From Arasine@n... Tue Nov 21 08:05:41 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Arasine@n... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_1); 21 Nov 2000 16:05:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 17981 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2000 16:05:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Nov 2000 16:05:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Nov 2000 16:05:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Arasine@n... Received: from [10.1.10.65] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Nov 2000 16:05:31 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:05:25 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: First things first Message-ID: <8ve6g5+b2u3@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 138 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.253.128.5 From: "Keith Humphreys" Hi im Keith aka Arasine aka forget_ituk aka midnight I think i get the idea for this but a couple of example messages would be helpful ! From chris_harris2@l... Tue Nov 21 12:21:56 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: chris_harris2@l... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_1); 21 Nov 2000 20:21:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 32436 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2000 20:21:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Nov 2000 20:21:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Nov 2000 20:21:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: chris_harris2@l... Received: from [10.1.10.106] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Nov 2000 20:21:55 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:21:55 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Please help Message-ID: <8velh3+flbk@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 113 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 213.1.31.159 From: chris_harris2@l... I do not understand what this is all about, i like mind games and found this on lateral puzzles, i am chris1huk From wandrer@w... Tue Nov 21 13:22:54 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: S.H.M.v.Zwam@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_1); 21 Nov 2000 21:22:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 10246 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2000 21:22:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Nov 2000 21:22:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Nov 2000 21:22:53 -0000 Received: from studentex4.student.tue.nl (studentex4.student.tue.nl [131.155.4.29]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eALLMpw22207 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:22:51 +0100 (MET) Received: by studentex4.student.tue.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:22:51 +0100 Message-ID: <9D1F2A264056D4118EEB00508BE3D0790F9DAA@s...> To: "'Pure_Nomic@egroups.com'" Subject: The name of the game Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:22:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-eGroups-From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." I have read more about it. It involves more, though, than is stated at the eGroup website. The initial rules are as follows: http://www.stack.nl/unplugged/rpg/irs.html I think however, that these rules are a bit too explicit for beginners... yours nomically, Stefan --- Just use the power of your Mind.... From racheledugdale@y... Tue Nov 21 14:19:43 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: RachelEDugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_1); 21 Nov 2000 22:19:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 85528 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2000 22:19:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Nov 2000 22:19:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-ip02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.160) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Nov 2000 22:19:41 -0000 Received: from tot-wl.proxy.aol.com (tot-wl.proxy.aol.com [205.188.199.1]) by rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id RAA12749 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from yahoo.co.uk (AC85582A.ipt.aol.com [172.133.88.42]) by tot-wl.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eALMJW814098 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:19:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A1AF482.FC3422E3@y...> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:17:38 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Clearing up a few things References: <8ve6g5+b2u3@eGroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: racheledugdale@a... From: R Dugdale Stefan I think is talking about Nomic, which has lots of rules, made up by other people. This is an adaptation called Pure Nomic and really does start with only one rule. That is: Any amendment to the rules can be made only if agreed to by all players. And that is the *only* rule at this stage. Keith and Chris, it's not very complicated, honest. I'll try to start by proposing a rule or two and then we'll see how we go from there. ------ I propose that rules can be proposed in future by the use of the egroups polling system. ------ Note: the polling system, for any who may not know, can be accessed by going to http://www.egroups.com/ and signing in with your email address, and the password which should have been emailed to you. Then, under 'My Groups', you can go to the pure_nomic page. This can also be accessed by http://www.egroups.com/group/pure_nomic and then clicking on the link which says 'polls' allows you to create or vote in polls. This could be a useful resource for the proposal of rules, and also notifies everyone automatically when a new rule is created. Yours hoping-everyone-including-herself-will-enjoy-playing-this-game -because-it-sounds-fun-ly, Rachel. From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Tue Nov 21 18:02:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 50587 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 02:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 02:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2000 03:03:51 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.106] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2000 02:02:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 31408 invoked by uid 65534); 22 Nov 2000 02:02:36 -0000 Date: 22 Nov 2000 02:02:36 -0000 Message-ID: <974858556.31401@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I propose that all members should propose a new rule at least once a week. o Yes o No To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Wed Nov 22 03:31:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29454 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 11:31:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 11:31:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2000 12:32:34 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.163] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2000 11:31:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 7409 invoked by uid 65534); 22 Nov 2000 11:31:26 -0000 Date: 22 Nov 2000 11:31:26 -0000 Message-ID: <974892686.7408@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I propose that we amend the first rule, so that a vote can be won by majority (more than 50% of the members of the list) rather than requiring absolute agreement. o For o Against To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From russellp@m... Wed Nov 22 08:06:23 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: russellp@m... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 22 Nov 2000 16:06:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 30891 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 16:06:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 16:06:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2000 16:06:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: russellp@m... Received: from [10.1.2.55] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2000 16:06:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:06:15 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Game Aim Message-ID: <8vgqtn+s3f0@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 291 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 195.80.1.233 From: russellp@m... So what's the aim of this game/puzzle - if there's only one rule which isn't really related to the completion of the game? Is the idea to develop a game from scratch and then play it or are we already playing it? That is if we do actually play it at all. Oh no I've gone crosseyed..... From punkbass_2000@y... Wed Nov 22 08:26:10 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: punkbass_2000@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 22 Nov 2000 16:26:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 5367 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 16:26:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 16:26:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web4406.mail.yahoo.com) (216.115.105.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2000 16:26:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20001122162602.4776.qmail@w...> Received: from [24.112.158.227] by web4406.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:26:02 PST Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:26:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Game Aim To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jeff Kolnick I think you've hit the nail on the head. Sooner or later, someone will propse an objective, and if it gets voted in then that'll be the objective. I'd say that we're already playing it, we just don't know where we're headed yet. --- russellp@m... wrote: > So what's the aim of this game/puzzle - if there's > only one rule > which isn't really related to the completion of the > game? Is the > idea to develop a game from scratch and then play it > or are we > already playing it? That is if we do actually play > it at all. Oh no I've > gone crosseyed..... > > =====

"The life which is unexamined is not worth living"

-Plato

 

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From benjamin.jones1@n... Wed Nov 22 13:08:01 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: benjamin.jones1@n... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 22 Nov 2000 21:08:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 772 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 21:08:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 21:08:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2000 21:08:00 -0000 Received: from tinypc ([213.104.144.24]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001122210753.ULQN5359.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@tinypc> for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 21:07:53 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c054c8$27280360$189068d5@tinypc> To: Subject: THE OBJECT Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:40:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Ben Jones" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HI JEFF, I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT, I WOULD SUGGEST FOR STARTERS THAT WE GUESS HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL JOIN BY THE 30TH NOV HOW MANY MEN AND HOW MANY WOMEN I WILL KICK IT OFF BY SAYING 30 MEN AND 20 WOMEN DAVE [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wandrer@w... Wed Nov 22 13:17:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: wandrer@c... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 22 Nov 2000 21:17:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 86231 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 21:17:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 21:17:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO amsmta04-svc.chello.nl) (213.46.240.7) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2000 22:18:33 -0000 Received: from marcel ([212.83.85.161]) by amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 1753790c58305fd3f286395c4a42fdc7) with SMTP id <20001122211843.VLCH389.amsmta04-svc@marcel> for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:18:43 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c054c9$a5fc29e0$a15553d4@c...> To: References: <000201c054c8$27280360$189068d5@tinypc> Subject: Subject of message nr. 2 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:17:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Stefan [The Wanderer]" From: "Stefan [The Wanderer]" Just visiting this eGroup's website, something curious happened to meet my eye: there were ten messages, numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 It is obvious, therefore, that there's one message missing!! I therefore propose that whatever the outcome of the game will eventually be, it will not be valid unless all proposals ever proposed are available for all contestants at that point. Bear in mind, though, that it's now absolutely necessary to retrieve the content of message number 2, as it might contain a proposal... I will set up a poll as well in a minute. yours wanting-to-know-it-all-ly, Stefan --- Just use the power of your Mind... From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Wed Nov 22 13:21:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 97813 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 21:20:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 21:20:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2000 22:22:04 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.134] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2000 21:20:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 6001 invoked by uid 65534); 22 Nov 2000 21:20:57 -0000 Date: 22 Nov 2000 21:20:57 -0000 Message-ID: <974928057.5999@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I propose that whatever the outcome of the game will eventually be, it will not be valid unless all proposals ever proposed are available for all contestants at that point, to examine them that is. o yes, that's a good rule! o no, it will spoil the game.. To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From chris_harris2@l... Wed Nov 22 14:25:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: chris_harris2@l... