________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 17:42:55) From: Reverend Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Haar Yeah, right - you were originally going to require "yes," "no," or nothing. What an alternative. Josh _____________________________________________ Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. - engraving on David Hilbert's tombstone >>This seems to be reasonable, except that we have no rule for dealing with >>abstention. > Hmmm.... I seem to recall someone proposing a bill that dealt with >vote casting. Don't think it passed, though. > >beN > >"Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." > -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that >the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. > >Looking for unique quotes? Visit >http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ > > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 14:43:54) From: Adam Haar Subject: Protest of Judgement The extension of this debate cannot be allowed to stand. The Rules state, "A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote." Therefore it is the decision of the Proponent when to call a Vote. The Judge may only intervene in a case where a Protest has been made before the Call to Vote. The only way in which a Judgement could be made in this matter is for the Judge to rule that the meaning of "reasonable" should be decided by a majority of the players. Unfortunately our Judge did not make his thoughts on the matter public and has now wrecked our chance to fix the debate of this Proposal. Judges please remember, when making a Judgement add as your comments the rationale upon which you base your decision. Why do you think the US Supreme Court gives Opinions and Dissenting Opinions on each case? It's so that the reasoning on a ruling is clear and legal. I unfortunately must demand that the votes colleceted after the last call to vote be kept and the vote finished disregarding this secondary debate session. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 15:48:33) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Protest of Judgement At 02:43 PM 4/1/98 -0600, you wrote: >The extension of this debate cannot be allowed to stand. The Rules state, >"A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides >the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the >Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and >vote." Therefore it is the decision of the Proponent when to call a Vote. >The Judge may only intervene in a case where a Protest has been made before >the Call to Vote. The rule does not say that the protest must be made before the call to vote. If someone did indeed make a protest that there hadn't been enought time for debate BEFORE the call to vote, it would be ludicrous, as there would still be time left for debate!!! >The only way in which a Judgement could be made in this >matter is for the Judge to rule that the meaning of "reasonable" should be >decided by a majority of the players. Unfortunately our Judge did not make >his thoughts on the matter public and has now wrecked our chance to fix the >debate of this Proposal. > >Judges please remember, when making a Judgement add as your comments the >rationale upon which you base your decision. Why do you think the US >Supreme Court gives Opinions and Dissenting Opinions on each case? It's so >that the reasoning on a ruling is clear and legal. > >I unfortunately must demand that the votes colleceted after the last call >to vote be kept and the vote finished disregarding this secondary debate >session. > >Adam Haar > >Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting >through life without ever succeeding. > Is this a protest or a call to overturn Dave's judgment? If this is a protest: Since Dave doesn't think there has been enough time for debate, he will probably arrive at the same ruling on this protest: that there hasn't been enough time for debate. If this is a call to overturn Dave's Judgment as per rule 212: To overturn a judgment, the rest of the players must vote unanimously to do so. For the record, I vote to leave Dave's judgment as it is. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 16:32:30) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: consistency and Haar Why is Haar protesting Dave's decision for there to be more debate when Haar voted "no" because he thought there hadn't been enough debate? Is that the Guiness talking again? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 19:13:36) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: allan's proposal I feel it would be confusing to start intermixing mutable and immutable rules in the 100's. I know it's not hard to just mention in parentheses that it's a mutable rule or whatever, but I just worry that if we don't try to maintain some semblance of order that eventually 10 years from now when the ruleset is huge and we're still playing that it will have somehow gotten out of hand. I think moving 302 to 214 would be more appropriate that moving it back to 108, since it is mutable. beN "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 20:13:44) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: allan's proposal That's a good idea, ben. I'll include that in my rewrite of the proposal. See, that wasn't so hard, no attacks and /or exclamation marks. Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 20:52:57) From: Nick Osborn Subject: my roommates an ass >I feel it would be confusing to start intermixing mutable and >immutable rules in the 100's. -ben byrne joel will not vote for a proposal that would change the number of any amended rule, not even transmuted rules. either become happy with unsegregated mutabilities, or start verbally assaulting him into submission. n ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 21:1:19) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: my roommates an ass At 08:52 PM 4/1/98 -0600, you wrote: >>I feel it would be confusing to start intermixing mutable and >>immutable rules in the 100's. >-ben byrne > >joel will not vote for a proposal that would change the number of any >amended rule, not even transmuted rules. either become happy with >unsegregated mutabilities, or start verbally assaulting him into submission. > >n Apparently consistently supporting a specific goal makese me an ass. If the proposal does not strike the entire second paragraph of 302, then I cannot vote for it, as that undoes the change I was hoping for. As for verbally assualting me into submission, you know where I live... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 21:39:5) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: allan's proposal At 07:13 PM 4/1/98 -0600, you wrote: > I feel it would be confusing to start intermixing mutable and >immutable rules in the 100's. I know it's not hard to just mention in >parentheses that it's a mutable rule or whatever, but I just worry that if >we don't try to maintain some semblance of order that eventually 10 years >from now when the ruleset is huge and we're still playing that it will have >somehow gotten out of hand. I think moving 302 to 214 would be more >appropriate that moving it back to 108, since it is mutable. > >beN > >"Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." > -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that >the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. > >Looking for unique quotes? Visit >http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ > If keeping order in the rules is your concern, consider the following: under the current ruleset, any rules that are transmuted to immutable rules could NOT appear in the 100's, which I would presume is also a concern of yours. If the first sentence of paragraph two of rule 302 is not striken with the rest of the paragraph, new immutable rules would still be out of place even though such a change would prevent mutable rules from appearing in the 100's. Altering Allan's proposal in this way to keep mutables out of the 100's should, from your perspective, just exchange one "problem" for another. Maintaining rule numbers regardless of mutablity prevents incorrect references in Judgments, someting I think is far more important than having all of the immutable rules in one place. Ten years from now under my system, I will still be able to sort through the ruleset to find the immutable rules (as they are clearly marked), while under your system the Judgment archive will become hopelessly garbled. Take your pick, I'd rather be able to read the Judgments and have them still make sense -- I can always search for the word "immutable". J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 21:53:31) From: Your Mom Subject: Discussion I strongly encourage anyone who will vote no on this proposal, as is, to indicate the of cause of your dissatisfaction. The passage of this proposal is very important to the continuation, speed, and enjoyment of this game. Why? It has been made clear to me that Joel will not vote for any other proposal until this one is passed. Others refuse to pass this rule. If these stances remain stable, we will suffer through 30 more rejected proposals until unanimity is eliminated by the existing rules. But why vote for this proposal? 1. It will make discussion much easier if all rules retain their current numbers. 2. Rule precedence will not be screwed up inadvertantly by ameding or transmuting a rule if this rule passes. 3. There are no negative effects (to my knowledge) except that rules in the 100s would no longer be only immutable and all non-100 numbers would necessarily be mutable rules. This is, in my opinion, a relatively unimportant problem that has more to do with aesthetics than the game and would not be avoided even under current rules. 4. If for no other reason, do it because it will make the game more fun for everyone. There is no need to directly reply to this message. I just thought I would offer my thoughts to everyone (something I have rarely taken time to do so far). Please vote for the passage of this proposal unless you have an extremely important reason. If you do have a reason not to vote for it I have not addressed please speak up; the final form can still be changed. The gospel according to Damon, the first chapter. Damon __________ Bicycle racing was the only sport in the world. - Ernest Hemingway ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 23:52:2) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Fine then I'll vote for the goddamn proposal. Are you happy now? "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 1:37:43) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Fine then Wow, if THAT'S all it takes to get you to vote for things... Josh ___________________________________________________________________________ ... it seems to me that teaching critical thinking via popular-art examples holds the potential for making people both capable of critical thought and inclined toward it, whereas teaching it through _The Scarlet Letter_ just makes people associate the process with unpleasantness. - Glenn McDonald > I'll vote for the goddamn proposal. Are you happy now? > >"Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." > -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that >the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. > >Looking for unique quotes? Visit >http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ > > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 1:40:48) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: allan's proposal >rather be able to read the Judgments and have them still make sense -- I >can always search for the word "immutable". grep is cool. Josh ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 1:45:42) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: my roommates an ass >>I feel it would be confusing to start intermixing mutable and >>immutable rules in the 100's. >-ben byrne > >joel will not vote for a proposal that would change the number of any >amended rule, not even transmuted rules. either become happy with >unsegregated mutabilities, or start verbally assaulting him into submission. I believe the correct word phrase would be "without integrated mutabilities." :) Joel has made his point quite well, but allow me to give an example, as I am wont to do: Suppose we have 56 oranges and 42 apples. We line these fruits up in a row, unsorted with regard to fruit type. That "disorganization" does not really hinder one from finding a given fruit in the row - one can see, at a quick glance, whether a fruit is an apple or orange. Similarly, the "immutable" tag on an immutable rule makes it easy to find. True, since the finding is done with a computer, that find may be slow for very long lists of rules, but by the time we have a list that long, I suspect we'll have a more efficient storage format than flat-file ASCII. Josh ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 1:47:22) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: consistency and Haar Why is it that no one can spell Guinness right? Perhaps I've just been spelling it incorrectly all along... Harr's funny like that. I don't think it's Guinness. He did make some blueberry muffins recently, though. Josh ___________________________________________________________________________ ... it seems to me that teaching critical thinking via popular-art examples holds the potential for making people both capable of critical thought and inclined toward it, whereas teaching it through _The Scarlet Letter_ just makes people associate the process with unpleasantness. - Glenn McDonald >Why is Haar protesting Dave's decision for there to be more debate when >Haar voted "no" because he thought there hadn't been enough debate? Is that >the Guiness talking again? