________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 0:14:58) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: voting ...but that doesn't mean you should put it off until then! "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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 9:55:41) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn Assuming that the mail system isn't being gimpy and I have gotten all of the votes sent at or before 9:45 AM, Proposal 308 fails 7-7-0-1 (yes-no-abstain-auto abstain). Had Kuhns only voted for his own proposal... It is now Damon Luloff's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 10:50:0) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Hee hee hee This has got to be the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. I love it when people act in their own best interests rather than in the interests of the group. Wouldn't you agree, Matt? :) beN (Just trying to capture second place in the most-posts category) "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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 11:3:40) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Hee hee hee Ben Byrne is a goddamn smartass! Worse, he's a smug smartass. Well, smartass, at least you didn't get 10 free points, and I'm still ahead of you, so Hahah! :P And what's up with this "I love it when people act in their own best interests rather than in the interests of the group?" Since when did you consider my proposal to be in the best interests of the group? And to be perfectly clear, I don't blame myself for my proposal's failure, despite Joel's implications. The vote was 7-7-0-1 (yes-no-abstain-auto abstain). Had everyone voted, I would have felt responsible for my proposal's failure (although there were definitely other people out there who also voted against it despite having expressed no objections, thank you so much!) but since some HOSER TO THE NTH POWER failed to vote at all, I blame him. Fortunately it's way to soon to start playing for spite. Probably. >=) --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 11:4:4) From: Original Flavor Subject: Proposal #Whatever New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: 1. A new player must be represented by a real life meat box. 2. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must not already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. 3. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must be represented in the game by his/her real surname. 4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. 5. To be accepted into the game an informal proposal (not someone's turn) must be made and voted on. The player will be accepted if a simple majority of the players vote to accept the player. (The third part in conjuction with the first two parts is to prevent someone from quitting as, for instance, Jim Babcock and then entering immediately again as Jim Babcomb, then quitting and entering again as Jim Babcork, Jim Babcorn, Babcorpse, Babcorpusle, Babcorstein, Babcort, Baccone, Bacon, Bacone, Baconne, Bacom - you get the idea.) 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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 11:33:8) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Proposal #Whatever I heartily endorse any proposal containing the words "meat box," especially in repetition! Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl > >New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: > >1. A new player must be represented by a real life meat box. >2. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must not > already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. >3. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must be > represented in the game by his/her real surname. >4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. >5. To be accepted into the game an informal proposal (not someone's > turn) must be made and voted on. The player will be accepted if a > simple majority of the players vote to accept the player. > >(The third part in conjuction with the first two parts is to prevent >someone from quitting as, for instance, Jim Babcock and then entering >immediately again as Jim Babcomb, then quitting and entering again as >Jim Babcork, Jim Babcorn, Babcorpse, Babcorpusle, Babcorstein, Babcort, >Baccone, Bacon, Bacone, Baconne, Bacom - you get the idea.) > >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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 14:13:6) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: Proposal #Whatever I think I would prefer a 2/3 majority in favor of adding more players. This would make it more difficult for people to add persons to the game for their own purposes. Such as, trying to increase their voting power by adding persons friendly to their causes. Thoughts? Andy At 11:04 AM 5/1/98 CDT, you wrote: > >New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: > >1. A new player must be represented by a real life meat box. >2. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must not > already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. >3. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must be > represented in the game by his/her real surname. >4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. >5. To be accepted into the game an informal proposal (not someone's > turn) must be made and voted on. The player will be accepted if a > simple majority of the players vote to accept the player. > >(The third part in conjuction with the first two parts is to prevent >someone from quitting as, for instance, Jim Babcock and then entering >immediately again as Jim Babcomb, then quitting and entering again as >Jim Babcork, Jim Babcorn, Babcorpse, Babcorpusle, Babcorstein, Babcort, >Baccone, Bacon, Bacone, Baconne, Bacom - you get the idea.) > >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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 15:16:35) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: no, this is not stupid, Nate! Hah! (ok, maybe the last part) In regards to Damon's proposal; where would new players added in this fashion be inserted into the order of play? Appropriate alphabetical position might be a good default, but even this might cause problems with game play (for instance, a judgement is in the process of being made when a new player is added who falls alphabetically immediately before the current player. Who is the judge? Is it undecidable? I think the proposal should state specifically where the new player will go, and what will resolve any foreseen complications. That is all. By the way, my revolutionary duties are back in full force. The following is not a message for not Matt Kuhns because I am not a shadowy underworld figure whose dubious schemes were not integral to his rise to power. There is no connection to myself and other underground militants to the current administration. The message is not "The eagle strikes back at midnight" That is all. Viva la Revolucion Anonymous "Subcomandate Marcos" Anonymous ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 16:27:53) From: Original Flavor Subject: Mike Mike is a fucking looney, but some of his ideas are reasonable. 