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 22 Nov 2000 22:25:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 32838 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 22:25:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 22:25:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2000 23:26:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: chris_harris2@l... Received: from [10.1.10.69] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2000 22:25:33 -0000 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:25:28 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Apology Message-ID: <8vhh4o+p3oc@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 271 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 213.1.55.208 From: chris_harris2@l... The missing message number 2 is down to me. I wrote a message asking about the game and then decided it was not worded right, i then changed it and deleted the old one. If anyone would like to see this i still have it in my e-mails and i will gladly send it to anyone From russellp@m... Wed Nov 22 14:58:38 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: russellp@m... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 22 Nov 2000 22:58:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 83702 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 22:58:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 22:58:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2000 23:59:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: russellp@m... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2000 22:58:35 -0000 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:58:26 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Who's Turn? Message-ID: <8vhj2i+73qu@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 339 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 195.80.1.243 From: "Russ " After reading the rules, it is apparent that the basis of this game is played on a turn taking model - I would like to know who's turn it is to suggest a rule for the players to vote on and if we are taking turns in alphabetical order as suggested. Should we also publish a points table to show the points accumilated by each player? From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Wed Nov 22 15:38:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 68870 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2000 23:38:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Nov 2000 23:38:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 00:39:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.208] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2000 23:38:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 31374 invoked by uid 65534); 22 Nov 2000 23:38:11 -0000 Date: 22 Nov 2000 23:38:11 -0000 Message-ID: <974936291.31373@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I would like to know what direction everyone would like this game to go. o Serious o Humourous o Abstract o Challenging o Other To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From racheledugdale@y... Wed Nov 22 16:13:17 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: RachelEDugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 23 Nov 2000 00:13:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 62148 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 00:13:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 00:13:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-ip02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.160) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 00:13:16 -0000 Received: from tot-wb.proxy.aol.com (tot-wb.proxy.aol.com [205.188.192.131]) by rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id TAA24895 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from yahoo.co.uk (AC819774.ipt.aol.com [172.129.151.116]) by tot-wb.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eAN0D1m02959 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:13:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A1C611D.CB6D82BB@y...> Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:13:17 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] THE OBJECT References: <000201c054c8$27280360$189068d5@tinypc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: racheledugdale@a... From: R Dugdale > I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT, > I WOULD SUGGEST FOR STARTERS THAT WE GUESS HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL JOIN > BY THE 30TH NOV HOW MANY MEN AND HOW MANY WOMEN > I WILL KICK IT OFF BY SAYING 30 MEN AND 20 WOMEN Hi Ben, I think if we want to have an objective, then it is about time that someone proposed one. And then we can vote on it. I think that's the way this works. I've been told that usually someone suggests something like 'the winner will be the first to reach 100 points' and then later rules are introduced to allow people to get points. Rachel. From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Wed Nov 22 16:19:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10700 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 00:19:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 00:19:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 01:20:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Nov 2000 00:19:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 25493 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Nov 2000 00:19:26 -0000 Date: 23 Nov 2000 00:19:26 -0000 Message-ID: <974938766.25489@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I propose that henceforwards the polling feature be used only for the proposal of rule amendments, so that it is easy to see all of these at once without the confusion of other polls, and that other issues be discussed on the list. o For o Against To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From racheledugdale@y... Wed Nov 22 16:21:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: RachelEDugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 23 Nov 2000 00:21:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 13871 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 00:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 00:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-ip01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.156.49) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 01:23:02 -0000 Received: from tot-wa.proxy.aol.com (tot-wa.proxy.aol.com [205.188.192.1]) by rly-ip01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id TAA19238 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:21:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from yahoo.co.uk (AC819774.ipt.aol.com [172.129.151.116]) by tot-wa.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eAN0LfC08539 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:21:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A1C6325.48F4B1F9@y...> Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:21:57 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Who's Turn? References: <8vhj2i+73qu@eGroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: racheledugdale@a... From: R Dugdale > After reading the rules, it is apparent that the basis of this game > is played on a turn taking model - I would like to know who's turn > it is to suggest a rule for the players to vote on and if we are > taking turns in alphabetical order as suggested. Should we also > publish a points table to show the points accumilated by each > player? We're playing Pure Nomic. The rules which Stefan sent the link for, are not altogether relevant. So far, in this game, we don't have a turns system, and we also don't have a points scoring system. We've started from scratch. If we want those things, someone will have to propose them and votes can be cast for or against. Rachel. From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Wed Nov 22 16:28:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33464 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 00:28:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 00:28:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 00:28:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.126] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Nov 2000 00:28:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 3472 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Nov 2000 00:28:00 -0000 Date: 23 Nov 2000 00:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: <974939280.3470@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I propose that posts to the email list should be kept with relevant subject lines. This hasn't been a problem with this list as yet, but most lists don't seem to keep relevant subject lines for long. And it would be useful in referencing back to the archives. o For o Against To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Wed Nov 22 20:11:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17711 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 04:11:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 04:11:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.135) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 05:12:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.91] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Nov 2000 04:11:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 20106 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Nov 2000 04:11:07 -0000 Date: 23 Nov 2000 04:11:07 -0000 Message-ID: <974952667.20104@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I propose that should any player be absent for more than a week without informing everyone else then they shall be removed from the club. o For o Against To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Thu Nov 23 05:25:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 55235 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 13:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 13:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 13:25:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.133] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Nov 2000 13:25:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 13831 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Nov 2000 13:25:26 -0000 Date: 23 Nov 2000 13:25:26 -0000 Message-ID: <974985926.13829@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: polls From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Poll results for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following Pure_Nomic poll is now closed. Here are the final results: POLL QUESTION: I propose that all members should propose a new rule at least once a week. CHOICES AND RESULTS - Yes, 2 votes, 33.33% - No, 4 votes, 66.67% For more information about this group, please visit http://www.egroups.com/group/Pure_Nomic For help with eGroups, please visit http://www.egroups.com/help From Arasine@n... Thu Nov 23 05:29:54 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Arasine@n... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 23 Nov 2000 13:29:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 16757 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 13:29:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 13:29:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 14:30:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Arasine@n... Received: from [10.1.2.133] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Nov 2000 13:29:53 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:29:51 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Poll Message-ID: <8vj64g+fkpj@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 231 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.253.128.5 From: "Keith Humphreys" Ive closed the poll about every player suggesting a new rule once a week. I know not everyone voted but if we get more than 25 members it would become too draggy just voting in all the new polls. I hope this is ok with everyone. From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Thu Nov 23 05:34:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 56808 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 13:34:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 13:34:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 13:34:30 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.133] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Nov 2000 13:34:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 14963 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Nov 2000 13:34:18 -0000 Date: 23 Nov 2000 13:34:18 -0000 Message-ID: <974986458.14961@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: There will be no overall winner but a separating of all players by the end into two or more groups, determined by other introduced rules. o Sounds interesting o Oh please...no! To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From racheledugdale@y... Thu Nov 23 05:36:18 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: racheledugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 23 Nov 2000 13:36:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 18518 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 13:36:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 13:36:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web4803.mail.yahoo.com) (216.115.105.245) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 13:36:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20001123133617.20661.qmail@w...> Received: from [195.194.152.2] by web4803.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:36:17 GMT Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:36:17 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: RachelEDugdale@y... Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Poll To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rachel=20E=20Dugdale?= >Ive closed the poll about every player suggesting a new rule >once a week. I >know not everyone voted but if we get more than 25 members it >would become >too draggy just voting in all the new polls. I hope this is ok >with everyone. Well, then, we'll only find out what the actual result of that poll is when we know what *everyone's* votes on my majority-rules suggestion is. So, everyone who hasn't done please vote on that, and please vote for it, so that we can use some of the other results once they get over 50% agreement. Rachel. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie From racheledugdale@y... Thu Nov 23 11:27:04 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: RachelEDugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: pure_nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 23 Nov 2000 19:27:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 10394 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 19:27:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 19:27:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-ip02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.160) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 19:27:03 -0000 Received: from tot-wf1-we.proxy.aol.com (tot-wf1-we.proxy.aol.com [205.188.195.3]) by rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id OAA09601 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 14:27:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from yahoo.co.uk (AC862A6A.ipt.aol.com [172.134.42.106]) by tot-wf1-we.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eANJQwW26180 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 14:26:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A1D6F8F.AD2B0A51@y...> Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:27:11 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pure_nomic@egroups.com Subject: Proposals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: racheledugdale@a... From: R Dugdale It has just occurred to me that under the current rules, when a proposal recieves one vote against it, it is doomed for now. I won't actually conclude all polls for which there have been 'against' votes on that basis, but it is worth considering. Vote in favour of majorities now before someone suggests we should act on this now I've realised it. Rachel. PS Hi, Jamie. :-) From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Thu Nov 23 11:51:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4750 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 19:51:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 19:51:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 19:51:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.208] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Nov 2000 19:51:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 97276 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Nov 2000 19:51:23 -0000 Date: 23 Nov 2000 19:51:23 -0000 Message-ID: <975009083.97274@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I propose that it be forbidden to discuss on this list the mathematics of conditional probability and the relative probabilities of having different numbers of children. (Sorry. Something of an in-joke. Please all vote in favour...) o For o Against To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From wandrer@w... Thu Nov 23 13:13:39 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: S.H.M.v.Zwam@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 23 Nov 2000 21:13:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 79947 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 21:13:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 21:13:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 21:13:37 -0000 Received: from studentex4.student.tue.nl (studentex4.student.tue.nl [131.155.4.29]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eANLDaw24745 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:13:36 +0100 (MET) Received: by studentex4.student.tue.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:13:36 +0100 Message-ID: <9D1F2A264056D4118EEB00508BE3D0790F9DAC@s...> To: "'Pure_Nomic@egroups.com'" Subject: RE: [Pure_Nomic] Apology Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:13:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-eGroups-From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." I guess I must apologize as well for sending a message with rules related to a completely different game... so... sorry! Yours regrettably, Stefan. --- Just use the power of your Mind.... > -----Original Message----- > From: chris_harris2@l... [mailto:chris_harris2@l...] > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 23:25 > To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com > Subject: [Pure_Nomic] Apology > > > The missing message number 2 is down to me. > I wrote a message asking about the game and then decided it was not > worded right, i then changed it and deleted the old one. > > If anyone would like to see this i still have it in my e-mails and i > will gladly send it to anyone > > > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor > -------------------------~-~> > eLerts > It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! > http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/_/_/974931934/ > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------_-> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Pure_Nomic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > From wandrer@w... Thu Nov 23 13:25:31 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: S.H.M.v.Zwam@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 23 Nov 2000 21:25:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 81909 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 21:25:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 21:25:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 22:26:36 -0000 Received: from studentex4.student.tue.nl (studentex4.student.tue.nl [131.155.4.29]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eANLPTw25369 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:25:29 +0100 (MET) Received: by studentex4.student.tue.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:25:29 +0100 Message-ID: <9D1F2A264056D4118EEB00508BE3D0790F9DAE@s...> To: "'Pure_Nomic@egroups.com'" Subject: Max. number of voters Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:25:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-eGroups-From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." Hi all, I have noticed that the maximum number of votes cast on one proposal is 6. Where are the other (until recently 3) members? Do they check their e-mail often enough?? Do they know how to vote??? btw, since I have a feeling that this might be going on for a while, it might be a good idea to introduce ourselves. For the moment, let it be known that I am Stefan, I am from the Netherlands and was lured into this by Rachel. Now I am tired, tomorrow I have an exam, so goodbye for now! Yours introducingly, Stefan. --- Just use the power of your Mind.... From punkbass_2000@y... Thu Nov 23 14:27:24 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: punkbass_2000@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 23 Nov 2000 22:27:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 12626 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2000 22:27:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Nov 2000 22:27:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Nov 2000 23:28:29 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: punkbass_2000@y... Received: from [10.1.10.93] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Nov 2000 22:27:24 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:27:19 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Max. number of voters Message-ID: <8vk5k7+nr7s@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9D1F2A264056D4118EEB00508BE3D0790F9DAE@s...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 447 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.2.9.37 From: punkbass_2000@y... Hi, I'm Jeff, I'm in Canada, and I too was lured into this by Rachel, though she probably doesn't know it. --- In Pure_Nomic@egroups.com, "Zwam, S.H.M.v." wrote: > For the moment, let it be known that I am Stefan, I am from the Netherlands > and was lured into this by Rachel. > > Now I am tired, tomorrow I have an exam, so goodbye for now! > > Yours introducingly, > > Stefan. > > --- > Just use the power of your Mind.... From racheledugdale@y... Fri Nov 24 03:14:51 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: racheledugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 24 Nov 2000 11:14:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 40359 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2000 11:14:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Nov 2000 11:14:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web4804.mail.yahoo.com) (216.115.105.246) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Nov 2000 11:14:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20001124111450.27030.qmail@w...> Received: from [195.194.152.2] by web4804.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:14:50 GMT Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:14:50 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: RachelEDugdale@y... Subject: My luring To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rachel=20E=20Dugdale?= I believe that everyone here at the moment was lured in to this by me, directly or otherwise... Rachel. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie From Arasine@n... Fri Nov 24 12:32:32 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Arasine@n... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 24 Nov 2000 20:32:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 3757 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2000 20:32:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Nov 2000 20:32:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Nov 2000 20:32:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Arasine@n... Received: from [10.1.10.124] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Nov 2000 20:32:31 -0000 Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:32:25 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Well and truly lured Message-ID: <8vmj8p+858g@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 204 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.253.128.5 From: "Keith Humphreys" Hello Everyone Im Keith from haunted essex, uk. I was considering what the conditional probibilty of me relpying to Rachel was a minute ago, but now ive decided to have a cup of tea instead. :-) From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Fri Nov 24 12:37:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18017 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2000 20:37:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Nov 2000 20:37:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Nov 2000 20:37:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.111] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Nov 2000 20:37:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 57725 invoked by uid 65534); 24 Nov 2000 20:37:29 -0000 Date: 24 Nov 2000 20:37:29 -0000 Message-ID: <975098249.57723@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I propose that all votes should have a ten day time limit o Good idea :-) o Bad idea :-( To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Sun Nov 26 10:16:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 72091 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2000 18:16:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2000 18:16:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Nov 2000 18:16:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.114] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Nov 2000 18:16:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 14116 invoked by uid 65534); 26 Nov 2000 18:16:52 -0000 Date: 26 Nov 2000 18:16:52 -0000 Message-ID: <975262612.14114@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: Eve ryvo tes houl dha Veso meso rtof puzz lein itt oma Ket hem mo Rein ter est in Gan dyo uca non lyvot eif yo Uhv sol v edit. o Gre Ati Dea o Abs Olu Tepa Nts To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Sun Nov 26 12:34:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5653 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2000 20:34:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2000 20:34:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Nov 2000 20:34:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.69] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Nov 2000 20:34:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 81465 invoked by uid 65534); 26 Nov 2000 20:34:07 -0000 Date: 26 Nov 2000 20:34:07 -0000 Message-ID: <975270847.81462@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: I propose that all polls should be presented in the English language o Yes, let's do that o No way! To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From wandrer@w... Mon Nov 27 03:00:36 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: wandrer@c... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 27 Nov 2000 11:00:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 39301 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2000 11:00:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Nov 2000 11:00:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO amsmta01-svc.chello.nl) (213.46.240.7) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2000 11:00:36 -0000 Received: from marcel ([212.83.85.161]) by amsmta01-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 1753790c58305fd3f286395c4a42fdc7) with SMTP id <20001127105625.EZLJ29661.amsmta01-svc@marcel> for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:56:25 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c05861$581f6b60$a15553d4@c...> To: References: <975270847.81462@egroups.com> Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] New poll for Pure_Nomic Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:01:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Stefan [The Wanderer]" From: "Stefan [The Wanderer]" Dat lijkt me een heel goed idee! Anders snapt niemand er meer iets van.... Stefan. Just use the power of your Mind... ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 9:34 PM Subject: [Pure_Nomic] New poll for Pure_Nomic > > Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic > group: > > > I propose that all polls should be > presented in the English language > > o Yes, let's do that > o No way! > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > > http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups > web site listed above. > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Pure_Nomic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > From james.johnston@s... Mon Nov 27 10:33:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 27 Nov 2000 18:33:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 73179 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2000 18:33:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Nov 2000 18:33:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (163.1.2.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2000 19:35:01 -0000 Received: from wing6.