proposed amendment to rule 214 on communication #6

tA · 2021-03-25T18:05:45-04:00

tA commented

2021-03-25 18:05:45 -04:00

In order to facilitate the quick execution of the game, and to prevent times when we are waiting on a player to continue the game, but we have no means of contacting them if they do not check git.lain.church regularly, i am proposing we amend the rule on communication to allow chat outside of git.lain.church.

It is important to stress (as i have attempted to within this ammendment) that we must still keep all relevent discussion to the continuation of the game within git.lain.church, any new player must be able to see the complete state of the game, as well as discussion on the intent of rulings, and the discussion during voting on a ruling, without the use of the chat.

The method of chat has been left unambiguous, however i am able to provide XMPP or Matrix accounts to everyone if we wish to do so. I believe we should agree on an initial method within this discussion before accepting or denying this ammendment, as this is our only form of communication right now.

I will also stress the rule as written, that we must inform all players of any form of communication we are using about this game, as such we cannot create extra-git.lain.church chat systems that do not contain all players (unless a player has been informed and chose themselves not to join).

Some clarifications for ease of learning the game:

I believe that by rule 108, the reference number for this ammendment should be 301, and therefore by rule 202 this proposal shall recieve between 0 and 10 points for me, depending on the number of agreements.

I'm not 100% sure on whether the rule itself should change from rule 214 to rule 301, i have kept it as 212 per my interpretation, however as per rule 212 if we disagree on this interpretation then player @mezzodrinker will become the Judge for this ruling.

In order to facilitate the quick execution of the game, and to prevent times when we are waiting on a player to continue the game, but we have no means of contacting them if they do not check git.lain.church regularly, i am proposing we amend the rule on communication to allow chat outside of git.lain.church. It is important to stress (as i have attempted to within this ammendment) that we must still keep all relevent discussion to the continuation of the game within git.lain.church, any new player must be able to see the complete state of the game, as well as discussion on the intent of rulings, and the discussion during voting on a ruling, without the use of the chat. The method of chat has been left unambiguous, however i am able to provide XMPP or Matrix accounts to everyone if we wish to do so. I believe we should agree on an initial method within this discussion before accepting or denying this ammendment, as this is our only form of communication right now. I will also stress the rule as written, that we must inform *all* players of any form of communication we are using about this game, as such we cannot create extra-git.lain.church chat systems that do not contain all players (unless a player has been informed and chose themselves not to join). --- Some clarifications for ease of learning the game: I believe that by [rule 108](https://git.lain.church/iwakuraLain/LaiNomic/src/branch/master/immutable_rules/108_Numbering-rules.md), the reference number for this ammendment should be 301, and therefore by [rule 202](https://git.lain.church/iwakuraLain/LaiNomic/src/branch/master/mutable_rules/202_Parts-of-a-turn.md) this proposal shall recieve between 0 and 10 points for me, depending on the number of agreements. I'm not 100% sure on whether the rule itself should change from rule 214 to rule 301, i have kept it as 212 per my interpretation, however as per [rule 212](https://git.lain.church/iwakuraLain/LaiNomic/src/branch/master/mutable_rules/212_Judging.md) if we disagree on this interpretation then player @mezzodrinker will become the Judge for this ruling.

murabito commented

2021-03-25 22:26:41 -04:00

i disagree on your interpretation of the naming of the amended rule. rule 108 clearly states: "If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment." i think this unambiguously means that, should the amendment be passed, the amended rule 214 would become 301. therefore, as stated in rule 111, "the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." i would propose tA amend this proposed amendment to comply with this rule, and instead of keeping it as 214 (which is a violation of rule 108), it receives the number 301. since this is still the debate period, and rule 111 also states "The
proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and,
unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate
and vote", i believe tA (as the proponent) is able to change his amendment to reflect this before it is voted upon and i do not think the number should be changed to 302 because the 301 amendment has not yet been finalised by tA following the debate period. by this logic, tA still would be the one receiving points on its approval even with my proposed change (see rule 202).

additional: sorry i did not provide links like tA did but i am incredibly lazy by nature (like my cat) and sorry if i posted this in the wrong place--i'm doing my best ^^.

i disagree on your interpretation of the naming of the amended rule. rule 108 clearly states: "If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment." i think this unambiguously means that, should the amendment be passed, the amended rule 214 would become 301. therefore, as stated in rule 111, "the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." i would propose tA amend this proposed amendment to comply with this rule, and instead of keeping it as 214 (which is a violation of rule 108), it receives the number 301. since this is still the debate period, and rule 111 also states "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote", i believe tA (as the proponent) is able to change his amendment to reflect this before it is voted upon and i do not think the number should be changed to 302 because the 301 amendment has not yet been finalised by tA following the debate period. by this logic, tA still would be the one receiving points on its approval even with my proposed change (see rule 202). additional: sorry i did not provide links like tA did but i am incredibly lazy by nature (like my cat) and sorry if i posted this in the wrong place--i'm doing my best ^^.

murabito commented

2021-03-25 22:29:14 -04:00

(i just phoenix wright pwned your argument by pointing that contradiction and i also think we need a muc or matrix channel so i can write things like that there instead so i hope you make the change i proposed)

tA commented

2021-03-25 22:36:20 -04:00

Thats a fair interpretation, I agree upon your comment, and therefore as there is currently no disagreement I dont believe we need to use a judge (feel free to call me out on that).