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 15:24:26) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: What I Believe (at least with regards to 303) The reason I voted down the pre-protest 303 (has there been a restatement? I haven't seen one, but the discussion has sounded like there was one) was that the problem with the changing of rule numbers was not dealt with before this one attempted to changed 108 back to its original number. The problem being this: When a rule is amended or transmuted, it gets its number changed to the proposal to amend or transmute it (108->302). The new proposal wants to send the rule back to its original number (302->108). The proposal to do so will cause the rule to be changed to the rule to the number of the proposal to do so (302->303). Hence a paradox. Two different rules are trying to renumber the same rule. As to whether this is a game-ending paradox, or whether it can be resolved on the basis of 211 is something that needs to be Judged. However, with the short shrift that discussion got and the call for quick votes, I voted no. Should this be found to be not to be a paradox, I'll still probably vote against it, since we'd have to revote to change the number again when we change the rule regarding numbering. It might be legal, but pointless (and I'm ever the aethete). So whoever's next, fix that first. Chris ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 15:51:6) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: a thought Maybe rule 302/303/108/whatever ought to simply read "rule proposals which pass receive whatever number they are proposed to receive. All proposals must include the proposed number the rule shall take if passed" or something like that. We could just ditch a formalized system and go to an informal one, where generally rules receive the next 300 value appropriate, but proposers can choose instead for a rule or rule change to have a different number. This is just a conceptual suggest for how I feel 108/302 should read in order for us to proceed with the most straightforward game possible. It makes sense to me to just leave it up to the proposer, and if whatever number he chooses is inappropriate, we can either vote against the proposal or in discuss convince the proposer to number his rule otherwise. That way we can deal with numbering on a rule by rule basis and keep things as non-paridoxical or as confusing as we want. This is just a suggestion off the top of my head. beN "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 20:32:33) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: What I Believe (at least with regards to 303) At 03:24 PM 4/2/98 CST, you wrote: >The reason I voted down the pre-protest 303 (has there been a >restatement? I haven't seen one, but the discussion has sounded like >there was one) was that the problem with the changing of rule numbers was >not dealt with before this one attempted to changed 108 back to its >original number. > >The problem being this: > >When a rule is amended or transmuted, it gets its number changed to the >proposal to amend or transmute it (108->302). Agreed. >The new proposal wants to send the rule back to its original number >(302->108). Agreed. >The proposal to do so will cause the rule to be changed to the rule to >the number of the proposal to do so (302->303). Here is where we depart. Josh and I have already discussed this at length, so more in-depth analysis of the topic can be found in past messages. I am of the opinion that once the rule change takes place (making it 108 again), the section relating to renumbering no longer exists, so renumbering (to 303) does not take place -- hence there is no problem. >Hence a paradox. Two different rules are trying to renumber the same >rule. > >As to whether this is a game-ending paradox, or whether it can be >resolved on the basis of 211 is something that needs to be Judged. >However, with the short shrift that discussion got and the call for quick >votes, I voted no. > >Should this be found to be not to be a paradox, I'll still probably vote >against it, since we'd have to revote to change the number again when we >change the rule regarding numbering. It might be legal, but pointless >(and I'm ever the aethete). So whoever's next, fix that first. > >Chris > I'm not sure I follow you here. This DOES change the rule regarding numbering, so no further action would be necessary if this passes. Please expand upon this point, as I sense we may not be refering to the same thing here. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 21:53:46) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re: Consistency and Haar Yes my stance on this Proposal, subsequent Judgement, and renewed debate is somewhat inconsistent on the surface. Please, let me clarify for all those who do not understand the workings of my mind (please feel no insult, I'm explaining to myself here too). First I voted against the Proposal as I felt that insufficient time was given for debate. A Call for Judgement was made and the Judgement came down to renew debate and restart voting after the second round of debate. I protest that decision (but do not call to overturn it) because the Judge failed to explain his reasoning for the judgement. We must remember we are setting precedents with our Judgements. Without proper elucidation as to the reasoning and rationale behind the Judgement precedence cannot be set as their is no basis but tradition upon which to judge subsequent similar Calls. I'm simply trying to make the process work, if that must come at the detriment of certain players I apologize. We must understand this is a game of making rules, in doing so we must follow certain Meta-Rules as to the process. When Prop 303 is brought to a vote again, in whatever form it comes I will re-address my concerns and re-think my vote but I still believe we should not have re-debated the Proposition. Yes, the Guinness has been getting to me from time to time, just check when my posts are made, after 2am it's probably the Guinness (note correct spelling of the name of the god of beer). Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 23:31:54) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Consistency and Haar No one cares except you, Haar. Josh ___________________________________________________________________________ ... it seems to me that teaching critical thinking via popular-art examples holds the potential for making people both capable of critical thought and inclined toward it, whereas teaching it through _The Scarlet Letter_ just makes people associate the process with unpleasantness. - Glenn McDonald >Yes my stance on this Proposal, subsequent Judgement, and renewed debate is >somewhat inconsistent on the surface. Please, let me clarify for all those >who do not understand the workings of my mind (please feel no insult, I'm >explaining to myself here too). First I voted against the Proposal as I >felt that insufficient time was given for debate. A Call for Judgement was >made and the Judgement came down to renew debate and restart voting after >the second round of debate. I protest that decision (but do not call to >overturn it) because the Judge failed to explain his reasoning for the >judgement. We must remember we are setting precedents with our Judgements. > Without proper elucidation as to the reasoning and rationale behind the >Judgement precedence cannot be set as their is no basis but tradition upon >which to judge subsequent similar Calls. I'm simply trying to make the >process work, if that must come at the detriment of certain players I >apologize. We must understand this is a game of making rules, in doing so >we must follow certain Meta-Rules as to the process. When Prop 303 is >brought to a vote again, in whatever form it comes I will re-address my >concerns and re-think my vote but I still believe we should not have >re-debated the Proposition. > >Yes, the Guinness has been getting to me from time to time, just check when >my posts are made, after 2am it's probably the Guinness (note correct >spelling of the name of the god of beer). > > >Adam Haar > >Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting >through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 2, 1998 (Thu, 23:38:55) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: What I Believe (at least with regards to 303) >At 03:24 PM 4/2/98 CST, you wrote: >>The reason I voted down the pre-protest 303 (has there been a >>restatement? I haven't seen one, but the discussion has sounded like >>there was one) was that the problem with the changing of rule numbers was >>not dealt with before this one attempted to changed 108 back to its >>original number. >> >>The problem being this: >> >>When a rule is amended or transmuted, it gets its number changed to the >>proposal to amend or transmute it (108->302). > >Agreed. > >>The new proposal wants to send the rule back to its original number >>(302->108). > >Agreed. > >>The proposal to do so will cause the rule to be changed to the rule to >>the number of the proposal to do so (302->303). > >Here is where we depart. Josh and I have already discussed this at length, >so more in-depth analysis of the topic can be found in past messages. I am >of the opinion that once the rule change takes place (making it 108 again), >the section relating to renumbering no longer exists, so renumbering (to >303) does not take place -- hence there is no problem. One problem - Regardless of which of us may be correct, that determination would probably fall to Chapman, as the paradox seems like it would result in a judgement (correct me if I'm wrong). So it's not that YOU have to be "right" - you have to get Dave to agree with you. Hmmmmmmmmm. > >>Hence a paradox. Two different rules are trying to renumber the same >>rule. >> >>As to whether this is a game-ending paradox, or whether it can be >>resolved on the basis of 211 is something that needs to be Judged. >>However, with the short shrift that discussion got and the call for quick >>votes, I voted no. >> >>Should this be found to be not to be a paradox, I'll still probably vote >>against it, since we'd have to revote to change the number again when we >>change the rule regarding numbering. It might be legal, but pointless >>(and I'm ever the aethete). So whoever's next, fix that first. >> >>Chris >> > >I'm not sure I follow you here. This DOES change the rule regarding >numbering, so no further action would be necessary if this passes. Please >expand upon this point, as I sense we may not be refering to the same thing >here. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 3, 1998 (Fri, 0:16:43) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: protest I request a judgment as to what would happen if proposal 303 were passed. I contend that upon the passage of proposal 303, the second paragraph of rule 302 would be stricken, rule 302 would be renumbered 108, and nothing more. Rule 108 would not be renumbered 303 to match the current proposal number, as the clause that would cause such a thing to happen would no longer exist by the time renumbering would normally occur. Renumbering due to rule 302 is caused by the amendment of some rule. As an effect, it cannot occur simultaneously with its cause (the amendment of some rule). Since the amendment and renumbering cannot happen concurrently, renumbering cannot occur before the next infinitesimal increment of time. Due to this, the ruleset will be altered BEFORE any number change takes place, thereby preventing one, since the portion of the rule governing number changes was removed. Essentially, the question to be judged is: Does rule 302 become rule 303 if proposal 303 is passed, or does it become rule 108? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 3, 1998 (Fri, 1:5:3) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: What I Believe (at least with regards to 303) What is happening here is tha I'm waiting to get a good idea of how everyone would like me to revise the proposal so I can change it. In short, DEBATE ALREADY. I'm watching for a good (side note Ben gets a visit from DPS as I am speaking...) example of what everyone thinks would make the rule not game ending (or appears to be to all of you) so we can get on with the game. Right now in my mind I am considering adding something about the order of the rule number changes, so there will be no confusion. I am not going to put in a permanent rule on that, since that would be someone elses proposal, and not mine to make. (a follow up on the side note, it may have been the Ames Police. [ahhh Harwood in Spring]) So go ahead and tell me what you think. Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 3, 1998 (Fri, 1:6:25) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: a thought Or maybe "rule 108 B"? ________________________________________ Date: Apr 3, 1998 (Fri, 1:12:32) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Consistency and Haar Isn't Gunniess and ale? Or am I mistaken as I very well could be. Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 3, 1998 (Fri, 1:27:37) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: a thought At 01:06 AM 4/3/98 CST, you wrote: >Or maybe "rule 108 B"? > I can increment the version numbers of rules as they are changed. That's what the /0 is for. If Dave agrees with my protest, there should be no problems with your proposal as it stands, as most of the no votes were due to the quick call for vote, and I think a favorable judgment will remove Mr. Mayfield's objections about the possibility of this proposal creating a paradox. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 6, 1998 (Mon, 19:46:47) From: David H Chapman Subject: Judgement 108 302 303???s My Judgement: The dropping of the last part of 302 and the changing of rule 302 to 108 will happen at the same time if 303 passes. Rule 302 will not become 303 because of the dropped section, so there is no paradox. Comments: I no way are judges REQUIRED to make comments! Dave C --- David H Chapman dchapman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 7, 1998 (Tue, 14:42:17) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: any more debate on 303? Since Judgment 5 has cleared up the the objections that Chris Mayfield and Josh Kortbein had (hopefully?), and there has been no other debate for about a week, I suggest that Allan call a vote. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 7, 1998 (Tue, 20:52:26) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: any more debate on 303? sounds good to me VOTE YE DOGS! Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 7, 1998 (Tue, 21:26:53) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Re: any more debate on 303? Forgive my stupidity, but Allan, could you please repost proposal 303 to the group? I forgot exactly how it reads. "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 7, 1998 (Tue, 22:39:21) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: repost of proposal 303 Just in case anyone has forgotten what the proposal is: Proposal 303 Remove the second paragraph of rule 302 (108). Change the number of rule 302 (108) back to 108. I beleive that the () are just annotation on Allan's part to avoid (or cause, as the case may be) confusion. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 8, 1998 (Wed, 13:15:53) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: any more debate on 303? oh, hey gotcha. Prop. 303 Remove the second paragraph of rule 302 and change the number of 302 to 108. If that differs from my original that anyone can tell, just let me know, because I re-wrote that from memory. Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 9, 1998 (Thu, 23:59:57) From: Reverend Josh Kortbein Subject: On Recent Game Delays The game will be unable to proceed until we decide a course of action with regard to Haar. Haar's service with Amesnet has ended, and with it his account. Thus Haar will be unable to vote in the immediate future. He is planning on procuring a Truserv account soon. He has asked that I request that we allow all his votes in the interim to be cast automatically as "abstain" votes. I see some problems with this, but go ahead and discuss. Josh _____________________________________________ Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. - engraving on David Hilbert's tombstone ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 8:33:48) From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: On Recent Game Delays According to Rule 203 the votes have to be unanimous among the voters. The way I read this is that everyone must vote "yes", "affirmative", etc. for the proposal to pass. Thus, Haar's vote of "abstain" would not allow any proposal to pass until after the first two rounds of play or we change the rule unanimously. What does everyone else think? jeff At 11:59 PM 4/9/98 -0500, you wrote: > >The game will be unable to proceed until we decide a course of action >with regard to Haar. > >Haar's service with Amesnet has ended, and with it his account. Thus Haar >will be unable to vote in the immediate future. He is planning on procuring >a Truserv account soon. > >He has asked that I request that we allow all his votes in the interim to >be cast automatically as "abstain" votes. > >I see some problems with this, but go ahead and discuss. > >Josh ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 9:56:26) From: The Mafia Subject: Unanimous I think I agree with Jeff. Everyone who can vote must vote, and Haar is a voting player. Unanimous means affirmative votes from every player. He has to say yes or it doesn't pass. I believe there are two acceptable solutions: 1. Assume his vote is Yes instead of abstain. 