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.230] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 140T6B-0003E8-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:33:55 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing6.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 140T6A-00036D-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:33:54 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:33:54 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Lurings Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston Since it seems to have become traditional to declare how one was lured onto this list, I should probably state for the record that I volunteered, entirely unlured (gasp!), to join when Rachel told me she'd set up a list for playing Pure Nomic, a day or two after I introduced her to said game (for my own introduction to the game see my previous mail - the incident described occurred a week or two ago). Jamie From james.johnston@s... Mon Nov 27 11:07:55 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 27 Nov 2000 19:07:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 73350 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2000 18:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Nov 2000 18:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (129.67.1.180) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2000 18:56:08 -0000 Received: from wing6.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.230] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 140TRf-0007hS-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:56:07 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing6.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 140TRf-0003Kj-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:56:07 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:56:07 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Rule proposals Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston I have a few proposals: 1. That the amendment to the initial rule to the effect that rules be passed by majority vote rather than unanimous vote be repealed, and the original rule reinstated, requiring new rules to be agreed by all players. 2. That proposals in future be put forward by e-mailing them to this list, as I have done here, before being put on the website as polls, and given an opportunity for the group to discuss the proposal and suggest amendments. 3. That as part of the proposal of a rule, the proposer suggests a short, descriptive name for the rule they are proposing, which will become the name of that rule if the rule is passed. I'll just briefly set out a few arguments in favour of my proposals, in the interests of group discussion. For proposal 1: I've only played this game once before, but from that game I found that requiring the rules to be unanimously agreed made the game much better than requiring only a majority. It encourages discussion and collaboration between players, rtaher just a flat yes-or-no response, and also limits the speed with which rules are passed and the number which are passed, which sounds like a bad thing but is actually quite helpful, since otherwise the number of rules can become immense in a very short space of time and make the game extremely complicated. For proposal 2: For me the fun of this game isn't creating a huge list of meaningless rules, whcih is essentially what the game results in, but in the discussion and debate between the players. The existence of this list provides us with a ready-made forum of discussion, and by using it we can improve upon the game. For instance if you put a proposal up for discussion before making it into a poll on the website, it gives you an opportunity to improve the proposal by incorporating suggestions from other players, or by fixing any problems which other people point out. Even if this proposal doesn;t beocme a rule, this is how I shall put forward my own proposals in future, as I've done here, so that I can take advantage of the benefits of this system even if no one else does. For proposal 3: This is purely for convenience. When we've built up a reasonable number of rules it'll get a bit tricky if we keep having to talk about 'that one about this', or 'the one which so-and-so proposed'. We could equally well number them, but giving them names is more helpful. The way the Romans did it is fairly useful, just giving the name of the person who proposed a law and the basic gist fo what it was about, e.g. 'Fred's law on the corn supply', or 'Julie's law on extortion'. Anyway, whatever. The way I've phrased the proposal leaves it open for the proposer of a rule to put forward a name, and if he or she is prepared to let there be a discussion of the proposal first then anyone who can think of a better name can always suggest it. I'll put none, some or all of these proposals onto the website when we've discussed them, or if no one chooses to discuss them then I'll stick them on the website in a few days. Jamie From james.johnston@s... Mon Nov 27 11:14:23 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 27 Nov 2000 19:14:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 28161 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2000 19:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Nov 2000 19:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (129.67.1.1) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2000 20:04:01 -0000 Received: from wing6.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.230] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #3) id 140T3S-0006Ms-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:31:06 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing6.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 140T3M-00034E-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:31:00 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:31:00 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Introductions Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston Hi. I'm Jamie, born London, studying at Oxford where I was recently introduced to this game by a drunken Cambridge philosopher at a party devoted to the throwing of paint at the walls of another student's room. It's a good game but it can go on indefinitely. At some time we might want to consider putting in some rules to define some sort of objective or method of winning or something. Apparently a common way to do this is to say 'the first to 100 points wins', and then leave it till later to decide how you actually get points. But anyway, it's early days yet so I shan't actually propose any such rule myself at the moment. I'd also suggest that we all keep a written record of the rules. I believe Rachel's working on putting together a central record on the website, but it's worth keeping your own as well, and perhaps numbering the rules so as to be able to refer to them in future. Anyway, that's enough of me introducing myself. I'd better get on and read the rest of these mails. Jamie From racheledugdale@y... Mon Nov 27 14:27:09 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: RachelEDugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 27 Nov 2000 22:27:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 1474 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2000 22:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Nov 2000 22:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-ip01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.156.49) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2000 22:27:08 -0000 Received: from tot-wl.proxy.aol.com (tot-wl.proxy.aol.com [205.188.199.1]) by rly-ip01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id RAA09085 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:26:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from yahoo.co.uk (AC83635D.ipt.aol.com [172.131.99.93]) by tot-wl.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eARMQt803331 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:26:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A22DFB7.CECECA57@y...> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:27:03 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Lurings References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: racheledugdale@a... From: R Dugdale You don't consider that you were in any way lured, Jamie? Do you think I would have told you about the list other than to get you to join it, knowing that you would probably want to? (Other than the fact that I tell you everything.) Anyway, yes, it's all your responsibility anyway, really. So anyone who was lured here by me, is by default here because of you... Mary, and others who haven't shown themselves yet, where are you hiding? Rachel. From james.johnston@s... Mon Nov 27 15:57:51 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 27 Nov 2000 23:57:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 11869 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2000 23:57:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Nov 2000 23:57:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (129.67.1.180) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2000 23:57:49 -0000 Received: from wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.228] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 140Y9c-0004ok-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:57:48 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 140Y9f-0008Je-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:57:51 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:57:51 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Lurings Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston Ah, you're quite right. I should have said that I wasn't lured *knowingly*. Evidently I was outwitted (or inwitted, perhaps). Jamie From racheledugdale@y... Tue Nov 28 03:00:10 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: racheledugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 11:00:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 31209 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 11:00:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 11:00:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web4802.mail.yahoo.com) (216.115.105.225) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 12:01:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20001128110009.6846.qmail@w...> Received: from [195.194.152.2] by web4802.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:00:09 GMT Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:00:09 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: RachelEDugdale@y... Subject: Comments on Jamie's rule proposals To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rachel=20E=20Dugdale?= Some interesting thoughts there, Jamie, from probably the most experienced player of this game here... My thoughts: -1- The amendment to the initial rule, which I proposed and put up for a vote, has not yet been voted in, and therefore cannot be repealed. So far, all new rules, including that one, which is still pending, do need to be agreed to by all players. The reason I proposed that amendment, is largely because this is an email forum, and some people still haven't responded to any of our posts/polls. I don't think that we can have a productive and continuing game unless everyone who joins, participates, unless we have a rule allowing for >50% to count as enough to pass the rule/amendment. This could be raised to a higher figure, if people would prefer that, but I do think that we need to have some such rule in place, because we still have heard nothing from them. And we can't introduce a rule to throw off people who don't participate within a given time, or anything like that, unless they also agree to *that*. Which is why, eventually, we need to pass this 'majority rules' rule, in order to make this game function. -2- I agree that proposals should be discussed before/during voting on them. But I also think that the polling feature, which everyone has now taken to using, is useful because it automatically announces any new proposals. My initial idea was that the proposal could first be submitted to the polling system, and then a discussion could follow on from that. Amendments can be made later, to a rule after it has been submitted, if the amendment is agreed to. There is an 'edit' feature to the polls which would allow this. -3- As a mathematician I can't help thinking that a numerical system should also be in place, for simplicity's sake - personally I would suggest numbering rules in the order in which they're passed, and then also giving them names which bear some reference to what the rule is about. Well, those are my thoughts, and now I've got work I really should have been doing for the past 1 1/2 hours to catch up with... Rachel. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie From celtic_minx@y... Tue Nov 28 06:56:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: celtic_minx@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 14:56:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 30682 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 14:56:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 14:56:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 14:56:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: celtic_minx@y... Received: from [10.1.2.4] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Nov 2000 14:56:06 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:56:00 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: an absent member Message-ID: <900h20+pib5@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 331 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.252.32.5 From: "celtic minx" Dear Rachel, and members, I apologise for holding up the game. I was curious about this group, after reading your post in lateral puzzles. I am going to delete myself as a member, as I will not have time to make much of a contribution....sorry to have held you all up ;-)....I hope you all have a good game. Best Wishes Julia From james.johnston@s... Tue Nov 28 07:00:22 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 15:00:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 31768 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 15:00:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 15:00:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (129.67.1.1) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 15:00:21 -0000 Received: from wing2.