ais523 via agora-discussion [2025-10-27 15:57]:
> On Mon, 2025-10-27 at 12:04 -0300, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Here's a ruleset I wrote without thinking too much about it:
> >
> > {
> > This is a game played over email over the list <insert list> and has
> > the following rules:
> >
> > 1. Any player may at any time propose any change to the rules in a
> > message, but only if no other proposals have been made in the past 24
> > hours.
> > 2. Any player may vote for or against on any proposed change between
> > the time the message was sent and 24 hours later.
> > 3. A proposal is adopted 24 hours after it is proposed if it has more
> > votes for it than against it.
> > 4. The player are the people that control the following email
> > addresses:
> >
> > <insert email addresses>
> > }
> >
> > Idk, might be fun.
>
> The problem with small rulesets is that they're nearly always rife with
> timing scams (e.g. with this one, you can make a proposal every 24
> hours to prevent anyone else proposing). In nomics that frequently
> reset down to a small set of rules, dealing with timing scams is a
> perennial problem (often it's virtually impossible to fix all the
> available scams without either replacing them with other timing scams,
> or switching to a turn-based system which has its own problems).
I'd be interested in trying to find a solution, though maybe what you
are saying is that that's probably impossible.
> An alternative approach is to start with a very simple *subjective*
> ruleset, where the subjective interpretation helps to prevent scams by
> having nothing to latch on to. I know there was an attempt to start a
> nomic whose entire initial ruleset was the first paragraph of Agora's
> rule 217, and it worked at least for a bit, until players lost
> interest. Maybe that would be worth trying again?
That's interesting, though in that specific case I suspect what happens
is that people just unconsciously apply their best recollection of Agoran
rules until the ruleset says otherwise.
---
My second attempt at a small ruleset:
{
1. Any player may at any time propose in a message to repeal, create,
or replace any rule.
2. A proposal is adopted when more than half of the players clearly
express their support for it.
3. The player are the people that control the following email addresses:
<insert email addresses>
}
I suppose people could flood the zone with proposals, but they can already
do so in Agora and it doesn't happen. There's also no strategic advantage.
One other idea is to invalidate proposals when previous ones are adopted,
to avoid applying proposals when their presuppositions are no longer true.
--
juan
