User talk:Klinkplink/Shareholder Nomic

A rule consists of a body of text, which continuously governs the state of the game and how it is to be interpreted and a symbol, which is a short code which is used to reference that rule.

very minor nit: I'd prefer to say a rule "has" a symbol, not "consists" of text and a symbol

When a new rule is created, the player whose proposal created that rule gains 6 shares of that rule, and the Bureau of Business gains 4 shares of that rule.

When a new rule is created by a proposal

When a rule is amended by proposal, a share of that rule is created in the possession of the owner of the proposal that amended that rule.

This incentivizes splitting changes in a proposal into multiple amendments Should probably be "When a proposal takes effect, for each rule that it alters, ..."

the Majority shareholder of the rule can issue a Shareholder Veto on the proposal

by what mechanism

If the proposal has not been withdrawn by the end of its voting period, the Majority shareholder must give 1 share of the rule to the Bureau of Business.

is this intended to be just if there's a veto or anytime a proposal amends a rule

When a player is a Majority Shareholder on two thirds of all rules in existence, they win the game and the Cycle ends.

"at least two thirds", and I feel like the "in existence" is overly broad

A trade between two players takes place when both players explicitly consent to the trade in #trades .

should add statute of limitations on trade consent

Proposals are bodies of text that describe changes to the gamestate, including rule changes. "Proposals are entities that have bodies of text."

I think the "describe changes to the gamestate" bit should be dropped because it means that if a proposal accidentally doesn't change anything then it's not a proposal (also the proposal itself should not be the body of text) “if the application of the proposal would create more than 1 rule it doesnt-”

The class of a proposal must be one of the classes listed below.

please don't use relative references like "below", I don't think we've previously held that ruleset order is actually part of the gamestate. "A player can create a proposal in #proposals by specifying the text and, optionally, the class."

Judges may make rulings on the Metaruleset, but those rulings shall only be effective within the bounds of the round.

can we strike this, I regret writing it in the first draft and I don't think it works

Ties are broken in favour of the player with the earliest text message.

earliest text message... in what scope? forever?

Pay 1 share of Bureau of Business to receive any 1 share owned by the Bureau of Business.

so I can pay one share of BoB to get one share of BoB owned by BoB

$PROP & $STD:

If a proposal is edited, deleted, or never passes then it is neither withdrawn nor applied, and its creator is stuck with it forever, adding to the proposal limit. Can probably be fixed by kust making it so that edited/deleted/non-passing proposals are automatically withdrawn.

$BOB: The Bureau of Business begins the game owning 30 shares of Bureau of Business and 20 Shares of all other initial rules

how many of those 20 shares are from each one of the 12 other rules? (edited)

$URG:Any reputable player may make an Urgent Class proposal.

I'm more worried about unreputable players voting on bad urgent proposals than making them. We can just vote against the latter, but dealing with the former is more difficult.

$ITEM: Unless another rule states otherwise, players can own all items and when an item would otherwise lack an owner it is destroyed.

Maybe it's my C9 PTSD speaking, but is it possible someone down the line is going to read this as "possibly, players can own all items" rather than "for all items, players can possibly own them"?

Also do we need a rule stating that ownership is exclusive (i.e. you can't just claim that you too own the item someone else already owns, on the basis that rule $ITEM says you can own any item unless a rule states so.)