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.226] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #3) id 140mF2-0004df-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:00:20 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing2.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 140mF2-0005fJ-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:00:20 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:00:20 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Comments on Jamie's rule proposals Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston > The amendment to the initial rule, which I proposed and put up > for a vote, has not yet been voted in, and therefore cannot be > repealed. So far, all new rules, including that one, which is > still pending, do need to be agreed to by all players. Ah. Thanks for clarifying that - another example, perhaps, of the need for a record of rules. For the time being, since you're probably the longest standing member of this list, would you mind briefly telling us what the rules currently are, after the initial rule? > I don't think that we can have a productive > and continuing game unless everyone who joins, participates, > unless we have a rule allowing for >50% to count as enough to > pass the rule/amendment. I agree that it is difficult, given that we haven't got all the players together in one place, to get proposals passed or blocked decisively. But I don't accept that rule of the majority is the only or even the best answer to the problem. It won't help, for instance, if less than half the players vote, because on that basis there will still be no decision on the proposal. However, since you've pointed out the need for some mechanism for coping with this, I'll propose an alternative rule (which I'll number 4 for ease of reference) to do so: 4. That a time limit be set (to be decided by discussion) at the end of which, if there have been no votes against a proposal, it is considered passed. Off the top of my head I'd suggest seven days as the time limit, but other people may have more considered suggestions. My second proposal (numbered 2, surprisingly), the one about discussion, was in no way an attempt to undermine or devalue the polling system. The game could just as well operate without a rule stating that a discussion is to take place, except that until now there seems to have been little or no discussion of proposals so far. The institution of my second proposed rule would make it compulsory for discussion to take place, if only to the extent of everyone saying 'I have nothing to add to this', before the proposal is put onto the polling system. The feature of the poll which notifies players automatically of new proposals is useful and, admittedly, would be made less useful by my proposed rule, but it seems to me that it would be worth it. Even better would be if there were some method of putting a proposal on the website and thus automatically notifying players of it but still preventing the voting itself from taking place until there has been discussion. If there is a way fo doing that, I shall amend my proposal to accomodate it, but if not, my proposal stands. It would not replace the polling system, and therefore its positive features won't be lost - it will simply give us a more structured procedure for propoing, discussing and voting on proposals. Accomodating your fondness for numbers, I amend my third proposal to read: 3. That when proposing a rule the proposer will give it a short, descriptive name. If the proposed rule is passed, it will be given a number (the next in the numerical sequence of rules starting with one and continuing in positive integers), followed by the name aforementioned. Jamie PS Could someone forward me a copy of the mail I sent containing my first three proposals? because I haven't kept a copy and I realise now I'm going to need one if I want to put them on the polling system. Thanks. From james.johnston@s... Tue Nov 28 09:47:38 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 17:47:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 97525 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 17:47:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 17:47:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (163.1.2.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 17:47:37 -0000 Received: from wing6.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.230] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 140oqu-0000Wm-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:47:36 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing6.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 140oqu-0005D9-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:47:36 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:47:36 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Apology; appeal Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston Just having seen my last mail reappear in my inbox I see that I forgot to change the subject line to keep it relevant - sorry all. It should have been called something like 'reply to Rachel's comments'. By the way, can I urge anyone still in the game to vote, when it comes to it, on my fourth proposal, set out in the mail mentioned above, which went something like this: 4. That a time limit be set (to be decided by discussion amongst the players) at the end of which a proposed rule will be passed if no votes have been made against it. It's not up for voting yet, but will eb after discussion, unless I'm persuaded to retract it. If you just make the effort to pass this rule, you'll never have to vote for anything else again if you don't want! Jamie From james.johnston@s... Tue Nov 28 11:08:55 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 19:08:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 59551 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 19:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 19:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (163.1.2.1) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 20:10:00 -0000 Received: from wing2.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.226] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 140q7Z-0003zS-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:08:53 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing2.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 140q7Y-00006n-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:08:52 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:08:52 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Fourth proposal withdrawn Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston Having had a look at the website I see that Chris has already put forward a proposal for a ten-day time limit, so I'll withdraw my proposal (number 4) which said much the same thing, and vote for that. Incidentally, how many players have we at the moment? The maximum number of votes on any of the polls seems to be 8. Will something automatically inform us when all the votes on a proposal are in? If not, how do we know when a rule has been passed? Jamie From racheledugdale@y... Tue Nov 28 11:09:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: RachelEDugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 19:09:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 2005 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 19:09:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 19:09:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-ip02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.160) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 19:09:57 -0000 Received: from cm-ta4.proxy.aol.com (cm-ta4.proxy.aol.com [152.163.205.44]) by rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id OAA23994 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:09:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from yahoo.co.uk (AC955C11.ipt.aol.com [172.149.92.17]) by cm-ta4.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eASJ6XZ12721 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:06:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A2402DD.3ECE949A@y...> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:09:17 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: On Jamie's appeal References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: racheledugdale@a... From: R Dugdale James Johnston wrote: > > 4. That a time limit be set (to be decided by discussion amongst the > players) at the end of which a proposed rule will be passed if no > votes have been made against it. > > It's not up for voting yet, but will eb after discussion, unless I'm > persuaded to retract it. > > If you just make the effort to pass this rule, you'll never have to > vote for anything else again if you don't want! And if this rule is passed, I may be persuaded to retract or at least vote against (and hence destroy) my own proposal on majorities... Rachel. From racheledugdale@y... Tue Nov 28 11:22:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: RachelEDugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 19:22:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 29168 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 19:22:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 19:22:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-ip02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.160) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 19:22:56 -0000 Received: from cm-ta4.proxy.aol.com (cm-ta4.proxy.aol.com [152.163.205.44]) by rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id OAA05000 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from yahoo.co.uk (AC955C11.ipt.aol.com [172.149.92.17]) by cm-ta4.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eASJFsZ12166 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:15:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A24050F.F137B99B@y...> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:18:39 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: The Rules Thus Far References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: racheledugdale@a... From: R Dugdale There is only one rule so far, and that is the initial rule, since we haven't had everyone voting on any possible addition or amendment yet. So the one rule is as described on the site. Rachel. From chris_harris2@l... Tue Nov 28 13:29:10 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: chris_harris2@l... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 21:29:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 58565 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 21:28:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 21:28:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 21:28:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: chris_harris2@l... Received: from [10.1.2.56] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Nov 2000 21:28:50 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:28:44 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: My proposals so far, Message-ID: <90182c+tlv3@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 205 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 213.1.56.176 From: chris_harris2@l... As you may be able to see, on my proposals so far I have put a time limit on each of them, as there is no rules at the moment and considering you need a 100% agreement, should i take the time limit of? From chris_harris2@l... Tue Nov 28 13:49:17 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: chris_harris2@l... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 21:49:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 904 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 21:47:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 21:47:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 22:49:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: chris_harris2@l... Received: from [10.1.2.36] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Nov 2000 21:47:59 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:47:49 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: My proposals so far, Message-ID: <901965+9pqd@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <90182c+tlv3@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 348 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 213.1.56.176 From: chris_harris2@l... --- In Pure_Nomic@egroups.com, chris_harris2@l... wrote: > As you may be able to see, on my proposals so far I have put a time > limit on each of them, as there is no rules at the moment and > considering you need a 100% agreement, should i take the time limit > of? Hey all, sorry for the poor grammer, I was in a rush, me dinner was ready! From racheledugdale@y... Tue Nov 28 15:15:40 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: RachelEDugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 23:15:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 40278 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 23:15:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 23:15:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-ip01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.156.49) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 23:15:16 -0000 Received: from tot-tm.proxy.aol.com (tot-tm.proxy.aol.com [152.163.197.1]) by rly-ip01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id SAA17680 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:14:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from yahoo.co.uk (AC959D7C.ipt.aol.com [172.149.157.124]) by tot-tm.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eASNEtC02608 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:14:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A243C77.803918C0@y...> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:15:03 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Time limits on current proposals References: <90182c+tlv3@eGroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: racheledugdale@a... From: R Dugdale I believe we are waiting for two more votes on the time limit idea, but hopefully they should be passed quite soon. Leave them for now. Any polls which have had any votes against them, can be considered 'failed' anyway, I suppose, under the current rules, and should probably be closed on that basis. If you take the time limits off, we'll have to restart the polling again for those proposals. I think we should leave it, and hassle those who haven't voted to pass the proposal for time limits, as this seems to be the most widely agreed method of making the voting system feasible (since Jamie vetoed my majority proposal). Rachel. From punkbass_2000@y... Tue Nov 28 15:44:42 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: punkbass_2000@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 23:44:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 15960 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 23:44:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 23:44:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web4403.mail.yahoo.com) (216.115.105.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 23:44:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20001128234435.4426.qmail@w...> Received: from [24.112.158.225] by web4403.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:44:35 PST Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:44:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Time limits on current proposals To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jeff Kolnick >Any > polls which have had any votes against them, can be > considered 'failed' > anyway, I suppose, under the current rules, and > should probably be > closed on that basis. No they shouldn't. They can be discussed. One is allowed to change ones vote at any time. Perhaps some will be persuaded. =====

