Nomic: Down For Maintenance

[xyzzy]

Give points: Xyzzy, 60000

Sure I can.

172: No

[Guardian]

170: yes
171: yes
172: yes

- 170 will still work though, with earlier rules dominating .

[Xdaamno]

Actually, scrap all this, Rule 170 is unallowed anyway. Read:

Rule 103: There are 3 types of rules: Brand new rules, rules that amend other rules, and rules that eliminate past rules.

Rule 170 isn't any of these.

[xyzzy]

Blargh... I guess you're right.

170 can't pass. Oh well. The Triad of Five will surely rise again.

(Oh yeah for H2G2 references!)

[Guardian]

170 is a brand new rule. It happens to affect another rule, but that doesn´t stop it from being a brand new rule. Yay for catch all clauses.

[xyzzy]

And I thought about it, today:

It amends the "unpassed" status of another rule.

For instance, I could have a rule that makes another rule corollary to the first rule. T'would be interesting.

[Xdaamno]

Fine, I'll use some other loophole

Rule 101: The rules shall be numbered in order of being presented, beginning with rule 101. Rules of lower numbers take precedence over higher-numbered rules.

Rule 101 means that rule 156's status of being void overrides rule 170's attempt to revive it due to the lower number.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

That's silly, Xdaamno. It's an amendment. It changes 156's status.

[Xdaamno]

Depends how you define 'amendmant'. Care to make a ruling?

Yeah, whatever. Pass it if you will..

[livingod]

Amendments and removals cannot take precedence over Rule 101, since, by Rule 101, Rule 103 is a higher number than rule 101. Thus, by Rule 101, the section in Rule 103 regarding amendments and removals is null and void. Period.

Unless anyone sees a flaw in my logic, Minesweeper, please remove any and all contradictory portions of all rules, proposed and passed. This includes Rule 103, Rule 156, and many other rules that were proposed against the State's wishes.

[xyzzy]

By definition, amendments change past rules. If the rule is obviously amending another rule, it must, by definition, amend all rules that went into the process of creating the first rule. Essentially, there's a Magical, Invisible, Rule One Hundred which is amended by every rule after it...

Anyway, there's currently no formal way of changing contradictory rules. Assuming 171 passes, we'll fix it then...

Unless another rule lets us create that process sooner...

Rule 173: Rules which conflict with each other will be made temporarily void, as long as necessary. First, a vote will be held to decide if the rules are truly contradictiory. Then, voting on proposed new versions will begin, if a majority said that there is a contradiction. Voting will continue for other rules. A voting period on the new, updated rule which eliminates the contradiction will be held, and any new versions may be suggested. For a version of rule X suggested by User, vote like this: X User: Yes/No. This rule cannot effect the MIROH (Magical, Invisible, Rule One Hundred), but versions may be proposed which would modify other related rules. The lowest-numbered rule which was modified will be the new rule number.

Rule 174: Corollary to Rules 172 and 173. The Nomiconstitution is only subject to modification if 75% or more of voters decide that it is contradictory. Procedures for modification will work in the manner desctibed in rule 172.

173: Yes
174: Yes

[livingod]

A magical invisible Rule 100 is just that: magical and invisible.

But worry not, I am on your side and I merely wish for inconsistencies to be solved. Right now, a new rule cannot solve this inconsistency, because that is what this is about. Thus it is in both of our interests to solve this cooperatively. But our first step is to find a way to instill this Rule 100 (I know just the wording, do not worry) without another rule. We need to 1) Bypass standard rule convention, 2) Define an understandable, agreeable, and accurate Rule 100 regarding rule precedence and 3) Using this newly defined rule, clean up and rearrange the rules as necessary. We must work together to solve our problems, because they are one and the same and we both want the same thing: a non-contradicting method of preventing contradictions.

I await your much needed cooperation..

[xyzzy]

Rule 173 would offer an easy way to do the "cleanup", without bypassing the rules, but I suppose any way would work.

Anyway, I wouldn't be against just deciding it using whatever method turns out to work best, and then applying that method in the future.

Eventually, it would be best to have a system set up for major chages to the essence of the rules, but you're right: it's more important to focus on actually coming to a good conclusion as soon as possible.

There should definitely be different classes of rules though; some need to supersede other rules, without amending all rules; some should be voted on differently; and lots of other issues need to be resolved...

It would probably make the most sense to combine some rules, especially corollaries. That way, the issue with rule precedence would temporarily go away so we could deal with more important issues.