I have commited the fix to adhere to the rules, and now wait on your vote, as well as discussions and votes from the other players

Thats a fair interpretation, I agree upon your comment, and therefore as there is currently no disagreement I dont believe we need to use a judge (feel free to call me out on that). I have commited the fix to adhere to the rules, and now wait on your vote, as well as discussions and votes from the other players

murabito commented

2021-03-25 23:04:07 -04:00

+1 (a favourable vote since i gather from your last comment that the change is in its final form based on the line saying you "wait on [my] vote" and i don't believe you can make changes after you've opened voting, so i assume the debate period is over and the "discussions and votes from the other players" literally just means discussion and not debate because you are no longer able to change the ammendment and debate ends when voting begins. please correct me if this was not your intent or if i am wrong about this; the rules are rather ambiguous on this and i don't remember anything about being able to rescind votes or multiple rounds of voting so this is just my assumptions i am basing this on.)

g6 commented

2021-03-28 18:30:00 -04:00

+1

tA commented

2021-03-29 01:02:35 -04:00

tagging @E and @mezzodrinker for their thoughts

mezzodrinker commented

2021-03-31 08:09:33 -04:00

Alright, so this took me some time to notice, even with tA tagging me here. I have no clue why I didn't get notified about this PR.

Anyway.

Here, have a quick spell check 🙂

--- a/mutable_rules/301_Communication-on-github.md
+++ b/mutable_rules/301_Communication-on-github.md
@@ -2,4 +2,4 @@ To the degree possible, the game should be played using git.lain.church. Convers
 
 Judgement can be invoked at any time by opening a new issue on the git.lain.church repository that hosts the game. If possible, the current judge should be @mentioned in such an issue, to prompt a speedy reply.
 
-Players may opt to use a real time chat system, seperate to git.lain.church, in order to communicate about the game, as long as all conversation needed for the execution of the game remain on git.lain.church, and care is made to inform all players of the existence of a chat system.
+Players may opt to use a real time chat system, separate to git.lain.church, in order to communicate about the game, as long as all conversation needed for the execution of the game remain on git.lain.church, and care is taken to inform all players of the existence of a chat system.

As for the matter of the amendment itself...

Players may opt to use a real time chat system, separate to git.lain.church [...]

Is there a reason why this only includes real time chats and not, for example, stuff like Fedi?

[...] and care is taken to inform all players of the existence of a chat system.

IMHO, this is too unrestrictive. Players should not only be informed about the existence of such a chat system, but also about how to access and participate in it. After all, just knowing that there is a chat does not mean you can take part in it.

Other than that, the amendment makes sense.

Alright, so this took me some time to notice, even with tA tagging me here. I have no clue why I didn't get notified about this PR. Anyway. Here, have a quick spell check 🙂 ```diff --- a/mutable_rules/301_Communication-on-github.md +++ b/mutable_rules/301_Communication-on-github.md @@ -2,4 +2,4 @@ To the degree possible, the game should be played using git.lain.church. Convers Judgement can be invoked at any time by opening a new issue on the git.lain.church repository that hosts the game. If possible, the current judge should be @mentioned in such an issue, to prompt a speedy reply. -Players may opt to use a real time chat system, seperate to git.lain.church, in order to communicate about the game, as long as all conversation needed for the execution of the game remain on git.lain.church, and care is made to inform all players of the existence of a chat system. +Players may opt to use a real time chat system, separate to git.lain.church, in order to communicate about the game, as long as all conversation needed for the execution of the game remain on git.lain.church, and care is taken to inform all players of the existence of a chat system. ``` As for the matter of the amendment itself... > Players may opt to use a real time chat system, separate to git.lain.church [...] Is there a reason why this only includes real time chats and not, for example, stuff like Fedi? > [...] and care is taken to inform all players of the existence of a chat system. IMHO, this is too unrestrictive. Players should not only be informed about the *existence* of such a chat system, but also about how to *access* and *participate* in it. After all, just knowing that there is a chat does not mean you can take part in it. Other than that, the amendment makes sense.

tA commented

2021-03-31 17:22:50 -04:00

@mezzodrinker I believe per the rules Im unable to alter the content of this ammendment, outside of rules disputes such as the rule numbering issue from earlier. I will add the typo fix, however.

with that in mind, do you vote for this ammendment? if the differences in rulings are too much then it would require someone else proposing the updated ruling, or ammending it at a later turn.

EDIT:
As a side note, do any of you know how to contact @E outside of here?