2. Have him vote via Josh's or Chris' accounts. Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 10:35:30) From: Reverend Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Unanimous Haar's take on the matter was that everyone who casts a yes or no (or non-abstain, really) vote is _casting a vote._ Those who cast abstain votes are saying "no thanks, I'd rather sit this one out" - and the remaining votes are compared, for purposes of unanimity, to number of people - number of abstainers. This seems to be reasonable, except that we have no rule for dealing with abstention. I think it's best if we try to find some way to temporarily divert the game around Haar, so that he doesn't bring it to an even fuller stop than it's already at. Are people allowed to cast ballots from others' email addresses? The 1-1 mapping of people to addresses seems to be the only way to ensure vote security. Josh _____________________________________________ Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. - engraving on David Hilbert's tombstone > >I think I agree with Jeff. Everyone who can vote must vote, and Haar is a >voting player. Unanimous means affirmative votes from every player. He >has to say yes or it doesn't pass. I believe there are two acceptable >solutions: > >1. Assume his vote is Yes instead of abstain. > >2. Have him vote via Josh's or Chris' accounts. > >Damon > >__________ > > > I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. > Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows > tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes > go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and > I won't change my mind. > > - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 10:49:39) From: Nick Osborn Subject: fly named haar in the ointment just what does it mean if haar abstains? by 207 each player has one vote. is a unanimous vote, per 203, possible if every vote is not affirmative? ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 10:51:54) From: Nick Osborn Subject: Re: On Recent Game Delays there is no rule against voting by proxy. n ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 10:52:30) From: Reverend Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: On Recent Game Delays Huh huh, huh huh, huh huh...... He said "proxy" _____________________________________________ Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. - engraving on David Hilbert's tombstone >there is no rule against voting by proxy. > >n ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 11:21:37) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Haar I vote we just kick him out of the game! :) "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 12:32:25) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Haar >This seems to be reasonable, except that we have no rule for dealing with >abstention. Hmmm.... I seem to recall someone proposing a bill that dealt with vote casting. Don't think it passed, though. beN "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 12:33:19) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Unanimous At 10:35 AM 4/10/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Haar's take on the matter was that everyone who casts a yes or no >(or non-abstain, really) vote is _casting a vote._ Those who cast abstain >votes are saying "no thanks, I'd rather sit this one out" - and the remaining >votes are compared, for purposes of unanimity, to number of people - number >of abstainers. > >This seems to be reasonable, except that we have no rule for dealing with >abstention. > >I think it's best if we try to find some way to temporarily divert the >game around Haar, so that he doesn't bring it to an even fuller stop than >it's already at. > >Are people allowed to cast ballots from others' email addresses? The >1-1 mapping of people to addresses seems to be the only way to ensure >vote security. > >Josh > The problem with the "sitting this one out" interpretation of abstentions is that rule 105 mandates that everyone who is playing votes. Haar is playing, thus he must vote. Abstentions are non-"yes" votes, so everything would indeed fail until the next round ends. I have no problem with Haar voting through Josh or Chris (since I assume that they are honest), and there is currently no rule about voting by proxy. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 10, 1998 (Fri, 16:14:38) From: The Mafia Subject: Haar I agree with Joel. Although I would like to accept Haar's absentions, I don't think we can and still pass things unanimously. And Ben, get off it! Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: Apr 1, 1998 (Wed, 14:35:54) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: extended debate Now that we have more time for debate on Prop 303, maybe someone should say something about the proposal, especially those who voted against it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 11, 1998 (Sat, 23:13:14) From: Reverend Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Haar and voting That's something I wondered about, and not really something I'd care to deal with. _____________________________________________ Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. - engraving on David Hilbert's tombstone >I see no problem with Haar voting through you for now, but what do we do >about him getting all of the messages in the interim? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 12, 1998 (Sun, 1:35:28) From: The Mafia Subject: Haar Have Haar call Joel on the phone or something. Anything! Just get him to vote, dammit! Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: Apr 12, 1998 (Sun, 13:35:7) From: Reverend Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Haar Chris and I were gone for quiz bowl this weekend, and now Haar is gone. I suppose you can just have Joel vote yes for Haar, and we can see how it all shakes out rule-wise if there's a problem with that. Haar hasn't told me he wanted to vote yes, but he was willing to abstain anyway, which from his point of view would have caused to proposal to pass. Josh ___________________________________________________________________ What's the deal with all these dead people? Does modern music get _no_ respect? - found on discarded scratch paper at Iowa's spring tournament > >Have Haar call Joel on the phone or something. Anything! Just get him to >vote, dammit! > >Damon > >__________ > > > I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. > Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows > tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes > go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and > I won't change my mind. > > - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: Apr 12, 1998 (Sun, 14:22:14) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn Proposal 303 has passed. It is now Nate Ellefson's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 13, 1998 (Mon, 13:38:37) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Hear ye, hear ye! Alright! Now that no one will be trying to "zwrite" me multiple times while I'm writing this and screw me up, I can probably complete this psudo-proposal. Here is my intention: Since we only have less than four weeks of school left, and some of us will not have reliable email access during the summer, I'm interested in getting the real part of this game going. SO! The gist of my proposal will be to require either a majority of votes cast to pass a proposal or a super majority of 60% to pass something. I am not sure what exactly I will propose, and I decided to wait until after debate to make the firm proposal, so please register your opinion on the matter. So, there you have it. Incidentally, I am calling a "reasonable" amount of debate 1 day. Expect a call to vote sometime tomorrow afternoon or early evening. Nate ________________________________________ Date: Apr 13, 1998 (Mon, 14:8:15) From: The Mafia Subject: Majority I like Nate's proposal. I think everyone should like Nate's proposal. I think everyone has been bitching about how long this game has been taking. I think everyone has had the right to bitch, as this game has been going extremely slowly. Nate's proposal to combat this is a good one. I will support the proposal with a simple majority passing things. I would also suggest to the next couple players, who should be considering what to propose, that they think about imposing time limits. These time limits eliminating the mandatory voting problem - a problem which could prove crippling to the game if not dealt with before break. Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: Apr 13, 1998 (Mon, 14:19:41) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: second Nate- I agree with you and Damon. A simple majority should be all we need. "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 13, 1998 (Mon, 15:10:0) From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: second Yea, and I agree with Ben and Damon (whoa... weird...). I was originally going to make the same proposal myself, SO I am definitely behind changing to a simple majority requirement as soon as possible. -Matt Kuhns ________________________________________ Date: Apr 13, 1998 (Mon, 15:22:17) From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: third I third (or fourth if Kuhns is considered a third) the proposal. Actually, if Nate is firsting, Damon is seconding, Ben is thirding and Kuhns is fourthing, so I guess I'm fifthing this suggested proposal. I would be all about a simple majority. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Apr 13, 1998 (Mon, 15:45:40) From: Ryan B Peterson Subject: thirding and fourthing Hey guys, I don't want to be rude or anything, but "discussion" should probably involve bringing up relevant points and stuff about what is being "discussed." We don't need messages posted to the group saying "I agree!!!" That's what the vote is for. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 13, 1998 (Mon, 16:23:33) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: okay then My suggestion is to make the proposal phrased in such a way that simply a majority is required, rather than 60% or anything more complicated that will make the brains of us design majrs hurt. "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 14, 1998 (Tue, 18:9:42) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Proposal Alright! I'm sure you're all on the edges of your seats to find out what I have ultimately decided will be my proposal. Well, here goes nothing! Note that this should only change rule 203. A rule-change is adopted if a simple majority of votes cast are in the affirmative, or some reasonable variation of affirmative. Ties result in the proposal's defeat. Wasn't that exciting? The clerk will now call the role... ________________________________________ Date: Apr 16, 1998 (Thu, 19:19:2) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: CFV on 304 In case anyone didn't notice, Nate did call for a vote on 304. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 17, 1998 (Fri, 22:49:11) From: Guito Subject: Fuckhead Award This award goes to Nick Osborn. He was the only one to vote against this proposal. He was UNANIMOUSLY voted in fuckhead of the year. Will he ever be able to redeem himself? No, he's most likely a fuckhead for life. Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: Apr 17, 1998 (Fri, 22:53:25) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: vote results and next turn Proposal 304 has failed (15-1). In case anyone doesn't know, the actual vote results can be found at the web page under "Proposals and Voting." It is now Adam Haar's turn. This again raises the question of what we should do since Haar doesn't have e-mail right now... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 18, 1998 (Sat, 1:50:52) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Hmmmmmm... Well, there you have it. 15-1, and it failed. Frankly, this is kinda the reason why I wanted this proposal in the first place. Ironic, no? So, you all will excuse me while I blow off a little steam. WHY DID YOU VOTE AGAINST SOMETHING SO FUNDAMENTALLY SENSIBLE?!?!?!?!?!?!?! WHY DID YOU NOT SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS EARLIER?!?!?!?!?!!?! DO YOU HAVE A COMPLETE AVERSION TO ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING IN THIS GAME?!?!?! AAAAARRRGGH!!!!!!!! Thank you. If your name is not Nick Osborne, none of the questions were directed at you. Well, let the games continue. I'm just thrilled to pieces to see what the next proposal is that will require absloute consensus. And the 11 after that. And the 16 after that. But I digress. Nate ________________________________________ Date: Apr 18, 1998 (Sat, 2:39:46) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Haar's proposal When the votes cast are considered, only votes equivalent to "yes" or "no" are counted toward the passage or non-passage of a proposal. Thus, "abstain" votes do not go toward the total actual "votes cast." If a simple majority of the votes cast are "abstain" votes, then a proposal cannot pass. Such proposals are not explicitly "defeated" in the normal sense, and bookkeepers may wish to denote this. NB: A simple majority is defined as the smallest integer m such that m > N / 2, where N is the number of players voting (including all no, yes, abstain, candy bar, etc. votes). Commentary: This proposal is meant as a workaround for hosers like Haar who can possibly screw up voting due to inability to cast votes normally. It can also be useful for people who are leaving town for an extended period of time, such as a weekend. Example: Of 17 people, 10 vote yes, 5 vote no, and 2 abstain. The passage criteria are applied to a total of (10 + 5) = 15 votes, rather than the 17 of the current rules. Example: Of 17 people, 4 vote yes, 2 vote no, and 11 abstain. 11 is a simple majority, so the proposal cannot pass. Josh ___________________________________________________________________ "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 18, 1998 (Sat, 3:56:11) From: Nick Osborn my apologies. i had intended to bring up my disagreement with the proposition during debate, but i guess i let time get away from me. as we are still laying the groundwork for the game, i thought it would be beneficial to retain the unanimity clause. unless i am mistaken, it seems that everyone should agree on rules that will guide the rest of the game. in contrast, rules that are intended to give advantage to only some players should certainly not be held to the same standard. if anyone can convince me that the necessary groundwork is already laid, i will protest that the discussion time was not sufficient and, pending the judges decision, change my vote to the affirmative. treasonous remo the fuckhead ("osborn" doesnt have an "e") ________________________________________ Date: Apr 18, 1998 (Sat, 12:16:20) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: all no sleep and no sleep make josh tired ------- Forwarded Message Received: from pop-1.iastate.edu (pop-1.iastate.edu [129.186.6.61]) by pop-3.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21517; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:05:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from isua3.iastate.edu (isua3.iastate.edu [129.186.1.139]) by pop-1.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA22155 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:05:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (kortbein@localhost) by isua3.