[livingod]

Hmm, how about: if a rule calls for the direct nullification of a rule or a part of a rule, and thus cause an intentional contradiction, and if this contradiction is evident to the voters, then that rule takes precedence over any older rule it seeks to actively and obviously contradict. Otherwise, in case of a contradiction, a lower numbered rule takes precedence.

That's my definition for a Rule 100, or a new Rule 101.

Now we need a way to modify and/or nullify rules without using a separate rule, since that is the contradiction we wish to solve. We do not want to use circular logic. Now, perhaps if we define a method of modifying/nullifying/creating rules without going through the procedure defined in 101, 102, and 103, then we would be on our way.

We need a way to create lower numbered rules that has to be independent of rules 101 to 103.

We need to change rules to clearly define a procedure to properly change rules. This is a conundrum, somewhat like this: we want to plant an apple tree but we don't have seeds. We don't have seeds because we don't have an apple tree. What do we do? We have to find an alternate method of obtaining seeds.

I have a way, although a good number of people may not trust it. Why? Because it's a bit messy; I have to, in a way, steal a neighbor's seeds to plant. But I promise that I will compensate my neighbor as soon as we have our tree up. But I trust that you will trust me, and together we can achieve an understandable compromise in terms of rule precedence..

[xyzzy]

Perhaps we could number rules backwards; rules that make huge modifications which affect everything would be given numbers 99, 98, 97, 96, etc.

And if a rule needs to take precedence over all the rules after a certain point, but not rules before that point, we could use decimals....

But what about, for instance, the rule that modifies rules 101, 106, 114, 123, and 145?

Argh, perhaps it would be easier to entirely do away with the current system, decide which rules take precedence over which other rules, and create sort of a nested diagram of how certain rules react with each other...

Except that would be worse.

I do suspect that it would be easier to assign rules of precedence based on individual rules.

[xyzzy]

The following have passed:

Rule 163: Players can have titles. Players must address people by their titles.

Rule 164: Xyzzy's title is Minesweeper. (Corollary to 163.)

Rule 165: Livingod's title is Admiral Ninjabeard. (Corollary to 163.)

Rule 166: Abolish Rule 113

Rule 167: Minesweeper must not make unlawful changes to the first post, especially if it's deleting rules and adding unratified rules. Failure will cost him one point per day that the post remains errored..

Rule 168: During times of great tribulation such as this one, the enforcer(s) may call for a 24-hour period of Emergency during which no one may propose a rule nor will anyone be able to vote. The timer for rule ratification deadlines shall also be frozen. It is the enforcers' duty to straighten the matter in 24 hours' time. If they fail to do so, they may extend the period of emergency to a maximum of 3 days. Every extra day costs the enforcers 10 points. These periods of emergency shall be limited to once every two weeks..

Rule 169: Reinstate rule 120

Will add these to the front tomorrow.

[Xdaamno]

This is something we really need doing:

Rule 175: Amend Rule 103: Rules can only be one of the following three categories:
1. A 'brand new' rule that does not change any other rules and has it's own effects.
2. An amendmant: A rule that changes the effects of other rules
3. An abolishment: A rule that removes a past rule

Rule 175: Yes

[livingod]

By the power given to me by Rules 120, 168, and 169, I declare that:

State of Emergency to be declared on 2100 GMT.

No one may oppose an enforcer's ruling because you have repealed Rule 122. Serves you right for destroying your contingency plan.

[xyzzy]

It's still 2 hours, so I shall:

Xyzzy: Enforcer

Now me and Livingod are enforcers.

[Xdaamno]

Denied.

Aren't you the minesweeper?

[Shanba]

Hey. I'm the enforcer. You only have one vote.

vote: Shanba

[xyzzy]

I've yet to vote on an enforcer, until myself.

And currently we're tied, so I'm still the enforcer. You won't become one until you have more votes than me.

Of course, livingod could make us both enforcers; then we could vote on these things.

[Shanba]

I have two votes, so I am the enforcer. Nyah Nyah

[Xdaamno]

Rule 176: When a rule has been passed, if you are in the minority you gain two points.

Rule 176: Yes

Picking up the game a little. I didn't include if the rule failed since you could make like 50 rules, have them all fail and win.

[Shanba]

I'm in an odd mood today. Anyways.

Propose rule 176

All rules proposed from now on must be approved by the enforcers before passing.