@mezzodrinker I believe per the rules Im unable to alter the content of this ammendment, outside of rules disputes such as the rule numbering issue from earlier. I will add the typo fix, however. with that in mind, do you vote for this ammendment? if the differences in rulings are too much then it would require someone else proposing the updated ruling, or ammending it at a later turn. EDIT: As a side note, do any of you know how to contact @E outside of here?

mezzodrinker commented

2021-03-31 19:32:19 -04:00

@tA

I believe per the rules Im unable to alter the content of this ammendment, outside of rules disputes such as the rule numbering issue from earlier.

Rule 111 states that "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote." It does not explicitly state that once the proponent decided on a form that is to be voted on, this form can never be changed again.

Then, again, the form is also called "final", so that could be seen as an indication that the final version is final and cannot be modified. Also, I do see how modifying the final version which was already opened for voting could introduce organizatorial issues, as it would no longer be obvious whether a vote was already cast on the "final final" version. Hence, I guess we should keep the amendment as-is (with the exception of the typo fix, that is) and add a rule which clarifies whether modifying "final" versions is possible at some point.

While it definitely deserves some improvement, I will 👍 this for now.

As a side note, do any of you know how to contact E outside of here?

I, for one, do not.

@tA > I believe per the rules Im unable to alter the content of this ammendment, outside of rules disputes such as the rule numbering issue from earlier. [Rule 111](https://git.lain.church/iwakuraLain/LaiNomic/src/commit/efd439f9aafc1dc61287ebaf13ed2ea1fe414728/immutable_rules/111_Time-for-debate.md) states that "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote." It does not *explicitly* state that once the proponent decided on a form that is to be voted on, this form can never be changed again. Then, again, the form is also called "final", so that could be seen as an indication that the final version is final and cannot be modified. Also, I do see how modifying the final version which was already opened for voting could introduce organizatorial issues, as it would no longer be obvious whether a vote was already cast on the "final final" version. Hence, I guess we should keep the amendment as-is (with the exception of the typo fix, that is) and add a rule which clarifies whether modifying "final" versions is possible at some point. While it definitely deserves some improvement, I will :+1: this for now. > As a side note, do any of you know how to contact E outside of here? I, for one, do not.

tA commented

2021-04-16 02:25:23 -04:00

Well, it appears this game has reached a standstill, i have a feeling this will be indefinite, but perhaps this is a good chance to discuss changes we could make to the initial ruleset to better suit a play-by-git version of this game

mezzodrinker commented

2021-04-19 18:00:07 -04:00

[Perhaps] this is a good chance to discuss changes we could make to the initial ruleset to better suit a play-by-git version of this game

Where should we take this discussion? Or do we just continue here?

> [Perhaps] this is a good chance to discuss changes we could make to the initial ruleset to better suit a play-by-git version of this game Where should we take this discussion? Or do we just continue here?

tA commented

2021-04-20 19:18:06 -04:00

[Perhaps] this is a good chance to discuss changes we could make to the initial ruleset to better suit a play-by-git version of this game

Where should we take this discussion? Or do we just continue here?

here is as good a place as any.

the initial rules were taking from a tilde, and as such they had a wide community of individuals willing to play this game, who were commonly online in a shared setting for reminders about whos turn it was.

i figure we need to adapt these rulings to allow for players to forfeit their turn on taking too long (to avoid game stagnation), as well as allow for extra-git contact of players from the get go.

> > [Perhaps] this is a good chance to discuss changes we could make to the initial ruleset to better suit a play-by-git version of this game > > Where should we take this discussion? Or do we just continue here? here is as good a place as any. the initial rules were taking from a tilde, and as such they had a wide community of individuals willing to play this game, who were commonly online in a shared setting for reminders about whos turn it was. i figure we need to adapt these rulings to allow for players to forfeit their turn on taking too long (to avoid game stagnation), as well as allow for extra-git contact of players from the get go.

mezzodrinker commented

2021-04-21 18:56:46 -04:00

allow for players to forfeit their turn on taking too long (to avoid game stagnation)

I'd 👍 that, as long as the time frame is reasonable. We should also include something like a voting period, as casting a vote isn't technically "one's turn".

as well as allow for extra-git contact of players from the get go.

Honestly, I'd even go as far as requiring an extra-git contact option (or working email notifications *coughs*) so that we can make sure it's possible notify players of new developments.

> allow for players to forfeit their turn on taking too long (to avoid game stagnation) I'd :+1: that, as long as the time frame is reasonable. We should also include something like a voting period, as casting a vote isn't *technically* "one's turn". > as well as allow for extra-git contact of players from the get go. Honestly, I'd even go as far as *requiring* an extra-git contact option (or working email notifications \*coughs\*) so that we can make sure it's possible notify players of new developments.

murabito commented

2021-04-27 02:04:46 -04:00

i concur with p much what everyone's said

This pull request can be merged automatically.

You are not authorized to merge this pull request.

View command line instructions.

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.

git fetch -u master:tA-master

git checkout tA-master

Sign in to join this conversation.

No reviewers

No Label

No Milestone

No Assignees

4 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: iwakuraLain/LaiNomic#6