POSTED ~ 0100 UTC 20150813
RULESET 1: CREATIVE-KEYCHAIN
SEE HUBNOMIC 0 POSTED BY hubnomic (and follow that entity)
- Rule 0.0: ALL OFFICIALLY RATIFIED RULESETS ARE TO BE POSTED BY THE USER hubnomic UNDER THE #hubnomic tag. (except Hubnomic 1)
1.1 This game shall be called hubnomic
1.2 users following #hubnomic are players and posts are not to contain any other tag
1.3 if a reset is called and a two thirds majority ratifies it the game reverts to the state of ruleset hubnomic 1
1.4 rules in a ruleset must be concise enough to warrant statement without multiple sentences, though a ruleset may contain as many rules as needed
Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 are immutable and irrevocable as the founding ruleset of this game. Good luck! This post is not bound by rule 1.2 just 'cuz.
edit: added post time, ruleset name, hubnomic 0, hubnomic, AND:
General consensus will determine Ruleset 2 concerning voting, ratification and proposition of new rulesets within the next 48 hours.
Ruleset proposition WEIRD-QUORUM Terms defined: 2.2 all new ruleset propositions shall be incremented plus one from the parent post (eg all ruleset propositions on this post should start with 2) 2.3 ratification of ruleset propositions shall occur 96 hours after the post of the next ruleset under the following conditions: 2.3.1 voting shall occur on a specific version of a ruleset proposition, i.e. changes may be discussed but players should not vote for a child comment containing a ruleset proposition unless they agree with it in its current form 2.3.2 changes to a player's ruleset proposition shall be at the discretion of the player proposing the proposition 2.3.3 changes to a player's ruleset proposition can be made at any point but votes shall count for the ruleset which is quoted in a vote 2.4 votes shall contain the word "Ratify" under a quote of the version of the ruleset proposition they wish to ratify 2.5 ruleset propositions shall contain a unique identifying term at the top which shall change if the proposition changes to make vote counting easy (i.e. ADJECTIVE-NOUN) 2.6 at the end of the 96 hour period marked by the post time posted in ratified rulesets, the ruleset proposition contained in a child comment with the most votes counted using the above method shall be ratified 2.7 ratification shall occur when the next post by entity hubnomic is created in #hubnomic with an incremented ruleset number. 2.8 terms used in rulesets and ruleset propositions shall be defined in the post unless the term already exists. 2.9 edits shall be detailed below the post edits: added 2.9, changed wording from 'will', 'must', and 'should' to all use 'shall' per my own rules...
2.1 all new ruleset propositions shall be created under the parent post of the existing ratified ruleset (eg Hubnomic 2 development should exist under Hubnomic 1 to reduce post spamming) ruleset number as N in form: N.m.o
rule number as m in form: N.m.o
subrule as required as o in form: N.m.o
ruleset proposition: unratified ruleset
ratified ruleset: ruleset already approved
immutable and mutable rules: as stated on the Wikipedia page about nomic games
player: human user of Hubski subscribed to #hubnomic
vote: statement of support for the ratification of a ruleset proposition
shall: must, required, mandatory
parent post, child comment.
Would the ruleset owner be allowed to change the ruleset via editing, or would the revised ruleset be reposted? regardless of the slight confusion, this seems the best thought out set of rules so far: Ratify.
Considering that there are no current rules in place in order to create new rules, nor any to prevent me from doing the following: I elect demure as dictator who's only job is to create the rule of how to create future rules. Following this rule creation, our glorious dictator will be stripped of his title.
I propose a new rule:
In order to ratify a new rule, said rule shall be posted in the most up-to-date Hubnormic post. I propose a second new rule:
In order to ratify a new rule, said rule shall be 'seconded,' 'thirded,' and finally, 'approved,' once each by three distinct persons. edit: Changed the second ruling for clarity of number of people.
seconded. thirded. p.s. damnit, wait. there's confusion regarding phrasing. It could be interpreted as three distinct people need to seconded, then three distinct people need to thirded, and then three distinct people need to... Specify, please?
I propose a new ruleset. Proposition 2: Ruleset determining the creation of new rules. 2.1 New propositions will be closed for voting when they have been voted upon by 3/4 of the number of users following the #hubnomic tag. 2.2 A simple majority is required for rules to be approved, based on the number of votes a proposal receives. 2.3 Rules proposed as sets must be approved in their entirety, votes may not be cast on a subset of the proposed set. 2.4 Rulesets must be modified as sets, including transmutation, amendment, and repeal. 2.5 This ruleset applies to itself and all previously proposed rules and rulesets.
Proposition 2.6: A poster proposing a proposition is implicitly voting for the proposition being proposed.
To rephrase: the act of proposing a proposition is also a vote towards said proposition unless otherwise stated by the poster.
2.1 This may be difficult given math. It's possible the number of votes may not be presented in an exact 3 out of 4 fashion, there may be 5 of 7, and other percentages. This proposed sub ruleset should probably be revised. Also, it doesn't specify a given timeframe, and doesn't take into account growth and attrition of followers over a timeframe. 2.2 I'm concerned about the wording. It introduces needless complexity, which can be exploited and cause unforeseen complications. Would prefer, "Rules that receive the most votes shall be approved," but even then more specificity is needed. 2.3 Agree. In that while it may make instinctive sense to focus on one aspect of a complicated ruleset and follow through on that, discarding the previous, this tends to introduce unwanted disarray into the system. Logic traffic jams. 2.4 Can neither agree nor disagree, as I feel the words "rulesets", "modified", "sets", "transmutation", "amendent" and "repeal" should be explicitly defined. 2.5 How can this ruleset apply to previously proposed rules and rulesets...if the prior state of the system accepted different governing protocols, would this then mean anytime a substantial change is made to current rules, those then need to be retroactive, and everything in recorded annals needs to be changed? Yes, I've worked for law firms.