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA15424; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:05:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199804181705.MAA15424@isua3.iastate.edu> To: Nick Osborn Cc: quizbowl@iastate.edu In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 18 Apr 1998 03:56:11 CDT." <3.0.3.32.19980418035611.006a9328@pop-3.iastate.edu> ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:05:03 CDT From: Josh Kortbein X-UIDL: 1ae0d809e48ad302c8f8fd11b831516a Status: U >my apologies. i had intended to bring up my disagreement with the >proposition during debate, but i guess i let time get away from me. as we >are still laying the groundwork for the game, i thought it would be >beneficial to retain the unanimity clause. unless i am mistaken, it seems >that everyone should agree on rules that will guide the rest of the game. >in contrast, rules that are intended to give advantage to only some players >should certainly not be held to the same standard. Listen here, remo the fuckheade: If we don't come up with (probably) both a voting-timespan limit and a simple majority rule, the game will proceed at such a slow pace that it will not, effectively, be a GAME any more. It will be an avant-garde piece of collaboratively written minimalistic postmodern literature. Do you understand what I am saying? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING? > >if anyone can convince me that the necessary groundwork is already laid, i >will protest that the discussion time was not sufficient and, pending the >judges decision, change my vote to the affirmative. > >treasonous remo the fuckhead ("osborn" doesnt have an "e") ------- End of Forwarded Message Date: Apr 18, 1998 (Sat, 12:41:15) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: whats all this??? Persoanlly, i think "fuckhead" isn't apprpriate. Though only slighly different, I feel that "fuckwad"conveys Nicks worth as a human being much better. "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 18, 1998 (Sat, 14:0:57) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: whats all this??? That certainly does seem to have a sharper ring to it. Josh ___________________________________________________________________ "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. >Persoanlly, i think "fuckhead" isn't apprpriate. Though only slighly >different, I feel that "fuckwad"conveys Nicks worth as a human being much >better. > >"Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." > -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that >the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. > >Looking for unique quotes? Visit >http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ > > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 18, 1998 (Sat, 16:19:42) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Haar's proposal - discussion Just FYI: I know it's VEISHA and all, but please try to state objections to Haar's proposal by Sunday evening, because I intend to recommend to him that he have me call for a vote for him by then, as that seems to be sufficient time. Josh ___________________________________________________________________ "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 18, 1998 (Sat, 20:14:35) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Haar's proposal Regarding Haar's proposal-- I haven't examined possible ramifications of every technical detail of this idea yet, but on the surface it seems like a good proposal, and I support the concept. I would like to suggest one possible ammendment. Why not add the contents of the previous proposal to this bill, since they are so closely related anyway? I believe that if we proposed the simple majority requirement again, we could perhaps "encourage" certain recalcitrant parties (Remo, for example) to change previously-established attitudes. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Apr 19, 1998 (Sun, 6:32:1) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Haar's proposal >ok...let me be sure I'm clear on the nature of this proposal...this may >look like an idiotic, repetitive way of working through this, but I want to >make sure what I'm saying is well-grounded. :) >> >>When the votes cast are considered, only votes equivalent to "yes" >>or "no" are counted toward the passage or non-passage of a proposal. >>Thus, "abstain" votes do not go toward the total actual "votes cast." > >So then, the only change here is that abstaining votes become non-votes, so >to speak--they don't count against a required majority or unanimity... > >>If a simple majority of the votes cast are "abstain" votes, then a >>proposal cannot pass. Such proposals are not explicitly "defeated" >>in the normal sense, and bookkeepers may wish to denote this. > >...unless there is a simple majority of abstaining votes. > >>This proposal is meant as a workaround for hosers like Haar who >>can possibly screw up voting due to inability to cast votes normally. >>It can also be useful for people who are leaving town for an extended >>period of time, such as a weekend. >> > >Unless I'm sorely mistaken (which has been before and may well be the >case), this doesn't actually remove said "hosers" from the responsibility >of voting. I don't see anything here which counteracts rule 105--"Every >eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes." The Hoser >would still be required to enter a physical vote, be it yes, no, or "Jean >Kirkpatrick is nobody's baby," which is basically where we already stand. > >I don't see how this proposal would advance the game. You have interpreted the proposal as Haar meant. You do have a point, though, about it not changing much. The thought occurred to me but I haven't yet seen Haar since in order to discuss it with him. > >Also, I'm very much in favor of Kuhns' idea of adding the contents of >Nate's proposal to this one. While I can understand where Mr. Osborn is >coming from, I don't think that such qualms about the ethics of a >proposal--without an actual, concrete problem with it--justify killing an >otherwise greatly beneficial proposal. As far as I know, Haar seemed pretty set on JUST this in his proposal, nothing about simple majority passage. When I erroneously added it in, thinking that was what he wanted, he had me strike it. So, I will run that by him - I'm all for it - but since he gets to determine the final proposal we may not be able to have it that way. > >Matt > > Josh ________________________________________ Date: Apr 20, 1998 (Mon, 11:48:49) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Re: Haar's proposal >I would like to suggest one possible ammendment. Why not add the contents >of the previous proposal to this bill, since they are so closely related >anyway? Let me say that I am against such a decision. I realize they are related but I am totally opposed to "tacking on" anything to any proposal at any time. I feel each proposal should be as simple and independent as possible. I hate it when Congress passes bills about things which have little tiny provisions added by congresspeople who want some money for their district or something. Not that we're congress, of course, but the point is rules should be as single-dimensional as possible. This makes everything less confusing and makes it much easier to vote-- the more complicated a proposal, the more reasons a person might have to vote against the bill because of some small portion of that bill. So, in conclusion, I will vote against any proposal which has been bloated, including this one. beN "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 20, 1998 (Mon, 12:21:39) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: CFV I'm going to go ahead and call for votes on Haar's proposal, as it was originally stated. This means no amendments related to simple majorities. As to Matt's concern, that the bill doesn't really do anything: Haar's situation still requires more work to solve, but this bill is in the meantime also useful for those of us who don't want to vote on things. Once we have a time-limit rule, we can make a rule that casts "abstain" votes automatically for those who don't vote by the end of the voting period, or something like that. Josh ___________________________________________________________________ "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 20, 1998 (Mon, 13:15:21) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Haar's proposal Yeah, I did notice that debate is over, but thought I should comment on this. > >I would like to suggest one possible ammendment. Why not add the contents > >of the previous proposal to this bill, since they are so closely related > >anyway? > Let me say that I am against such a decision. I realize they are > related but I am totally opposed to "tacking on" anything to any proposal > at any time. I feel each proposal should be as simple and independent as > possible. Am I the only one who finds this screwy? I can understand opposing "rider ammendments;" they are prohibited in the current rules anyway. But obviously there must be some room for ammendments that add material to a proposal so long as it is reasonably appropriate for the proposal. I didn't offer my ammendment to this proposal arbitrarilly. I read Haar's proposal and thought that the simple-majority requirement would be a useful, appropriate addition. I wouldn't have offered the ammendment were the proposal something entirely unrelated. > I hate it when Congress passes bills about things which have little > tiny provisions added by congresspeople who want some money for their > district or something. Not that we're congress, of course, but the point is > rules should be as single-dimensional as possible. This makes everything > less confusing and makes it much easier to vote-- the more complicated a > proposal, the more reasons a person might have to vote against the bill > because of some small portion of that bill. I don't completely agree with this. Currently our rules restrict proposals to one rule change, but that's kind of fuzzy. Obviously a bill with multiple clauses opens itself to additional opposition, and anyone who proposed a more complex rule-change would have to take this into account... I think this is something most of us are capable of. And I'm not in favor of complication or confusion, but I think they're going to be a part of this game to some extent no matter what we do. > So, in conclusion, I will vote against any proposal which has been > bloated, including this one. So if my ammendment had been accepted, you would have voted down the proposal, even though you would (I assume) support both of the elements individually? Maybe this makes sense to you, but I find it second only to the infamous "Remo dissent" in goofiness. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Apr 21, 1998 (Tue, 13:54:45) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: voting I still need votes from Ben Byrne, Dave Chapman, Nate Ellefson, Chris Mayfield, Ryan Peterson, and Matt Potter. If you are one of these individuals, vote. If you are someone not listed here, remind, prod, annoy, or otherwise harass these people if and when you see them. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 21, 1998 (Tue, 22:36:57) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn Proposal 305 has passed 16-0. It is now Mike Jensen's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 22, 1998 (Wed, 0:0:52) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: prop 306 I take time out of my demanding revolutionary duties to give you this proposal: Prop. 306 [ A proposal will become a rule if it receives a simple majority of votes cast. "votes cast" and "simple majority" are defined as per rule 305. This rule takes precedence over rule 203 as it appears in the ruleset at the present time (4-21-98) ] This should look pretty familiar. I have tried to make the wording as explicit as possible to avoid any kind of ambiguity and to reflect the changes made in the last adopted rule. I trust that all those in favor of the last proposal regarding majority rule will support this one as well, so the only perceived opposition I see is from Nick, who, as we all know, voted down the last proposal in a move that will label him for life. So, I will call for a vote in not more than 24 hours, and earlier if Nick agrees to support this proposal. Nick, I will respect your ideas. However, I am unclear as to the exact reasons for your opposition. If you could please elaborate I would appreciate it. Then we can work together to reach an understanding. However, I will bring the proposal to a vote in 24 hours. I am convinced there is a rational rebuttal to any reason you might come up with, so I will not resort to personal insults or extortion to convince you to change your vote. Talk to me! Viva la revolucion! Mike "Subcomandante Marcos" Jensen ________________________________________ Date: Apr 22, 1998 (Wed, 0:33:41) From: Nick Osborn Subject: prop 306 i am in favor of prop 306. n ________________________________________ Date: Apr 22, 1998 (Wed, 0:53:40) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: prop 306 You bet you are, bitch. ___________________________________________________________________ "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. >i am in favor of prop 306. > >n ________________________________________ Date: Apr 22, 1998 (Wed, 13:42:37) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: prop 306 SOMEONE HAS TAKEN OVER MIKES BODY ________________________________________ Date: Apr 22, 1998 (Wed, 17:30:45) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: prop 306 All right, start the voting. mike "brain fever" jensen ________________________________________ Date: Apr 22, 1998 (Wed, 19:18:37) From: Adam Haar Subject: New Address Hey everyone, if you haven't been able to get through to me it's because I cancelled my old account, I'm now at caerdwyn@truserve.com, same name, new domain. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 23, 1998 (Thu, 23:54:8) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn and majority rule Proposal 306 has passed and has ushered in an era of majority rule. It is now Josh Kortbein's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 23, 1998 (Thu, 23:58:16) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Proposal 307 For a given proposal, the voting period is hereby defined to end 36 hours after the call for votes is made. Entities obliged to cast votes, according to rule 105, or via any future rules governing the casting of votes, are no longer required and may not cast votes after the voting period has ended. The number of votes with which to compare the total number of affirmative (i.e., for proposal passage) votes shall be defined as the number of votes cast during the voting period. At least one vote must be cast during the voting period, else this rule shall not be applied, and in its stead there shall be no enforcement of voting period. ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 10:21:14) From: Adam Haar Subject: Prop 307 I would amend this rule such that at least a quorum of eligible voters must cast their votes in order for passage. Anyone not voting in 36 hours would be assumed to abstain thereby invoking Rule 305. This would maintain a democratic equilibrium while speeding up play. Otherwise, excellent proposal. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 10:40:47) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: New prop I agree with Haar, I guess. At least 50% of those playing the game should have to vote for a requirement to pass. Right now as worded I think that a propsal could pass if a single person voted yes--for some reason this strikes me as something that could be abused. So needing half of us would be good. beN ^ / \ Ben Byrne |---| zenoflux@iastate.edu ||||| http://www.public.iastate.edu/~zenoflux | o | http://www.brainlink.com/Art-Ben | | Iowa State University | | | /\ "..sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes | ^ || to perusading or driving the common man to do anything." || ||| -Plato, the Republic ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 10:47:28) From: Nick Osborn Subject: Proposal 307 >Entities obliged to cast votes, according to rule 105, or via any future >rules governing the casting of votes, are no longer required and may not >cast votes after the voting period has ended. does this mean that this rule would have precedence over 105? n ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 11:6:31) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Proposal 307 Good point - Yes, it does, but I neglected to say so in order to make my proposal comply with rule 211. I shall amend it accordingly. Josh ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato >>Entities obliged to cast votes, according to rule 105, or via any future >>rules governing the casting of votes, are no longer required and may not >>cast votes after the voting period has ended. > >does this mean that this rule would have precedence over 105? > >n ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 11:15:25) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Proposal 307, Amended For a given proposal, the voting period is hereby defined to end 36 hours after the call for votes is made. Entities obliged to cast votes, according to rule 105, or via any future rules governing the casting of votes, are no longer required and may not cast votes after the voting period has ended. Such entities' votes shall be automatically counted as "abstain" votes. For recordkeeping purposes, these abstentions shall be recorded as "automatic voting period abstain," to distinguish them from true abstentions. In the capacity above, regarding obligatory vote-casting, this rule takes precedence over rule 105. At least a simple majority of votes (out of the total number of votes castable by vote-casting entities) must be cast during the voting period, else this rule shall not be applied, and in its stead there shall be no enforcement of voting period. NB: A simple majority is defined as the smallest integer m such that m > N / 2, where N is the total number of entities able (that is, they have the possibility open to them) to cast a vote. ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato ------- End of Forwarded Message ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 11:56:8) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: phrasing still needs work Josh, It's an improvement, but still needs work. First, I think it's a little wordy. Perhaps some rephrasing could shorten it without changing the meaning. Of more concern, though, is how you've dealt with the suggestion Haar and I made. As I interpret the current proposal, if half of us haven't voted in 36 hours, basically the whole rule gets ignored. Which means if enough votes aren't collected in that 36 hour period, we ALL have to vote. Is there some way you could make it so if half of us have not voted by the deadline, the deadline comes into effect when the last necessary vote is cast? By which I mean, only half of us will be required to vote, and once someone's vote puts us past that hump, the voting period ends. You might not agree with this way of handling things, but it strikes me as being in the spririt of your bill to keep things moving along. beN "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 11:56:37) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: I'm dumb What does "NB" mean? "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 12:39:5) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: precedence over 105 Proposal 307 specifically states that it would take precedence over Rule 105; however, since Rule 105 is immutable and the potential Rule 307 would not be, Rule 110 automatically gives 105 precedence. The current wording of the proposal would render it innefective as Rule 110 would prevent any effect it could have. This is not a serious problem, though, since Rule 105 only stipulates that all eligible voters PARTICIPATE in each vote. If this proposal also provides a tautologus definition of participation, i.e. that participation is "either voting or not voting withing 36 hours of a CFV", then conflict will be avoided and the proposal will have its intended effects. Thoughts? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 12:45:47) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: NB in 307 Since a simple majority is defined in Rule 306, if Proposal 307 does not specifically state its definition takes precedence over the one in 306, it won't change anything. Also, in regard to my thoughts on redefining "participation", I am of the opinion that would be legal because Rule 105 neglects to give a definitnion. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 13:50:58) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: I'm dumb "_N_ot for _B_yrne to understand" Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 14:17:30) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: protest Can new players be added at this time? Can individuals be added to the game without their consent? I contend that both of these questions should be answered in the negative. While Rule 116 allows anything which is not prohibited, nowhere is there specified a procedure for adding new players. On its face, this would imply that new players can be added in ANY way. However, a closer inspection of the ruleset reveals a check on the seemingly-unlimited actions allowed by Rule 116/0. Rule 212/0, which deals with our Judicial system, clearly states: "All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards." As for the first question, game-custom dictates that no new players be added unless they could be inserted after the player whose turn it is and before the last player so as not to affect previous judging order. At this point, if custom were followed, we could only add players whose surnames fall between Kortbein and Uckelman. No one protested this procedure at the time -- presumably it should still be in effect as game-custom and will remain so until a rule codifies the procedure. As for the second question, the spirt of the game should tell us that a person cannot be drafted into our game. Integral to the concept of a player is a willingness to play and a knowledge that a game is being played. For instance, while it would appear that the entire population of the Russian Federation could be added to our game without their knowledge, they could not rightly be called players. To be a player, one must "play" -- and it is unlikely that any of them will ever be aware that they are in the game, thereby preventing the necessary actions to make them players. We can also refer to game custom for insight into this problem: when the game began, individuals wishing to play contacted me in some way, be it personally or by e-mail. If people are not aware that they are in the game, they cannot contact me, which prevents them from being added to the player roster and mailing list -- an effective barrier to "play." Furthermore, it would also violate the spirit of the game for an individual to add players solely for the purpose of gaining a majority in support of a rule declaring him the winner of the game. Scamming, while clever and admirable in its own right, should not turn the game into a race to add the most players to one's side. Thus, I call for judgment on the questions posed above. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 16:11:53) From: Nick Osborn Subject: Re: protest >Furthermore, it would also violate the spirit of the game for an individual >to add players solely for the purpose of gaining a majority in support of a >rule declaring him the winner of the game. Scamming, while clever and >admirable in its own right, should not turn the game into a race to add the >most players to one's side. shucks. and it was such a good idea. n ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 17:42:49) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: I'm dumb NB <=> "nota bene" Cheers, Josh ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato >What does "NB" mean? > >"Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." > -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that >the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. > >Looking for unique quotes? Visit >http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ > > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 17:47:28) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: phrasing still needs work >Josh, > It's an improvement, but still needs work. First, I think it's a >little wordy. Perhaps some rephrasing could shorten it without changing the >meaning. That seems kind of silly. If it accomplishes what I intend it to, then it seems to be written just fine. If you vote my proposal down based solely on STYLE, I'll personally come over there and bitch slap you. :) > Of more concern, though, is how you've dealt with the suggestion >Haar and I made. As I interpret the current proposal, if half of us haven't >voted in 36 hours, basically the whole rule gets ignored. Which means if >enough votes aren't collected in that 36 hour period, we ALL have to vote. >Is there some way you could make it so if half of us have not voted by the >deadline, the deadline comes into effect when the last necessary vote is >cast? By which I mean, only half of us will be required to vote, and once >someone's vote puts us past that hump, the voting period ends. > You might not agree with this way of handling things, but it >strikes me as being in the spririt of your bill to keep things moving along. Nope, I agree there too, and will amend accordingly. > >beN > >"Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." > -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that >the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. > >Looking for unique quotes? Visit >http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ > > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 17:59:10) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: NB in 307 The restatement of a simple majority definition was intended to ensure that my proposal was completely self-consistent, in case 306 is ever changed, for whatever reason. I would much prefer it if there was a separate rule which simply gave a definition for simple majority, to be used universally. That seems to be how reference to 306 would work out, but unless I hear strong opposition to keeping the definition in my proposal, I plan to leave it there. This one goes out to all you fuckwads out there: NOTE: This means that, if you don't like it, and its presence there would cause you to vote against my proposal, you should SAY SO BEFORE A VOTE IS CALLED, INSTEAD OF SPEAKING WITH YOUR VOTE. Josh ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato >Since a simple majority is defined in Rule 306, if Proposal 307 does not >specifically state its definition takes precedence over the one in 306, it >won't change anything. > >Also, in regard to my thoughts on redefining "participation", I am of the >opinion that would be legal because Rule 105 neglects to give a definitnion. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 18:0:9) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: protest Where the hell did this protest come from? Did you think it up yourself, and then decide to protest it? Josh ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato >Can new players be added at this time? Can individuals be added to the game >without their consent? > >I contend that both of these questions should be answered in the negative. >While Rule 116 allows anything which is not prohibited, nowhere is there >specified a procedure for adding new players. On its face, this would imply >that new players can be added in ANY way. However, a closer inspection of >the ruleset reveals a check on the seemingly-unlimited actions allowed by >Rule 116/0. Rule 212/0, which deals with our Judicial system, clearly >states: "All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules >then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on >the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the >spirit of the game before applying other standards." > >As for the first question, game-custom dictates that no new players be >added unless they could be inserted after the player whose turn it is and >before the last player so as not to affect previous judging order. At this >point, if custom were followed, we could only add players whose surnames >fall between Kortbein and Uckelman. No one protested this procedure at the >time -- presumably it should still be in effect as game-custom and will >remain so until a rule codifies the procedure. > >As for the second question, the spirt of the game should tell us that a >person cannot be drafted into our game. Integral to the concept of a player >is a willingness to play and a knowledge that a game is being played. For >instance, while it would appear that the entire population of the Russian >Federation could be added to our game without their knowledge, they could >not rightly be called players. To be a player, one must "play" -- and it is >unlikely that any of them will ever be aware that they are in the game, >thereby preventing the necessary actions to make them players. We can also >refer to game custom for insight into this problem: when the game began, >individuals wishing to play contacted me in some way, be it personally or >by e-mail. If people are not aware that they are in the game, they cannot >contact me, which prevents them from being added to the player roster and >mailing list -- an effective barrier to "play." > >Furthermore, it would also violate the spirit of the game for an individual >to add players solely for the purpose of gaining a majority in support of a >rule declaring him the winner of the game. Scamming, while clever and >admirable in its own right, should not turn the game into a race to add the >most players to one's side. > >Thus, I call for judgment on the questions posed above. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 18:5:14) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Proposal 307, Revision 2 For a given proposal, the voting period is hereby defined to end 36 hours after the call for votes is made. "Participation" in a vote is hereby defined to mean "voting during the voting period." Any vote-casting entities who have not cast votes by the end of the voting period shall have their votes automatically case as "abstain" votes. For recordkeeping purposes, these abstentions shall be recorded as "automatic voting period abstain," to distinguish them from true abstentions. At least a simple majority of votes (out of the total number of votes castable by vote-casting entities) must be cast during the voting period, else the voting period shall be extended until such time as a simple majority of total possible votes sufficient to accept or reject the proposal have been cast. NB: A simple majority is defined as the smallest integer m such that m > N / 2, where N is the total number of entities able (that is, they have the possibility open to them) to cast a vote. Josh ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 22:9:17) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: protest At 06:00 PM 4/24/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Where the hell did this protest come from? Did you think it up yourself, >and then decide to protest it? > >Josh > >________________________________________________________________________ >"...