"The life which is unexamined is not worth living"

-Plato

 

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From wandrer@w... Wed Nov 29 04:05:36 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: wandrer@c... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 12:05:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 46262 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 12:05:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 12:05:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO amsmta02-svc.chello.nl) (213.46.240.7) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 13:06:41 -0000 Received: from marcel ([212.83.85.161]) by amsmta02-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 1753790c58305fd3f286395c4a42fdc7) with SMTP id <20001129120155.MMFK4999.amsmta02-svc@marcel> for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:01:55 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c059fc$c30fd800$a15553d4@c...> To: References: <90182c+tlv3@eGroups.com> <3A243C77.803918C0@y...> Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Time limits on current proposals Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:06:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Stefan [The Wanderer]" From: "Stefan [The Wanderer]" > I believe we are waiting for two more votes on the time limit idea, but > hopefully they should be passed quite soon. I believe the website says we have 7 members. 7 members have voted in favour of the time limit. I guess we can consider it passed! Yours believingly, Stefan. --- Just use the power of your Mind... From racheledugdale@y... Wed Nov 29 04:23:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: racheledugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 12:23:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 88532 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 12:23:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 12:23:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web4803.mail.yahoo.com) (216.115.105.245) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 12:23:49 -0000 Message-ID: <20001129122349.10929.qmail@w...> Received: from [195.194.152.2] by web4803.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:23:49 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:23:49 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: RachelEDugdale@y... Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Time limits on current proposals To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rachel=20E=20Dugdale?= >I believe the website says we have 7 members. 7 members have >voted in favour >of the time limit. I guess we can consider it passed! Last time I looked, there were nine. But now, yes, there are seven. Well done, everyone, we've passed our first rule! Champagne all round... I'll add it to the list, but just for ease of future reference, would anyone like to give it a name? It'll be rule 2, anyway... Rachel. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Wed Nov 29 04:25:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 91995 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 12:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 12:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 12:25:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.33] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2000 12:25:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 31500 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Nov 2000 12:25:17 -0000 Date: 29 Nov 2000 12:25:17 -0000 Message-ID: <975500717.31499@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: polls From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Poll results for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following Pure_Nomic poll is now closed. Here are the final results: POLL QUESTION: I propose that all votes should have a ten day time limit CHOICES AND RESULTS - Good idea :-), 7 votes, 100.00% - Bad idea :-(, 0 votes, 0.00% INDIVIDUAL VOTES - Good idea :-) - racheledugdale@y... - chris_harris2@l... - punkbass_2000@y... - wandrer@w... - Arasine@n... - james.johnston@s... - russellp@m... - Bad idea :-( For more information about this group, please visit http://www.egroups.com/group/Pure_Nomic For help with eGroups, please visit http://www.egroups.com/help From james.johnston@s... Wed Nov 29 05:36:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 13:36:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 50158 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 13:36:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 13:36:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (129.67.1.180) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 13:36:57 -0000 Received: from wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.228] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 1417Pq-0000qV-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:36:54 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 1417Pq-00078c-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:36:54 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:36:54 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Time limit proposal Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston I've voted for Chris' time-limit proposal, as has everyone else who's voted at all, so unless anyone votes no or fails to vote I guess that will pass, but thinking about it it occurs to me that there's a possible problem with it: it needs clarifying *what* happens to a proposal if not everyone votes for or against it. What I initially thought was that we could say that if there were no 'no' votes within the time limit, the proposal should be passed. But the problem with this is that it biases the process in favour of the proposer - for example, if a player goes on holiday or something, and while they're away a proposal is passed which they might have had a serious objection to, then their view has been overruled through no fault of their own. So it might be fairer to say that if there are no 'yes' votes for a proposal within the time-limit, then it is blocked - so that if anyone fails to vote it counts as a 'no' vote. This seems to me fairer, and more in the spirit of the first rule, but the problem is that it means no rules can ever get passed if any of the players are on holiday or just too lazy to vote. So what do people think? Should we go for the first option, or the second? Or is there another option? Jamie From james.johnston@s... Wed Nov 29 05:41:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 13:41:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 63216 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 13:41:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 13:41:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (163.1.2.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 14:42:38 -0000 Received: from wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.228] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 1417UK-0004rI-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:41:32 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 1417UJ-0007D4-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:41:31 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:41:31 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Time limits on current proposals Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston > >Any > > polls which have had any votes against them, can be > > considered 'failed' > > anyway, I suppose, under the current rules, and > > should probably be > > closed on that basis. > > No they shouldn't. They can be discussed. One is > allowed to change ones vote at any time. Perhaps some > will be persuaded. I agree in principle, but there's a problem with this - if we consider polls always open and votes always subject to change, then we can never close any polls and therefore never have any rules. The only solution to this would be to have a time-limit rule, but obviously we can't pass a time-limit rule if polls are never closed. Perhaps what we should say for the time being is that polls should be considered closed only when all players have voted, either way. Jamie From james.johnston@s... Wed Nov 29 05:42:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 13:42:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 35111 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 13:42:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 13:42:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (163.1.2.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 14:43:59 -0000 Received: from wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.228] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 1417Vc-0004u1-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:42:52 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 1417Vb-0007EU-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:42:51 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:42:51 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Time limits on current proposals Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston > > I believe we are waiting for two more votes on the time limit idea, but > > hopefully they should be passed quite soon. > > I believe the website says we have 7 members. 7 members have voted in favour > of the time limit. I guess we can consider it passed! Well it now has 8 votes in favour of it, counting mine, so there must be at least 8 players, and there may be more. Does anyone know how many players there actually are? And is there any facility on the polling feature which can tell us when everyone has voted? Jamie From james.johnston@s... Wed Nov 29 05:45:53 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 13:45:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 44476 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 13:45:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 13:45:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (129.67.1.1) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 13:45:51 -0000 Received: from wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.228] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #3) id 1417YU-0001Mw-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:45:50 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 1417YU-0007Hm-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:45:50 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:45:50 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Rule naming Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston > I'll add it to the list, but just for ease of future reference, > would anyone like to give it a name? It'll be rule 2, anyway... Since the proposal hasn't been passed about giving rules names, and in fact since it hasn;t even been put up for voting, I would suggest that giving rules names at this stage can only be unofficiaal, and should probably be avoided so as to avoid confusion. If and when we pass the rule about names, we can make it retrospective if we like, and then we can give old rules new names. Would anyone like me to make my proposed rule-naming rule retrospective, or are we happy for the first and second rules to be known as rules 1 and 2 only? Jamie From racheledugdale@y... Wed Nov 29 06:02:23 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: racheledugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 14:02:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 68299 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 14:02:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 14:02:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web4801.mail.yahoo.com) (216.115.105.199) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 15:03:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20001129140220.17854.qmail@w...> Received: from [195.194.152.2] by web4801.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:02:20 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:02:20 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: RachelEDugdale@y... Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Time limits on current proposals To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rachel=20E=20Dugdale?= >I agree in principle, but there's a problem with this - if we >consider polls always open and votes always subject to change, >then we can never close any polls and therefore never have any >rules. The only solution to this would be to have a time-limit >rule, but obviously we can't pass a time-limit rule if polls >are never closed. Perhaps what we should say for the time being >is that polls should be considered closed only when all players >have voted, either way. Well, now we've passed the time limits rule, by way of everyone having voted in favour. This means that polls will now close after ten days. I'll close the current ones ten days after they were set up - so 2nd/3rd December in most cases. The question is, though, as has been correctly pointed out - what do we do with results which aren't 100% voted on, and 100% agreed, at the end of that time limit. Rachel. