Add to the end of the first paragraph of Law 1.1:
No Rule may contain a provision that bars itself from being altered and/or repealed. If at any moment a Rule exists or is altered in a manner that renders it to contain such a provision, the entirety of that Rule shall be considered void and with no effects on the Gamestate. The provisions on this paragraph supersedes any text in a Rule.
I think so. We can have Rules that make OTHER Rules unrepealable, but not themselves.
The reason I specify that is not to discourage this from passing, but that it may be desirable to restrict the amendment of Rules, so long as the //restriction// is amendable. That’s how it is in Suber, and this is a pretty nice way of getting that effect without totally overhauling the Ruleset.
An example:
Rule A: “Rule B may not be amended or repealed.”
Rule B: “Fish are red.”
That’s fine, because we can repeal Rule A to get to Rule B.
Rule A: “Rule B may not be amended or repealed.”
Rule B: “Fish are red. Rule A may not be amended or repealed.
This is tricksy, but still not allowed. The moment that Rule B says Rule A can’t be amended, it contains a provision that says IT can’t be amended either.
Self-protecting amendments can’t exist. Daisy-chained protections won’t work either. This is okay.
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. Have a look around the wiki for more information and history. New players are always welcome and can join in the game at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
Elias IX: