Talk:Nomic:Game 2005-04-02

From Carls wiki

Johan: Is there any way for including pages on a page in mediawiki (preferably with a regexp) so all new rules are included on the Rules Page (and the proposed rules too)? — 23:19, 15 May 2005 (CEST)

Yes, sort of. But I don't think we should use templates for that, it seems like the Wrong Thing. — Carl 06:59, 17 May 2005 (CEST)

Johan: I was hoping for something like [IncludePage(Nomic:Game_2005-04-02:Proposal_301)], that's possible in MoinMoin at least (but they got a really strange parsing model). — 10:52, 17 May 2005 (CEST)

I guess that could be hacked together somehow (or maybe it exaists already), but I don't subscribe to the needs in the first place. I suggest we just stick to one singe page for all rules in effect, and separate pages for all proposals. We could have a proposals page as well, but someone would have to mainatin it. — Carl 11:00, 17 May 2005 (CEST)

Johan: Maintaining is what I see as the problem, AND there's duplication of information with copy and paste in such a way. It's to get around both duplication and the problem of maintainability I want to have IncludePage (MoinMoin had it, but they parse the wikisource like so: 1. Replace everything except IncludePage with the correct markup. 2. parse the included page and insert the markup for that. Instead of first including the wikimarkup from the includedpage and then parsing everything, I found their way of doing this highly illogical (and they are in the process of replacing a strange model with an even stranger...)) — 11:14, 17 May 2005 (CEST)

I think you are forgetting the fact that a rule and a rule proposal are two different things (at least by the rules of 2005-05-17). It is duplication, because we want to. The rule is created as per the acceptance of the corresponding proposal. After this, the proposal stays the same, but the rule can undergo changes, be transmuted, or disappear. In other words, it is not a good idea to confuse rules and proposals. Even if it were, I would be very careful to impose nifty time-saving systems on a game whose nature it is to be unpredictable. — Carl 13:39, 17 May 2005 (CEST)

Johan: No I'm not. Of course we want to duplicate it when the proposal turns into a rule. I really think it would be better to have one page per rule and then one page per rule-category (Mutable and Imutable) and then one page to rule them all (similarily for the proposals). I want different views of the same data. — 17:41, 17 May 2005 (CEST)

Sorry for misunderstanging you. Now that I think I see what you're getting at, I suggest you roll your own views thingie for the rules. It's XHTML, and you know XSLT, so if it itches that bad, you'd better do some serious transforming to alleviate it. Whatever solution you come up with that I want to endorse, I will put (or link to) on this site. — Carl 08:09, 18 May 2005 (CEST)

Johan: Should we write the entries in the gametable with a large letter first? I would prefer it because I think it looks neater. — 20:14, 17 May 2005 (CEST)

Johan pointed out in private conversation that we have probably misinterpreted the rules so far — apparently, the proposer is an eligible voter, but hasn't participated in votes so far. A simple patch for this would be saying that the yes of the proposer is understood... but we still have to address the fact that we have collectively broken the rules, and only now discover it. Maybe a ruling and a collective punishment is in order. — Carl 15:59, 20 Jul 2005 (CEST)

Johan: Yes, collective punishment is indeed in order. I propose that we stand in a ring and give the person in front of us a good whipping. Or we can deduct 10 points from everyone. What do you prefer? (09:14, 21 Jul 2005 (CEST))

Jonas: Do the ring have to consist only of participants of this game? (11:52, 21 Jul 2005 (CEST))

Johan: My opinion is that everyone that wants to join in should be allowed to (of course, they will also get a good whipping). (21:45, 21 Jul 2005 (CEST))

I think this is an appropriate punishment, considering that we don't want this kind of sloppiness to reoccur. By the way, are we talking about whipping with whips? Is that legal? — Carl 18:19, 22 Jul 2005 (CEST)

Jonas: Shouldn't the game so far be nullified and the scores resetted and the rules unaccepted? (01:41, 22 Jul 2005 (CEST))

Johan: That's definitly an option, but I don't think it's a fun one. I would much prefer only scores to be set to 0 but keep the rules (13:02, 22 Jul 2005 (CEST))

Um, there's no need to reset the scores. I haven't counted, but the difference between the current scores and the real scores is at most a couple of points for each player. So far, the points have not been used for anything, not even hypothetically. I say we recalibrate and move on. Making the so far accepted rules void would set a bad precedent. — Carl 18:19, 22 Jul 2005 (CEST)

Jonas: R�sta nu d�! Jag t�nker �ka p� semester n�sta vecka. (10:27, 6 aug 2005 (CEST))

I have moved three judgement pages, because their names had a question mark at the end, which clashed with a recent redirection I'd made to make my URLs beautifuller. Rather than fight the regexes, I decided that it was a bad idea from the beginning for those URLs to contain question marks, and so I moved the pages. So basically, nothing to see here, move along. — Carl 10:28, 9 Jan 2006 (CET)

As far as I can tell, Johan is now judge for the judgement "Are we done discussing p316", even though it is a yes/no question. This is my reading of r212: "The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question". Letting the judge role pass on even for yes/no questions makes sense to me, since the outcome may be correct but the reasons may be wrong. Plus, the rules don't make an exception for yes/no questions. Let me know if you disagree with this interpretation. — Carl 22:26, 14 Feb 2006 (CET)