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie From racheledugdale@y... Wed Nov 29 06:03:38 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: racheledugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 14:03:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 34621 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 14:03:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 14:03:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web4802.mail.yahoo.com) (216.115.105.225) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 14:03:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20001129140337.10260.qmail@w...> Received: from [195.194.152.2] by web4802.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:03:37 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:03:37 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: RachelEDugdale@y... Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Rule naming To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rachel=20E=20Dugdale?= >Would anyone like me to make my proposed rule-naming rule >retrospective, or are we happy for the first and second rules >to be known as rules 1 and 2 only? I would like it to be retrospective please. :-) Although I can't think of a better name for the initial rule than 'the initial rule'... Rachel. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie From racheledugdale@y... Wed Nov 29 06:08:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: racheledugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 14:08:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 73864 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 14:08:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 14:08:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web4805.mail.yahoo.com) (216.115.105.247) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 15:10:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20001129140856.26987.qmail@w...> Received: from [195.194.152.2] by web4805.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:08:56 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:08:56 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: RachelEDugdale@y... Subject: Members To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rachel=20E=20Dugdale?= >Well it now has 8 votes in favour of it, counting mine, so >there must be at least 8 players, and there may be more. Does >anyone know how many players there actually are? And is there >any facility on the polling feature which can tell us when >everyone has voted? There are 7 members now. Definitely. One of the polls has had 8 votes, because Mary voted in favour of my >50% proposal before she left. The only way of telling whether everyone has voted, is to look at how many members there are, and how many people have voted. Since everyone has now voted on the time limits rule, it was passed, and I closed the poll. Since we had no other rules for closing polls at that time... Jamie, you might also like to note that I've now joined you in voting against my own proposal now that a time limits rule has been passed. Rachel. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie From racheledugdale@y... Wed Nov 29 12:05:21 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: racheledugdale@y... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 20:05:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 37551 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 20:05:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 20:05:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 20:05:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: racheledugdale@y... Received: from [10.1.4.69] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2000 20:05:20 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:05:16 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Time limit proposal Message-ID: <903nhs+ok0t@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 967 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.162.132.6 From: "Rachel Dugdale" I don't think it biases it towards the proposer so much as it biases it against anyone who goes away, without doing something like nominating a proxy whom they trust to represent their views accurately. Because although someone can't vote on your behalf, they could explain to the group, and it's possible (at least with a group of seven!) that we could allow for mitigating circumstances. And if you were the one entrusted, and thought that the other person was likely to vote against, you could always use your own vote in that way since it would have the same net effect (of vetoing the proposal). It would at least be helpful if people said when they're going on holiday, etc, anyway. But I certainly think that one should have to make the effort to stop a rule, rather than it automatically stopping if someone doesn't bother to vote, due to absence, laziness, whatever. If I think of an alternative which is better, I'll let you know. Rachel. From james.johnston@s... Wed Nov 29 12:45:37 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 20:45:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 1814 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 20:45:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 20:45:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (163.1.2.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 21:46:37 -0000 Received: from wing1.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.225] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 141E6d-0000E8-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:45:31 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing1.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 141E6d-0007dd-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:45:31 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:45:31 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Members Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston > Jamie, you might also like to note that I've now joined you in > voting against my own proposal now that a time limits rule has > been passed. Thank you. I think you've done the right thing. Hopefully as the game progresses you'll see why I think the unanimity condition is a good one, but if not you can always propose your amendment again. Jamie From chris_harris2@l... Wed Nov 29 13:14:53 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: chris_harris2@l... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 21:14:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 61558 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 21:14:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 21:14:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 22:15:58 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: chris_harris2@l... Received: from [10.1.2.91] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2000 21:14:52 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:14:43 -0000 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Voting and Voters Message-ID: <903rk3+i9n0@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 847 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 213.1.46.188 From: chris_harris2@l... >From the beginning I have assumed that if not everyone votes then the proposal is calculated from the people that have actually voted for it. This features in the polling system from egroups. Would this not be a good idea. eg if after 10 days only me rachel and james voted, two voted yes and one voted no then the two would get it as it is past the 50% mark. So is it right that from now on proposals should not be closed until the 10 day period, even if everyone has voted? People are allowed to change their mind during this time aren't they? Or are you not allowed to change your mind? Should there be a rule for this, but there is also no way of telling if someone has changed their mind, is there? As I have found out from the first part of this message, in this game you can assume nothing, only what is in the rules Chris 8-) From wandrer@w... Wed Nov 29 13:55:28 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: S.H.M.v.Zwam@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 21:55:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 95905 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 21:55:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 21:55:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 21:55:25 -0000 Received: from studentex4.student.tue.nl (studentex4.student.tue.nl [131.155.4.29]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eATLtOn17957 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:55:24 +0100 (MET) Received: by studentex4.student.tue.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:55:24 +0100 Message-ID: <9D1F2A264056D4118EEB00508BE3D0790F9DB2@s...> To: "'Pure_Nomic@egroups.com'" Subject: RE: [Pure_Nomic] Time limit proposal Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:55:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-eGroups-From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." I think the most logical thing is the "no 'no'"-system. The other option would simply rule out the effect this rule was meantto have on decision-making! And it was meant to make it possible to pass a rule without everyone voting in the first place.... Yours far-from-lazily, Stefan. --- Just use the power of your Mind.... > -----Original Message----- > From: James Johnston [mailto:james.johnston@s...] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 13:37 > To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Time limit proposal > > > I've voted for Chris' time-limit proposal, as has everyone > else who's voted at all, so unless anyone votes no or fails > to vote I guess that will pass, but thinking about it it > occurs to me that there's a possible problem with it: it > needs clarifying *what* happens to a proposal if not everyone > votes for or against it. > > What I initially thought was that we could say that if there > were no 'no' votes within the time limit, the proposal should > be passed. But the problem with this is that it biases the > process in favour of the proposer - for example, if a player > goes on holiday or something, and while they're away a > proposal is passed which they might have had a serious > objection to, then their view has been overruled through no > fault of their own. > > So it might be fairer to say that if there are no 'yes' votes > for a proposal within the time-limit, then it is blocked - so > that if anyone fails to vote it counts as a 'no' vote. This > seems to me fairer, and more in the spirit of the first rule, > but the problem is that it means no rules can ever get passed > if any of the players are on holiday or just too lazy to vote. > > So what do people think? Should we go for the first option, > or the second? Or is there another option? > > Jamie > > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor > -------------------------~-~> > eLerts > It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! > http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/_/_/975505018/ > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------_-> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Pure_Nomic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > From wandrer@w... Wed Nov 29 14:02:56 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: S.H.M.v.Zwam@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 22:02:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 62160 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 22:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 22:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 22:02:55 -0000 Received: from studentex4.student.tue.nl (studentex4.student.tue.nl [131.155.4.29]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eATM2rn18887 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:02:53 +0100 (MET) Received: by studentex4.student.tue.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:02:53 +0100 Message-ID: <9D1F2A264056D4118EEB00508BE3D0790F9DB3@s...> To: "'Pure_Nomic@egroups.com'" Subject: RE: [Pure_Nomic] Rule naming Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:02:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-eGroups-From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." Doesn't the second rule more or less replace the first rule? So the first rule is no longer valid, and there is no more need to mention it, imho. On second thought, more or less is more less than more, because it doesn't say anything about the outcome of the voting. So there needs to be a real replacement for the first rule, some kind of "no 'no'"-thing, preferably. yours initially[1], Stefan. [1] It's sometimes just as hard to make up these words as it is to make up rule names, I guess... --- Just use the power of your Mind.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Rachel E Dugdale [mailto:racheledugdale@y...] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 15:04 > To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Rule naming > > > >Would anyone like me to make my proposed rule-naming rule > >retrospective, or are we happy for the first and second rules > >to be known as rules 1 and 2 only? > > I would like it to be retrospective please. :-) Although I > can't think of a better name for the initial rule than 'the > initial rule'... > > Rachel. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk > or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie > > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor > -------------------------~-~> > eGroups eLerts > It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! > http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/_/_/975506618/ > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------_-> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Pure_Nomic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Wed Nov 29 18:11:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 823 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 02:11:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 02:11:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 03:12:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.52] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 02:11:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 25611 invoked by uid 7800); 30 Nov 2000 02:11:20 -0000 Date: 30 Nov 2000 02:11:20 -0000 Message-ID: <975550280.5905@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: polls From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Poll results for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following Pure_Nomic poll is now closed. Here are the final results: POLL QUESTION: I would like to know what direction everyone would like this game to go. CHOICES AND RESULTS - Serious, 0 votes, 0.00% - Humourous, 3 votes, 50.00% - Abstract, 2 votes, 33.33% - Challenging, 1 votes, 16.67% - Other , 0 votes, 0.00% INDIVIDUAL VOTES - Serious - Humourous - Arasine@n... - wandrer@w... - chris_harris2@l... - Abstract - racheledugdale@y... - punkbass_2000@y... - Challenging - russellp@m... - Other For more information about this group, please visit http://www.egroups.com/group/Pure_Nomic For help with eGroups, please visit http://www.egroups.com/help From james.johnston@s... Thu Nov 30 05:24:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 13:24:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 85891 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 13:24:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 13:24:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (163.1.2.