the correction as proposed by the adopted Question.” or something similar.
But back to the objection, the most likely scenario is a transcription error in updating the ruleset. The rule as adopted should be entered into the current ruleset in accordance with the spirit of 106; however, the rule itself, even if recorded incorrectly, will guide play in its voted upon form “irregardless” of its recorded form. It is also important to note that rules will generally be proposed in writing on the website and a record would then exist of its correct form. Therefore, this scenario would raise an administrative Question…not a Judgement. I do not believe that debating a typo would fall under either “the legality of a move” or “the interpretation of a rule” although, humorously, a judgement could be invoked to answer this very question (due to the phraseology near the end of 212). There will be no rule altering issues raised by a Question because the web admin does not have the authority to change a rule but could record one incorrectly. There’s also the conspiracy theory angle in which the web admin modifies all online evidence in order to support his unilateral rule-change. If the liklihood of such an act is high, perhaps playing a game about rules isn’t so good for the one likely to conspire in such a way? Even so, there ought to be an appeals process to correct such a conspiracy as well.
Since the scope of Question is limited to errors in documents, 105 doesn’t apply as it address votes on rule-changes and thus 110 isn’t applied because 105 and Question have different jurisdictions.
Last, returning to the issue of 212’s jurisdiction, I would contend that Question is of limited enough scope that it doesn’t interfere with the application of 212 which is biased towards legality and rules application disagreements. Even if Question and 212 have overlapping jurisdictions, nothing in the rules prohibits additional appeals processes from existing outside of 212 and so 301 isn’t an amendment (116). Question will be a faster appeals process than Judgement and result in less burden to the game with the ultimate goal of fixing typos.
If I’ve not settled the questions regarding 212, then it will be interesting to see the interaction of rules already as the matter gets settled. I do hope that 301’s limited scope is apparent and that it does need a faster appeals process than Judgement and that Question, with the one oversight corrected, is such a process.