Makes sense. Also, some references to the game I've read on various websites mention turns, as though it's not just a madhouse of people proposing and voting but that they take turns proposing rules and the rules are voted on before new rules can be proposed. But perhaps that is just a lingering mechanic from a time when the game was played via email/message board rather than a more dynamic environment such as hubski.
2.1: Support 2.2: Support 2.3: Oppose because there is no way to check for contradictory rules within the ruleset. 2.4: Support once 2.3 can check for contradictory rules within the ruleset. 2.5: Support
Seconded. Rulesets should be voted upon as individual rules.
I propose a new ruleset. Proposition 3: Ruleset determining powers and responsibilities. 3.1 Users may obtain or be granted Titles. 3.2 Titles must NOT be hierarchical nor shall they be allowed to lead to a hierarchy. 3.3 Titles confer special privileges and/or possessions. 3.4 Titles also require of the user certain duties.
What are penalties of neglecting their duties? And for that matter, what are the penalties of breaking rules in the ruleset?
I believe this is a worthwhile proposal, but feel it should be put on hold until we figure out more basic things, like, what certain words mean, how conversation will flow, etc. And perhaps a protocol needs to be decided for situations like this, worthwhile proposals that would overly complicate the current discussion, but would be highly worthwhile in another future discussion.
Yeah I was hoping to get rules passed first thing to establish how future rules would get passed but that didn't happen. Clearly at least a but more needs to be preordained for this to work. It seems someone tried to do that here It's probably demure and since this was all his idea I guess it's his call?
That's probably why I got so confused in this comment thread. However, I don't see it as a failure--instead, it's a learning experience.Yeah I was hoping to get rules passed first thing to establish how future rules would get passed but that didn't happen. Clearly at least a but more needs to be preordained for this to work
I propose a new rule: 4.0 It is necessary we go through this first post and its comments to see the varying ways people are using various common terms, so that we can develop a basic vocabulary we all agree on, which will make things much easier. 4.1 Regarding the above, perhaps others can reply to this comment with terms they've noticed need to be defined, and in the responses to this we all can get an idea of what words specifically needs to be defined. This is a transitional step, which I feel would eventually lead to another post or another ruleset. We are in the process of developing a language.
To start, these are words that I feel need some defining, in our initial stages, as we cogitate and percolate: Vote. Follower. Rule. Ruleset/rule set Approval. Voting/vote/voted upon. Reset. User. Ratify. Revert. Proposition/proposal. Majority. Transmutation. Amendment. Repeal. Seconded. Thirded. Approved. Not so much defining these words, more, getting us to an eventual point where we're all using the same terminology in the same way.
Here are some of my thoughts on these terms: Vote/Approval/Voting: A comment that either supports or opposes the proposition. I think we'll eventually need to codify it into a set phrase (support/aye/yes/etc), but I think this is good enough for right now. Seconded/Thirded/Approved: Set phrases that we'll eventually have to agree upon. User: I take it to mean Hubski user as a distinguishing term from follower of hubnomic. Follower: Follower of hubnomic. The term is not vague, but a much bigger problem is when do we count the number of followers? At the start of the post? At the end? After a certain grace period? Majority: I think majority means the majority of votes of a proposition, not the majority of users/followers. Proposition: As of right now, a proposition is a rule that has yet been ratified and put forth to be considered towards ratification. Ratify/Revert/Repeal: The process in which a proposition gets voted on and approved. I think we have to wait to see what happens in Hubnomic 2 when these propositions do get ratified, whatever that means. Rule: As of right now, a rule is a proposition that has ratified, and a proposition is a rule that has yet been voted on. The problem is that there isn't a way of handling people who break a rule. Ruleset: It's supposed to be a set of rules, but I'm not sure what distinguishes a ruleset from a complicated rule. Reset: The term is currently vague because we don't know what the rules would reset to. Transmutation: The process in which a mutable rule becomes an immutable rule and an immutable rule becomes a mutable rule. The only thing that can happen to an immutable rule is for it to be transmuted to a mutable rule. Amendment: A change to an existing rule. It is an open question whether amendments are also proposals/propositions/rules.
Speaking of language, we should take this proposal to its logical extreme.
Yeah. Something I've been noticing in this first post is that people are starting right away with preconceived terminology, making assumptions about what common words mean, things becoming complex too fast. I understand this is a standard thing that happens in instances of emergent growth, but it also makes me think of something I learned from being a designer: function first, design later. Architecture first, flourishes later. Simplest underpinnings at first, then gradually branch out to deeper complexities. Also made me think of proposing that we currently view this as Sandbox Mode. Only later can we get into government, bureaucracy mode.
I was addressing the various terminology used in this specific post and comment thread. Basically, I went through every comment line by line, and wrote down every time a new keyword was used, and in doing so noticed varying, sometimes conflicting usage of terms. Additionally, I think I may, in this comment thread, have missed the entire point of this game. I was looking at in in a worldbuilding way, and wasn't aware of its specific rule by rule nature. Thus was confuzzled by the lack of standardized protocol I've been seeing in this comment thread.