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to >persuading or driving the common man to do anything." > - Plato > No, I didn't just pull this protest out of my ass. It was in response to a threatened attempt by Nick to win the game by adding enough people to get a majority in favor of passing a rule that makes him the winner. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 22:16:39) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: protest My game-custom agument for adding new players is slightly inaccurate -- new players were only allowed in during the first turn if they would not have come in order between Ben and I, i.e. disrupting the judging order. Entry into the game was denied Aaron Wohl for that reason, although I assured him we would soon have a rule dealing with new players. It seems that grossly underestimated the time it would take to get such a rule... Let this clarification be reflected in my earlier protest. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 23:36:25) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Proposal 307, Revision 2 At 06:05 PM 4/24/98 CDT, you wrote: > >For a given proposal, the voting period is hereby defined to end 36 hours >after the call for votes is made. > >"Participation" in a vote is hereby defined to mean "voting during the >voting period." > >Any vote-casting entities who have not cast votes by the end of the >voting period shall have their votes automatically case as "abstain" >votes. For recordkeeping purposes, these abstentions shall be recorded >as "automatic voting period abstain," to distinguish them from true >abstentions. > >At least a simple majority of votes (out of the total number of votes >castable by vote-casting entities) must be cast during the voting period, >else the voting period shall be extended until such time as a simple >majority of total possible votes sufficient to accept or reject the >proposal have been cast. > >NB: A simple majority is defined as the smallest integer m such that m >> N / 2, where N is the total number of entities able (that is, they >have the possibility open to them) to cast a vote. > >Josh > >________________________________________________________________________ >"...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to >persuading or driving the common man to do anything." > - Plato > > >- ------- End of Forwarded Message > > >------- End of Forwarded Message > If participation in a vote means "voting during the voting period", then Rule 105 would compell EVERYONE to vote within 36 hours. If "Every eligible voter must vote during the voting period (participate) in every vote on rule-changes," then what happens if someone doesn't vote during the 36-hour period? They would be in violation of Rule 101 for not following the rules, but I don't think that is what you intended... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 24, 1998 (Fri, 23:57:22) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re:Prop 307, Rev 2 After 36 hours, if a simple majority (quorum) has voted all further, uncast, votes would be considered abstentions. Thereby all parties obligated to vote would have fulfilled their obligations, as, in the absence of a vote, they are assumed to abstain. That's my take at least Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 25, 1998 (Sat, 2:29:42) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: protest That's kind of what I figured, but perhaps you should have mentioned that, for the benefit of us non-Harwoodians, right BEFORE you launched into a discussion of why Nick's plan wouldn't work. :) Josh ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato >At 06:00 PM 4/24/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>Where the hell did this protest come from? Did you think it up yourself, >>and then decide to protest it? >> >>Josh >> >>________________________________________________________________________ >>"...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to >>persuading or driving the common man to do anything." >> - Plato >> > >No, I didn't just pull this protest out of my ass. It was in response to a >threatened attempt by Nick to win the game by adding enough people to get a >majority in favor of passing a rule that makes him the winner. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 25, 1998 (Sat, 2:36:57) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Proposal 307, Revision 3 For a given proposal, the voting period is hereby defined to end 36 hours after the call for votes is made. A vote-casting entity's "participation" in a vote shall be fulfilled in either (but not both, for a single instance of "participation") of the following ways: 1. The entity shall cast a vote during the voting period. 2. The entity shall fail to cast a vote during the voting period. In such a case, said entity's vote shall be automatically cast as an "abstain" vote. For recordkeeping purposes, these abstentions shall be recorded as "automatic voting period abstain," to distinguish them from true abstentions. At least a simple majority of votes (out of the total number of votes castable by vote-casting entities) must be cast during the voting period, else the voting period shall be extended until such time as a simple majority of total possible votes sufficient to accept or reject the proposal have been cast. If the voting period is extended in such a way, no automatic abstentions shall be cast, as in the second means of "participation" above. NB: A simple majority is defined as the smallest integer m such that m > N / 2, where N is the total number of entities able (that is, they have the possibility open to them) to cast a vote. Josh ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato - - ------- End of Forwarded Message - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message ________________________________________ Date: Apr 25, 1998 (Sat, 12:11:45) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Proposal 307, Revision 3 At 02:36 AM 4/25/98 CDT, you wrote: > >For a given proposal, the voting period is hereby defined to end 36 hours >after the call for votes is made. > >A vote-casting entity's "participation" in a vote shall be fulfilled >in either (but not both, for a single instance of "participation") >of the following ways: > >1. The entity shall cast a vote during the voting period. >2. The entity shall fail to cast a vote during the voting period. In > such a case, said entity's vote shall be automatically cast as an > "abstain" vote. For recordkeeping purposes, these abstentions shall > be recorded as "automatic voting period abstain," to distinguish > them from true abstentions. > >At least a simple majority of votes (out of the total number of votes >castable by vote-casting entities) must be cast during the voting period, >else the voting period shall be extended until such time as a simple >majority of total possible votes sufficient to accept or reject the >proposal have been cast. If the voting period is extended in such a way, >no automatic abstentions shall be cast, as in the second means of >"participation" above. > >NB: A simple majority is defined as the smallest integer m such that m >> N / 2, where N is the total number of entities able (that is, they >have the possibility open to them) to cast a vote. > >Josh > >________________________________________________________________________ >"...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to >persuading or driving the common man to do anything." > - Plato > > >- - ------- End of Forwarded Message > > >- ------- End of Forwarded Message > > >------- End of Forwarded Message > If no automatic abstentions are cast when a voting period is exetended, wouldn't that mean that everyone would still have to vote if at least 9 people didn't vote within 36 hours? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 25, 1998 (Sat, 13:7:5) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Proposal 307, Revision 4 For a given proposal, the voting period is hereby defined to end 36 hours after the call for votes is made. A vote-casting entity's "participation" in a vote shall be fulfilled in either (but not both, for a single instance of "participation") of the following ways: 1. The entity shall cast a vote during the voting period. 2. The entity shall fail to cast a vote during the voting period. In such a case, said entity's vote shall be automatically cast as an "abstain" vote. For recordkeeping purposes, these abstentions shall be recorded as "automatic voting period abstain," to distinguish them from true abstentions. At least a simple majority of votes (out of the total number of votes castable by vote-casting entities) must be cast during the voting period, else the voting period shall be extended until such time as a simple majority of total possible votes sufficient to accept or reject the proposal have been cast. If the voting period is extended in such a way, no automatic abstentions shall be cast, as in the second means of "participation" above, until such time as a simple majority of votes are cast. NB: A simple majority is defined as the smallest integer m such that m > N / 2, where N is the total number of entities able (that is, they have the possibility open to them) to cast a vote. Josh ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato - - - ------- End of Forwarded Message - - ------- End of Forwarded Message - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message ________________________________________ Date: Apr 25, 1998 (Sat, 16:25:17) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: 307 qualms? Anyone have any more quibbles with the last form of my proposition? Josh ________________________________________________________________________ "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato ________________________________________ Date: Apr 25, 1998 (Sat, 18:36:40) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: CFV I call for votes on my proposal, in the last form in which it was stated. Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl ________________________________________ Date: Apr 26, 1998 (Sun, 16:51:44) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: loss of a player Ryan Peterson just quit, so now a majority is only 8. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 26, 1998 (Sun, 20:2:34) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: adding players Just my 2 cents worth... Ryan's departure has given us and odd number of people, which is in my mind preferable to an even group. Therefore I'm not particualrly in favor of Aaron joing the game. beN "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 26, 1998 (Sun, 20:17:15) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: adding players Why is an odd number of players that much better? I can see only one reason - it ensures that any vote will be split unevenly, if there is any dissention. However, the simple majority rule makes that point unimportant. Suppose we have 10 players. Then 6 votes are required to pass a proposal. If there are 9 players, 5 votes are required. Is the difference really that meaningful? Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl > Just my 2 cents worth... Ryan's departure has given us and odd >number of people, which is in my mind preferable to an even group. >Therefore I'm not particualrly in favor of Aaron joing the game. > >beN > >"Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." > -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that >the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. > >Looking for unique quotes? Visit >http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ > > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 26, 1998 (Sun, 21:14:27) From: Adam Haar Subject: Player Balance I agree with Josh, as long as a simple majority is needed then an odd number of players is unnecessary unless it's decided by consensus that ties should not equal defeat of a proposal. I personally feel that a tie should equal non-passage but what do others think? Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 26, 1998 (Sun, 21:52:29) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Player Balance Well, if you think otherwise, then you should have voiced your opinion when debate on the simple majority rule was open. NB: A simple majority is defined as the smallest integer m such that m > N / 2, where N is the number of players voting (including all no, yes, abstain, candy bar, etc. votes). For even N, i.e. N = 2j, this means m > j, a strict inequality. There's no simple "deciding by consensus" about it - the rule would need to change. Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >I agree with Josh, as long as a simple majority is needed then an odd >number of players is unnecessary unless it's decided by consensus that ties >should not equal defeat of a proposal. I personally feel that a tie should >equal non-passage but what do others think? >Adam Haar > >Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting >through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 27, 1998 (Mon, 19:0:54) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re: Player Balance At 09:52 PM 4/26/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Well, if you think otherwise, then you should have voiced your opinion >when debate on the simple majority rule was open. > > NB: A simple majority is defined as the smallest integer m such that m > > N / 2, where N is the number of players voting (including all no, > yes, abstain, candy bar, etc. votes). > >For even N, i.e. N = 2j, this means m > j, a strict inequality. There's >no simple "deciding by consensus" about it - the rule would need to change. > > >Josh Yes, but a consensus against your NB, in conjunction with an amendment of a mutable rule, would effect the change. True, a consensus isn't a formal decision but it makes the rule change a formality. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 27, 1998 (Mon, 21:47:23) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: 307 vote results Prop. 307 passed 12-3. Once Mike rules on my protest, it will be Matt Kuhns' turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 27, 1998 (Mon, 23:36:1) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Kuhns' proposal Am I correct in assuming that it would not be out of line for Kuhns to start bandying about his proposed proposal before a judgement is made? This would not be, of course, his actual proposal. Just directed discussion. :) Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl ________________________________________ Date: Apr 28, 1998 (Tue, 0:42:50) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Kuhns' proposal At 11:36 PM 4/27/98 CDT, you wrote: >Am I correct in assuming that it would not be out of line for Kuhns >to start bandying about his proposed proposal before a judgement >is made? > >This would not be, of course, his actual proposal. Just directed >discussion. :) > > >Josh > >____________________________________________________________ >"I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both > very interesting numbers." > - Larry Wall, creator of perl > He can do whatever he wants to do -- I just won't officially post anything until his turn begins. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 28, 1998 (Tue, 14:48:47) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: so let it be written so let it be done Questions for Judgement: 1.) Can new players be added at this time? 2.) Can individuals be added to the game without their consent? Judgement: 1.) No. (sort of) Adding players is a game related action. Now, there are no rules regarding new players, so it might seem that rule 116 can be invoked to permit adding players at any time. However, game actions are regulated in the rules, and rule 116 does not apply in this case. The correct procedure for adding a player at any time under the current rules would be to introduce and pass a proposal adding the player. If "at the current time" means now, during Josh's turn, then of course it is impossible. I realize that the addition of player Chris Mayfield did not occur in this manner, but this is not inconsistent with my judgement. Technically adding Mr. Mayfield was an illegal action, but no one had a problem with it and it was not protested, therefore it stands as a fait accompli. The same course of action may be taken at any time, provided there is no protest. This would, of course, imply unanimous consent. 2.) Yes. I see no reason why players, added in the procedure above (rule change or uncontested action) are required to recognize their franchise, spirit of the game or otherwise. We would be insane to let such players into the game, but if we did, we would deserve what we get. Initiator's Comments: >I contend that both of these questions should be answered in the negative. >While Rule 116 allows anything which is not prohibited, nowhere is there >specified a procedure for adding new players. On its face, this would imply >that new players can be added in ANY way. However, a closer inspection of >the ruleset reveals a check on the seemingly-unlimited actions allowed by >Rule 116/0. Rule 212/0, which deals with our Judicial system, clearly >states: "All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules >then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on >the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the >spirit of the game before applying other standards." > >As for the first question, game-custom dictates that no new players be >added unless they could be inserted after the player whose turn it is and >before the last player so as not to affect previous judging order. At this >point, if custom were followed, we could only add players whose surnames >fall between Kortbein and Uckelman. No one protested this procedure at the >time -- presumably it should still be in effect as game-custom and will >remain so until a rule codifies the procedure. > >As for the second question, the spirt of the game should tell us that a >person cannot be drafted into our game. Integral to the concept of a player >is a willingness to play and a knowledge that a game is being played. For >instance, while it would appear that the entire population of the Russian >Federation could be added to our game without their knowledge, they could >not rightly be called players. To be a player, one must "play" -- and it is >unlikely that any of them will ever be aware that they are in the game, >thereby preventing the necessary actions to make them players. We can also >refer to game custom for insight into this problem: when the game began, >individuals wishing to play contacted me in some way, be it personally or >by e-mail. If people are not aware that they are in the game, they cannot >contact me, which prevents them from being added to the player roster and >mailing list -- an effective barrier to "play." > >Furthermore, it would also violate the spirit of the game for an individual >to add players solely for the purpose of gaining a majority in support of a >rule declaring him the winner of the game. Scamming, while clever and >admirable in its own right, should not turn the game into a race to add the >most players to one's side. > >Thus, I call for judgment on the questions posed above. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 28, 1998 (Tue, 15:6:46) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn Judgment 6 has been issued. It is now Matt Kuhns' turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 28, 1998 (Tue, 16:15:47) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: so let it be written so let it be done >Questions for Judgement: > >1.) Can new players be added at this time? > >2.) Can individuals be added to the game without their consent? > >Judgement: > >1.) No. (sort of) Adding players is a game related action. Now, there are >no rules regarding new players, so it might seem that rule 116 can be >invoked to permit adding players at any time. However, game actions are >regulated in the rules, and rule 116 does not apply in this case. The Does not apply? Please clarify. 116/0. Permissibility of the Unprohibited (immutable) Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. "Game actions" are regulated in the rules, yes, but that's so general a distinction as to be useless, if I'm reading you right. >correct procedure for adding a player at any time under the current rules >would be to introduce and pass a proposal adding the player. If "at the >current time" means now, during Josh's turn, then of course it is >impossible. I realize that the addition of player Chris Mayfield did not >occur in this manner, but this is not inconsistent with my judgement. >Technically adding Mr. Mayfield was an illegal action, but no one had a Illegal? There is no rule prohibiting the addition of new players. >problem with it and it was not protested, therefore it stands as a fait >accompli. The same course of action may be taken at any time, provided >there is no protest. This would, of course, imply unanimous consent. > >2.) Yes. I see no reason why players, added in the procedure above (rule >change or uncontested action) are required to recognize their franchise, >spirit of the game or otherwise. We would be insane to let such players >into the game, but if we did, we would deserve what we get. > >Initiator's Comments: > >>I contend that both of these questions should be answered in the negative. >>While Rule 116 allows anything which is not prohibited, nowhere is there >>specified a procedure for adding new players. On its face, this would imply >>that new players can be added in ANY way. However, a closer inspection of >>the ruleset reveals a check on the seemingly-unlimited actions allowed by >>Rule 116/0. Rule 212/0, which deals with our Judicial system, clearly >>states: "All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules >>then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on >>the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the >>spirit of the game before applying other standards." >> >>As for the first question, game-custom dictates that no new players be >>added unless they could be inserted after the player whose turn it is and >>before the last player so as not to affect previous judging order. At this >>point, if custom were followed, we could only add players whose surnames >>fall between Kortbein and Uckelman. No one protested this procedure at the >>time -- presumably it should still be in effect as game-custom and will >>remain so until a rule codifies the procedure. >> >>As for the second question, the spirt of the game should tell us that a >>person cannot be drafted into our game. Integral to the concept of a player >>is a willingness to play and a knowledge that a game is being played. For >>instance, while it would appear that the entire population of the Russian >>Federation could be added to our game without their knowledge, they could >>not rightly be called players. To be a player, one must "play" -- and it is >>unlikely that any of them will ever be aware that they are in the game, >>thereby preventing the necessary actions to make them players. We can also >>refer to game custom for insight into this problem: when the game began, >>individuals wishing to play contacted me in some way, be it personally or >>by e-mail. If people are not aware that they are in the game, they cannot >>contact me, which prevents them from being added to the player roster and >>mailing list -- an effective barrier to "play." >> >>Furthermore, it would also violate the spirit of the game for an individual >>to add players solely for the purpose of gaining a majority in support of a >>rule declaring him the winner of the game. Scamming, while clever and >>admirable in its own right, should not turn the game into a race to add the >>most players to one's side. >> >>Thus, I call for judgment on the questions posed above. >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu >> > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 28, 1998 (Tue, 19:33:37) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: so let it be written so let it be done Someone should just make a proposal that would specify a procedure for adding and dropping players. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 28, 1998 (Tue, 19:56:24) From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Proposal CCCVIII (I think) You know who I'm addressing: This is what I may propose: Let rule 209 be stricken from the list of rules. I believe this would be a useful, and eventually necessary, rule change. As has been the custom recently, I will give debate about a day and then, barring a firestorm of protest, call for a vote. Other notes: I apoligize for taking this long to send my proposal. I have checked my e-mail throughout the day, but it's a busy week and I hadn't given my proposal serious thought until this evening. Also, to those interested in the fate of "Operation: Randal" I can only say that it has been indefinitely postponed due to unforseen recalcitrance. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Apr 28, 1998 (Tue, 22:27:5) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Proposal CCCVIII (I think) Sounds like a reasonable proposal. What do you propose happens to the slot? Does everything bump down one? Is there just a gap between 208 and 210? Inquiring minds want to know. Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >You know who I'm addressing: > >This is what I may propose: > >Let rule 209 be stricken from the list of rules. > >I believe this would be a useful, and eventually necessary, rule change. >As has been the custom recently, I will give debate about a day and then, >barring a firestorm of protest, call for a vote. > >Other notes: >I apoligize for taking this long to send my proposal. I have checked my >e-mail throughout the day, but it's a busy week and I hadn't given my >proposal serious thought until this evening. >Also, to those interested in the fate of "Operation: Randal" I can only >say that it has been indefinitely postponed due to unforseen recalcitrance. > >--- > Matt Kuhns > mjkuhns@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Apr 28, 1998 (Tue, 23:51:4) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Proposal CCCVIII (I think) At 10:27 PM 4/28/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Sounds like a reasonable proposal. > >What do you propose happens to the slot? Does everything bump >down one? Is there just a gap between 208 and 210? > >Inquiring minds want to know. > >Josh > Striking 209 should just leave a gap, as there no rules which would cause any renumbering. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 0:9:53) From: Nick Osborn Subject: Re: Proposal CCCVIII (I think) why not just amend 209 to read "there is no limit to the number of immutable rules." something about numbers being skipped in the rules just doesnt seem right. At 11:51 PM 4/28/98 -0500, you wrote: >At 10:27 PM 4/28/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>Sounds like a reasonable proposal. >> >>What do you propose happens to the slot? Does everything bump >>down one? Is there just a gap between 208 and 210? >> >>Inquiring minds want to know. >> >>Josh >> > >Striking 209 should just leave a gap, as there no rules which would cause >any renumbering. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 0:45:33) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Matt proposal I'm not so sure it's a good idea. Have we put any thought into why rule 209 exists in the first place? I for one am not a mind reader, so I am not certain exactly what the intent of including 209 in the inital ruleset was. One can assume, however, that is exists for soem good reason. Perhaps we should ponder on this some more. My initial thought for having rule 209 is to avoid making the game cumbersome because of it's complexity. Ask yourself: Why do we need the ability to have a limitless number of rules? If there is no specific reason why having 3000 rules needs to be possible, why make it that way? Personally, I find the game to be quite confusing as is. With our fairly small ruleset we have already called for a multitude of judgments and clarifications, and I don't see how having no upper limit is going to make it any easier. I tmight very well make the game suck. Additionally, suppose that in a year or so, we get to the point that most agree the game has too many rules. What then? How do we decide to pare down the list? My point here is that it's easier to avoid running into this sort of problem than it is to correct it after the fact. On the other hand, I feel that having the limit at 25 is a bit too constraining. What constitutes a manageable amount of rules is purely subjective, of course, but I can't imagine I'd want to play the game with more than 40 mutable rules. Another reason for having this limit might be to encourage players to transform vital and well-written rules from mutable to immutable. I suppose. This strikes me as a good tactic, as it would increase the stability of the game to have our most cherished tenets immune to change. So, in conclusion, I would vote against the proposal to strike rule 209 from the books. I would also vote against rewriting rule 209 to say there is no limit to the number of rules. First reason is the same as for the above. Second reason is that I don't see why we need to start explicitly stating what we AREN'T preventing. Doing so goes against the spirit of having rule 116. I would favor a proposal raising the limit from 25 to around 40 or less. beN byrNe ^ / \ Ben Byrne |---| zenoflux@iastate.edu ||||| http://www.byrneweb.com/temple | o | http://www.byrneweb.com/flux - soon... | | Iowa State University | | | /\ "The best students always are flunking. | ^ || Every good teacher knows that." || ||| -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 8:42:59) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Matt proposal Regarding the concerns of Dr. Evil- > I'm not so sure it's a good idea. Have we put any thought into why > rule 209 exists in the first place? > I for one am not a mind reader, so I am not certain exactly what > the intent of including 209 in the inital ruleset was. One can assume, > however, that is exists for soem good reason. Perhaps we should ponder on > this some more. Hm. I'm not sure the idea that things in (or not in) the original ruleset are there for some good reason is a sound assumption. Hasn't nearly all the legislation thus far in this game been an attempt to fix flaws in the original rules? > My initial thought for having rule 209 is to avoid making the game > cumbersome because of it's complexity. Ask yourself: Why do we need the > ability to have a limitless number of rules? If there is no specific reason > why having 3000 rules needs to be possible, why make it that way? In theory this is probably a reasonable concern, but only in the extreme long-term. So far, however, our game has been very short-term focused. Consider the recent passage of an amendment (simple majority) that would have been unnecessary in a "mere" two rounds. > Personally, I find the game to be quite confusing as is. With our > fairly small ruleset we have already called for a multitude of judgments > and clarifications, and I don't see how having no upper limit is going to > make it any easier. I tmight very well make the game suck. The game might very well already suck. But I think it would suck significantly more if, as Joel's calculations suggested, by the end of this round players were unable to add new rules. That's an important, and probably essential, facet of the game. Perhaps we will run up against an overwhelmingly large and complex set of rules at some point. I'm not convinced this is something worth worrying about right now. And besides, if we plan everything perfectly right now; what will we pass rule changes about a year from now? =) In regards to the striking/ammending question, I am still for simply striking the rule. So what if there's a gap in numbering? So long as the rules are in sequential order, there should be no problem; certainly far less of a problem than there would be if all the following rules were bumped up one digit. (I seem to recall this was an issue of some concern not long ago...) Here's how things stand now: As Ben's has been the only strenuous objection so far, I am still planning to offer up my proposal in more or less its original form... unless anyone else has serious problems with that form. I will leave debate open until later tonight to give everyone a reasonable chance to voice objections. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 9:25:36) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Off topic: Room for sublease Sorry if everyone thinks this is a blatant misuse of the mailing list (perhaps I should call someone "fuckwad") but I thought that someone might be interested. I'm going to be going to San Francisco for the summer (though I still plan on playing), so my room at 1234 Michigan, home of fellow Nomic players Josh and Haar, is up for subleasing. The room is $210/mo. and the apartment comes with air conditioning, dishwaser, microwave, and books. The room will also be furnished, since I'm not taking my stuff to CA with me. That means whoever rents gets the use of my bed, desk, and one of my bureaus. The room will become available during the week after finals. If you're interested, let me know. Chris ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 14:2:25) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Proposal CCCVIII (I think) am i geting this right? you have a problem with the way the rules look? is a gap in the rules such a horrible thing? do you want to change the numbers of all of the folloing rules and screw up all of the refences? or do you want to change every reference? im sorry, this seems like a waste of time to me. doing anything but leaving a (not to offensive, really) gap in the rules set is making an otherwise simple proposal into an unnecessarily complex one, and making what could have been a fun game into something more boring than reading Josh's definition of what a simple majority is. Bored, Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 14:17:31) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Matt proposal > I'm not so sure it's a good idea. Have we put any thought into why > rule 209 exists in the first place? > I for one am not a mind reader, so I am not certain exactly what > the intent of including 209 in the inital ruleset was. One can assume, > however, that is exists for soem good reason. Perhaps we should ponder on > this some more. > My initial thought for having rule 209 is to avoid making the game > cumbersome because of it's complexity. Ask yourself: Why do we need the > ability to have a limitless number of rules? If there is no specific reason > why having 3000 rules needs to be possible, why make it that way? This is true, but how many rules fo we have right now? Near twenty I think. So if we let rule 209 sit the way it is, we would have a half a dozen more turns and then we would have to start voting just to make certain rules immutable, or to abolish them. That seems just as cumbersome, if not more. Also, some players would end up having to waste their proposal on abolishment votes instead of putting in real proposals. Even if we changed it to say 40 or so, we would still have the same problem eventually > Additionally, suppose that in a year or so, we get to the point > that most agree the game has too many rules. What then? How do we decide to > pare down the list? My point here is that it's easier to avoid running into > this sort of problem than it is to correct it after the fact. In some ways, we seem to be arguing on the same side of the arguement (I hate that.) I just feel that limiting the number of rules would get in the way of a fun game (suddenly dozens of heads pop up saying, "game, what game?"). > On the other hand, I feel that having the limit at 25 is a bit too > constraining. What constitutes a manageable amount of rules is purely > subjective, of course, but I can't imagine I'd want to play the game with > more than 40 mutable rules. > Another reason for having this limit might be to encourage players > to transform vital and well-written rules from mutable to immutable. I > suppose. This strikes me as a good tactic, as it would increase the > stability of the game to have our most cherished tenets immune to change. Again, the "wasted" turns. > So, in conclusion, I would vote against the proposal to strike rule > 209 from the books. > I would also vote against rewriting rule 209 to say there is no > limit to the number of rules. First reason is the same as for the above. > Second reason is that I don't see why we need to start explicitly stating > what we AREN'T preventing. Doing so goes against the spirit of having rule > 116. > I would favor a proposal raising the limit from 25 to around 40 or > less. > > beN byrNe > > ^ > / \ Ben Byrne > |---| zenoflux@iastate.edu > ||||| http://www.byrneweb.com/temple > | o | http://www.byrneweb.com/flux - soon... > | | Iowa State University > | | > | /\ "The best students always are flunking. > | ^ || Every good teacher knows that." > || ||| -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance > > > Boy, I need to get a nifty ascii art thingy. or a quote. or something. Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 14:58:58) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Proposal CCCVIII (I think) >an otherwise simple proposal into an unnecessarily complex one, and making wha t could have been >a fun game into something more boring than reading Josh's definition of what a simple majority is. Yah, go play with your rocks!!! > >Bored, >Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 18:3:6) From: Nick Osborn Subject: Proposal CCCVIII its no big deal, really. i just thought changing 209 rather than deleting it would please more people. the proposal is good. im sure everyone has already decided how they will vote. nomic was first used in a classroom situation. that may explain somme of the odd rules. 209 was probably intended to force the participants (some of who were probably unwilling) to make more amendments so that they would learn more from the experience. thats my take on it, anyway. n ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 19:33:48) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: whatever It seems that I'm the only against this. Whatever. You're all entitled to your opinions as much as I am to mine. I guess I just have this feeling that removing the limit will somehow discourage us from being as careful about what we vote for as we ought, and will encourage unnecessary frivolity in our rule-passing. Thsi hasn't been something we've needed to worry about, as bills have until noe required unanimity to pass and therefore had to be much more carefully written, proposed and considered if they were to be passed. But we've entered a new era in the game where a simple majority is needed to pass bills, and with any size group, the majority doesn't always make the best decisions. Having a limit on the number of immutable rules I think would encourage a voter to consider his vote more carefully. The thought process changes from "Do I have anything against this?" to something more like "Is there a better rule we could be passing right now?" or whatever. We have a finite supply of immutable rules, so what those rules are must be carefully determined. Allowing a limitless supply allows for less thorough examination and less integrity. There's nothing to discourage dumb stuff so long as a few people support it for whatever reasons. And I for one don't like that outlook. I also disagree with the notion that converting rule to or from mutability is "wasting" a turn. I don't personally feel that the point of the game is to get as many people passing as many new rules as possible. The point has more to do with people self-managing the game in whatever way they see fit, and to see what happens. Going from immutability to mutability and vice versa is a modification of the rules, even if it's not as exciting as the creation of new ones. I was having a conversation with somone not too long ago about the current government. I don't rememebr who I was speaking to, but he was saying that part of the problem with our form of goverment is that our representatives feel a duty to their constituents to show that they are working hard and getting things done, which they demonstrate by passing laws. This results in an ever-increasing number of laws, which isn't really a good thing. It makes it hard for people to know their rights. It makes it so our freedoms are constantly being assaulted. How much better off would we be if our legislators stopped trying to ban or regulate this or that and instead concentrated on keeping our laws well-written, up to date, applicable and useful? I for one think there's way too much on the books these days that's just crap, even though hundreads of people had to vote for it to become law. I'm not advocating that we imposing a limit on the number of laws Iowa or the US can have or anything. But I am saying that our nomic game might be better off if we took the behaviors of our government to heart and tried to regulate ourselves in such a way that we avoid doing what they do. So anyway, Matt, why not call for a vote? Clearly I'm the only perosn dumb enough to think that your proposal is a bad idea. You only need a majority anyway, so what are you waiting for? beN ^ / \ Ben Byrne |---| zenoflux@iastate.edu ||||| http://www.public.iastate.edu/~zenoflux | o | http://www.brainlink.com/Art-Ben | | Iowa State University | | | /\ "Some people would probably kill for a clear conscience." | ^ || -Steve C. Cullison || ||| ________________________________________ Date: Apr 29, 1998 (Wed, 21:45:18) From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Voting Time Well, since there seems to be only one (vocal) malcontent regarding Proposal CCCVIII, lets put it to a vote as of right... now. Just to refresh any "drifty" memories, the proposal reads: Let rule 209 be stricken from the list of rules. So there you have it. One minor note: I'm all about cutting back on legislative activity in real life, but as for Nomic, ye gods, it's only a friggin' game...! --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Apr 30, 1998 (Thu, 0:30:10) From: "Matthew G. Potter" Subject: Re: whatever I guess I just have this >feeling that removing the limit will somehow discourage us from being as >careful about what we vote for as we ought, and will encourage unnecessary >frivolity in our rule-passing. Thsi hasn't been something we've needed to last time I checked, frivolity was part of it being a game--i.e. that we can and should do propose whatever the hell we want (Randall! Randall!!) that we think would make it more fun to play, along with all those proposals that make the game easier to play. If I wanted to excercise ponderous, mature rationality, I'd go stare at C-span. Just a teeny point of opinion. %) Matt ________________________________________ Date: Apr 30, 1998 (Thu, 0:34:7) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: whatever > I guess I just have this >>feeling that removing the limit will somehow discourage us from being as >>careful about what we vote for as we ought, and will encourage unnecessary >>frivolity in our rule-passing. Thsi hasn't been something we've needed to > >last time I checked, frivolity was part of it being a game--i.e. that we >can and should do propose whatever the hell we want (Randall! Randall!!) >that we think would make it more fun to play, along with all those >proposals that make the game easier to play. If I wanted to excercise >ponderous, mature rationality, I'd go stare at C-span. > >Just a teeny point of opinion. %) And then - some people find ponderous, mature rationality fun. Go figger. I think we need more proposals rewarding use of encoding techniques or foreign-language fluency (or, at least, foreign-language-dictionary-lookup fluency). Josh NP: The Velvet Underground, _Peel Slowly and See,_ disc 4, "Some Kinda Love" ________________________________________ Date: Apr 30, 1998 (Thu, 0:41:36) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: a request Nuthin formal about this... but I'd like to request that voters refrain from sending their votes to the email list and instead send them to Joel. Not that we won't find out how you voted anyway, but A) It's kind of irritating to find in the ol' mailbox and more importantly, B) It may actually have an effect on the outcome for players to know how other players have voted while voting is still taking place. beN "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 30, 1998 (Thu, 0:43:5) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: a request Unless my memory fails me (and it does regularly), Damon is the only person to send votes to the list with any regularity (possibly any nonzero frequency at all). Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >Nuthin formal about this... but I'd like to request that voters refrain >from sending their votes to the email list and instead send them to Joel. >Not that we won't find out how you voted anyway, but A) It's kind of >irritating to find in the ol' mailbox and more importantly, B) It may >actually have an effect on the outcome for players to know how other >players have voted while voting is still taking place. > >beN > >"Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." > -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that >the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. > >Looking for unique quotes? Visit >http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ > > ________________________________________ Date: Apr 30, 1998 (Thu, 0:54:49) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: re: a request I dunno. In all honesty I haven't paid attention to who's done it. Now that I think about it, thought, I think you're right Josh. And yet, somehow, life goes on. "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Apr 30, 1998 (Thu, 17:38:54) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: voting time limit. I currently have all but 3 votes. Anyone who doesn't vote by 9:45 AM on Thursday will be recorded as casting an automatic abstention. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Apr 30, 1998 (Thu, 19:10:42) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: correction All votes intended to be counted need to be in by 9:45 AM FRIDAY, not Thursday, as I erroneously stated before. Sorry. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu