Times out at 1-2. -Purplebeard
Adminned at 02 Dec 2006 02:48:36 UTC
Append the following to the first paragraph of Rule 2.2.1:
Each sign may have only one regent planet. The planet that was regent to the chosen sign before the discovery is therefore no longer regent to it.
I don’t think your con is true, Bucky. When the zodiac becomes saturated, we’ll start to see some of the older planets losing their regency altogether.
“A Planet may be Regent to one or more Signs.” Though all planets share the privelege right now, it can be taken away.
It’s more likely that a newly discovered planet will not have any regency. Either way, Saki cares nothing for the stars. 
You can take regency away from older planets, as Saki says, but e’s wrong that newly-discovered ones can be without regency: “The post must contain… the Planet’s sign”.
And why can’t the Planet’s sign be none or no sign? The way I’m interpreting the rule is that “Moon (P) - Cancer” could simply be listed as “Moon” and still be valid.
I think you’re right there, because the moon is already known. But 2.2.1 as it stands has a whole spiel about assigning new planets to a sign, and I don’t think none counts as a sign.
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.
Bucky:
Pro:Fixes an existing imbalance
Con:Only allows 3 new planets to be discovered.