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 14:26:02 -0000 Received: from wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.228] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 141Thn-0001Il-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:24:55 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 141Thn-0000NA-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:24:55 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:24:55 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] Voting and Voters Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston > From the beginning I have assumed that if not everyone votes then the > proposal is calculated from the people that have actually voted for > it. This features in the polling system from egroups. Would this > not be a good idea. > > eg > if after 10 days only me rachel and james voted, two voted yes and > one voted no then the two would get it as it is past the 50% mark. Except that no majority rule has been passed, so in order for a proposal to become a rule it needs to be voted for by *all* players. Which still leaves us with the question of whether a vote which not cast counts as a yes vote or a no vote. > So is it right that from now on proposals should not be closed until > the 10 day period, even if everyone has voted? > People are allowed to change their mind during this time aren't they? > Or are you not allowed to change your mind? > Should there be a rule for this, but there is also no way of telling > if someone has changed their mind, is there? It seems to me that currently there's no rule stating that polls should be closed at any time before the ten days are up, nor is there any rule forbidding people to change their votes before the poll closes, so unless or until someone passes either of those rules, changing one's mind is fine, and polls remain open until the ten days are up. > As I have found out from the first part of this message, in this game > you can assume nothing, only what is in the rules Absolutely. Which is one one has to be very careful about the wording of proposals. Which is why I should have kept a copy of mine... hmm... Jamie From james.johnston@s... Thu Nov 30 05:28:24 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 13:28:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 30878 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 13:28:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 13:28:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (129.67.1.180) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 13:28:23 -0000 Received: from wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.228] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 141Tl8-0005CU-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:28:22 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 141Tl8-0000Pn-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:28:22 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:28:22 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: RE: [Pure_Nomic] Rule naming Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston > Doesn't the second rule more or less replace the first rule? So the first > rule is no longer valid, and there is no more need to mention it, imho. > > On second thought, more or less is more less than more, because it doesn't > say anything about the outcome of the voting. So there needs to be a real > replacement for the first rule, some kind of "no 'no'"-thing, preferably. I must absolutely disagree with both these notions, I'm afraid. There's no need at all to change, replace or eliminate the initial rule. The second rule is simply a clarification of procedure. I'm not sure which option you mean by a "no 'no'", but I imagine you mean the suggestion that if there are no votes against a given proposal within the time limit, it's considered as passed. Since the prevailing opinion seems to be that this is the better of the two options, I'll put it forward as a proposal. Jamie From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Thu Nov 30 05:36:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 90427 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 13:36:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 13:36:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 14:37:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.100] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 13:36:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 6066 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Nov 2000 13:36:34 -0000 Date: 30 Nov 2000 13:36:34 -0000 Message-ID: <975591394.6060@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: As part of the proposal of a rule, the proposer must suggest a short, descriptive name for the rule they are proposing, which will become the name of that rule if the rule is passed. o Yes o No To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Thu Nov 30 05:37:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21942 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 13:37:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 13:37:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 13:37:48 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.100] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 13:37:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 6289 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Nov 2000 13:37:45 -0000 Date: 30 Nov 2000 13:37:45 -0000 Message-ID: <975591465.6282@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic group: If by the end of the time-limit for a given proposal there have been no votes against said proposal, it is considered passed. o Yes o No To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From james.johnston@s... Thu Nov 30 05:44:42 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: james.johnston@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 13:44:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 44006 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 13:44:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 13:44:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO oxmail.ox.ac.uk) (129.67.1.180) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 13:44:41 -0000 Received: from wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.228] ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 141U0u-0005bR-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:44:40 +0000 Received: from httpd by wing4.herald.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 141U0u-0000bs-00 for Pure_Nomic@egroups.com; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:44:40 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:44:40 +0100 To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: New Proposals Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: James Johnston From: James Johnston Just to inform everyone (as no doubt the system will do automatically anyway) that I've put two proposals up on the website for voting: 1. As part of the proposal of a rule, the proposer must suggest a short, descriptive name for the rule they are proposing, which will become the name of that rule if the rule is passed. This rule is also to be applied retrospectively. (In the end I chose not to include a clause about numbering, because there's nothing to stop us numbering the rules as well, and since we already are doing I didn't feel a rule making it compulsory was necessary. But if anyone feels that it is, do propose one) 2. If by the end of the time-limit for a given proposal there have been no votes against said proposal, it is considered passed. Voting on both these proposals closes on the 9th, so everyone *please* vote, because until we pass proposal number 2 we still have to have *everyone's* vote in order to pass a new rule. Thanks Jamie From Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Thu Nov 30 06:21:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 95710 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 14:21:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 14:21:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 14:21:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.51] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 14:21:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 33769 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Nov 2000 14:21:45 -0000 Date: 30 Nov 2000 14:21:45 -0000 Message-ID: <975594105.33768@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: polls From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Subject: Poll results for Pure_Nomic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following Pure_Nomic poll is now closed. Here are the final results: POLL QUESTION: I propose that whatever the outcome of the game will eventually be, it will not be valid unless all proposals ever proposed are available for all contestants at that point, to examine them that is. CHOICES AND RESULTS - yes, that's a good rule!, 2 votes, 33.33% - no, it will spoil the game.., 4 votes, 66.67% For more information about this group, please visit http://www.egroups.com/group/Pure_Nomic For help with eGroups, please visit http://www.egroups.com/help From wandrer@w... Thu Nov 30 06:31:42 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: wandrer@c... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 14:31:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 27465 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 14:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 14:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO amsmta02-svc.chello.nl) (213.46.240.7) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 14:31:42 -0000 Received: from marcel ([212.83.85.161]) by amsmta02-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 1753790c58305fd3f286395c4a42fdc7) with SMTP id <20001130142800.VEMN4999.amsmta02-svc@marcel> for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:28:00 +0100 Message-ID: <005501c05ada$58610ea0$a15553d4@c...> To: References: <975591465.6282@egroups.com> Subject: Re: [Pure_Nomic] New poll for Pure_Nomic Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:32:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Stefan [The Wanderer]" From: "Stefan [The Wanderer]" Is this a new rule, or a replacement for the first rule, or just a change to the first rule? I believe that if it's a new rule, we would end up with 2 contradictory rules: 1) All changes must be agreed to by all players 2) No votes against it would mean a rule is passed. So I would like to see this rule formulated differently: "If a player does not vote against a rule within the time limit, this implies that he is in favour of it. If no-one has voted within the time limit, the rule shall be discarded." If you re-formulate it in this or a similar way, I will vote in favour of it. Stefan Just use the power of your Mind... ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 2:37 PM Subject: [Pure_Nomic] New poll for Pure_Nomic > > Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the Pure_Nomic > group: > > > If by the end of the time-limit for a > given proposal there have been no votes > against said proposal, it is considered > passed. > > o Yes > o No > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > > http://www.egroups.com/polls/Pure_Nomic > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups > web site listed above. > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > From wandrer@w... Thu Nov 30 13:41:24 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: S.H.M.v.Zwam@s... X-Apparently-To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 21:41:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 5466 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 21:41:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 21:41:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 21:41:12 -0000 Received: from studentex4.student.tue.nl (studentex4.student.tue.nl [131.155.4.29]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eAULfBn02074 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:41:11 +0100 (MET) Received: by studentex4.student.tue.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:41:11 +0100 Message-ID: <9D1F2A264056D4118EEB00508BE3D0790F9DB4@s...> To: "'Pure_Nomic@egroups.com'" Subject: RE: [Pure_Nomic] Poll results for Pure_Nomic Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:41:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-eGroups-From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." From: "Zwam, S.H.M.v." This one hasn't passed. I guess that means we will have to keep our own record of the rules.... Stefan. --- Just use the power of your Mind.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com [mailto:Pure_Nomic@egroups.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 15:22 > To: Pure_Nomic@egroups.com > Subject: [Pure_Nomic] Poll results for Pure_Nomic > > > > The following Pure_Nomic poll is now closed. Here are the > final results: > > > POLL QUESTION: I propose that whatever the outcome of > the game will eventually be, it will > not be valid unless all proposals ever > proposed are available for all > contestants at that point, to examine > them that is. > > > > CHOICES AND RESULTS > - yes, that's a good rule!, 2 votes, 33.33% > - no, it will spoil the game.., 4 votes, 66.67% > > > > For more information about this group, please visit > http://www.egroups.com/group/Pure_Nomic > > For help with eGroups, please visit > http://www.egroups.com/help > > > > > > > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor > -------------------------~-~> > eGroups eLerts > It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! > http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/_/_/9755