We favour proposals that develop the game as an interconnected system: creating dependencies, relationships and reward patterns that allow different players and strategies to coexist, compete, and adapt.
The game should be a model of the real world — game objects should broadly behave like the real-world things they evoke. Artificial constructs should be prevented where possible and permitted only in the service of furthering the broader goals of the movement.
We favour proposals that give players meaningful decisions in play: choices involving risk, creativity, negotiation, commitment or building of relationships. Good rules should create situations where players can later explain not just what happened, but why they chose what they chose and that those choices were non-trivial.
We prefer proposals that create complex consequences from simple causes. We will resist machinery that is elaborate merely for its own sake and support concise rules that leave enough room for surprising outcomes to arise naturally.
We will support proposals that are clearly worded and have effects that match a priori expectations of how things behave in the real world. Rules should not have ‘loopholes’ or give rise to complex or illegible interpretation.
Uh In jurisprudence, we will care less about literal wording and more about whether rules do what players would reasonably expect them to do. Following rules is primarily about following the spirit and intention, not the details of how they are written. RFJs and similar decisions should generally produce outcomes that are intelligible to outside observers not familiar with the details of nomicron.
We will favour proposals that keep the game dynamic through adaptation but prevent progress of individuals towards victory. Rules should prevent stale or dominant strategies and, encourage change. Game concepts should be reused for multiple purposes and change form over time.
We will attempt to acquire resources that further our objectives, but will not accumulate progress towards winning as an end in itself, as that could lead to the catastrophic destruction of the ecosystem by means of the round ending prematurely. When the time comes, no player should win the round.
For each proposal or action requiring thought, I will score it from 0 to 5 against each of the five principles with 0 being catastrophic for the principle, 1 being actively working against the principle, 2 being neutral, 3 being compatible with the principle, 4 being something that contributes to the principle and 5 being something that embodies the principle. I will then take the geometric mean of these scores and if the result is greater than a threshold (initially 2.5), I will vote in favour of the proposal