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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 19:41:14) From: Adam Haar Subject: Prop #Who_Cares Why not drop them into the normal alphebetical order, allow them to vote, but not make proposals or judgements until the current cycle of players is through (they don't get to do neat stuff until after Uckelman's coming turn). 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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 23:59:50) From: Original Flavor Subject: Revision of Proposal How about this? New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: 1. A new player must be represented by a real person. 2. A person submitting the request to become a new player must not already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. 3. A person submitting the request to become a new player must be represented in the game by his/her real surname. 4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. 5. A new player will be alphabetically placed in the list of order according to his/her surname. 6. A new player will have the status 'new player' when he/she begins. 7. A new player will be afforded all of the rights as a player except for the right to make a formal proposal. 8. A new player will be awarded the status 'player' when his/her turn has been skipped once. 9. To be accepted into the game, an informal proposal must be made by a any player currently in the game by announcing it to everyone and calling for a vote. A player need not use his/her turn make the proposal. 10. To be accepted into the game, a two-thirds majority is needed. (I know the his/her, he/she thing isn't really appropriate at this time, but come on; a guy can hope, can't he? Chicks rule! No offense to the homosexual men out there.) 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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:0:54) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Revision of Proposal I am very distraught at the exclusion of the phrase "meat box." Josh who is serious ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl > >How about this? > >New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: > >1. A new player must be represented by a real person. >2. A person submitting the request to become a new player must not > already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. >3. A person submitting the request to become a new player must be > represented in the game by his/her real surname. >4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. >5. A new player will be alphabetically placed in the list of order > according to his/her surname. >6. A new player will have the status 'new player' when he/she begins. >7. A new player will be afforded all of the rights as a player except for > the right to make a formal proposal. >8. A new player will be awarded the status 'player' when his/her turn has > been skipped once. >9. To be accepted into the game, an informal proposal must be made by a > any player currently in the game by announcing it to everyone and calling > for a vote. A player need not use his/her turn make the proposal. >10. To be accepted into the game, a two-thirds majority is needed. > > >(I know the his/her, he/she thing isn't really appropriate at this time, >but come on; a guy can hope, can't he? Chicks rule! No offense to the >homosexual men out there.) > >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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:32:1) From: Nick Osborn Subject: current proposal it would be much easier to deal with this proposal if we already had a rule concerning active and inactive players, which we will need for the summer. damon seems to be tripping over definitions of "player" and "person" as if they had legal meaning, which they dont. by passing a rule dealing with active and inactive players, the current proposal would be easier to formulate. i suggest damon amend his proposal to address the active/inactive issue, facilitating his current intentions at a later date. n ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:35:36) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: current proposal Plus the re-addition of "meat box." ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >it would be much easier to deal with this proposal if we already had a rule >concerning active and inactive players, which we will need for the summer. >damon seems to be tripping over definitions of "player" and "person" as if >they had legal meaning, which they dont. by passing a rule dealing with >active and inactive players, the current proposal would be easier to >formulate. > >i suggest damon amend his proposal to address the active/inactive issue, >facilitating his current intentions at a later date. > >n ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:43:52) From: Original Flavor Subject: Remo I don't think it is necessary to do anything first. My proposal stands alone. I am not tripping over the definitions of person and player. If you read the rules, a player is clearly defined. A player has certain rights. A person, on the other hand, is a living breathing human being. Changing is different from amending. What you want me to do is completely change, not revise. I refuse. In fact, I call for a vote. 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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:44:44) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Remo GODDAMNIT, WHAT ABOUT MEAT BOXES? Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl > >I don't think it is necessary to do anything first. My proposal stands >alone. I am not tripping over the definitions of person and player. If >you read the rules, a player is clearly defined. A player has certain >rights. A person, on the other hand, is a living breathing human being. > >Changing is different from amending. What you want me to do is completely >change, not revise. I refuse. > >In fact, I call for a vote. > >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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 1:8:34) From: Original Flavor Subject: Resignation I officially resign my duties as PLAYER 'Damon Luloff' in this nomic game. (I quit.) 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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 11:31:10) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: resignation What do we do now that Damon has quit in the middle of his turn? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 11:39:27) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: resignation At 11:31 AM 5/2/98 -0500, you wrote: >What do we do now that Damon has quit in the middle of his turn? call him names? ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 12:20:41) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re: Resignation I would say we continue the voting process, with the mechanisms already in place. Any points accumulated by Damon in this turn are forfeited and any points gained by other players are accrued as normal. 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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 12:58:44) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: resignation Assuming that this proposal passes, I think we should add Damon to the game again. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 13:3:32) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: resignation Unless he, the meat box, has agreed, then that seems to be fairly futile. You can add him, but unless he wants to play you'll just have a "player" who slows up the game, by requiring enforcement of the automatic abstention, and more importantly, not proposing proposals (we currently don't have a rule for that, note). Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >Assuming that this proposal passes, I think we should add Damon to the game >again. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 14:25:45) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Re: Damon's quitting >What do we do now that Damon has quit in the middle of his turn? > >J. Uckelman Well, first we need to elect a dictator for the purposes of holding elections. Then, once the dictator holds elections, the consuls who hold imperium can then deal the the problem. Cristus Quintius Agerus ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 16:1:59) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: ? Does anyone know WHY Damon quit? --in the middle of his turn? "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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 16:2:56) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: ? He's become fed up with the social system and has gone off to find a rich mentor that will pay him to write _Das Kapital_ and the Communist manifesto. Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl > Does anyone know WHY Damon quit? --in the middle of his turn? > >"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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 16:5:33) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: At 04:01 PM 5/2/98 -0500, you wrote: > Does anyone know WHY Damon quit? --in the middle of his turn? > >"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 > Damon quit due to a misunderstanding we had last evening. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 20:53:53) From: "J. Uckelman" Voting is still open on this proposal until 12:45 PM tomorrow. Right now I only have about 5 votes... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 21:13:47) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: proposal? I don't recall having ever heard Damon CFV... and if he left before he called for one, wouldn't we just move on to the next person? Oh well, whatever. "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: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 0:12:12) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: proposal? At 09:13 PM 5/2/98 -0500, you wrote: > I don't recall having ever heard Damon CFV... and if he left before >he called for one, wouldn't we just move on to the next person? Oh well, >whatever. > >"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 > > Damon did call for a vote before he quit. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 0:18:21) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: proposal? > I don't recall having ever heard Damon CFV... and if he left before >he called for one, wouldn't we just move on to the next person? Oh well, He called for a vote in his post entitled "Remo." >whatever. > >"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: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 0:52:22) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: my mistake Okay, yeah, you're right. Sorry. You don't expect me to read email all the way to the end? :) "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: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 12:54:43) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn In an amazing outpouring of voter apathy, Proposal 309 passed 5-3-1-6. Next up is Chris Mayfield. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 13:35:59) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: My platform Since I don't believe that there's anything against airing multiple proposals (so long as I limit myself to one when it comes time to vote), here are some things that have been running through my head. Let me know what you think, since I'll probably make a decision in 24 hours as to which proposal to call, then call for a vote roughly 24 hours after that. Possible Tyranny of Immutible rules: Since (I believe) it only requires a simple majority to make a mutable rule into an immutable one, a small clique with just enough supporters could establish an immutable rule that would be nearly impossible to repeal. Therefore, I suggest beginning a slate of proposals that would a) Rule 109 be made mutable (this would be mine) b) Any rule made immutable can be made mutable by a vote with the same or greater majority that made the rule immutable in the first place c) For the purposes of b), all initial rules are considered unanimously immutable Ex. Rule 501 is made immutable by a vote of 7-2-1. To make it mutable again would require a 70% or greater majority of votes. Since this course of action involves the first step of getting a unanimous vote to transmute 109, I'm not going to propose it if people think this is a bad idea. New Opposed Minority Scoring Take the total number of point possible (assuming unanimous approval) and cut in half. That number is the new value for minority scoring. This has the advantage of keeping the opposed scoring scaled to the current proposal rather than falling behind and becoming less of a motivation to squeeze the vote. Modifications on 309 7. A new player will be afforded all the rights of a player except the right to hold judgment (including the right to vote and score points). 8. A new player will be awarded status after the completion of the first proposal to be proposed and voted on after the new player's admission to the game. The exception to this is if the new player's turn would be the first proposal to fit the above qualifications. This fixes something I didn't see addressed by Damon's proposal: that someone could try to rig the jury in their favor by proposing a new player (as hard as it might be to find someone with the right alphabetic placement). Also, by making a new player wait until their first chance to propose a rule change is passed, the new player will have to wait between 15 and 30 rounds or so (depending on where they come in) before they get the right to propose. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 13:53:26) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: notes on summer -- EVERYONE READ THIS 1. We currently have no rule to allow turns to be skipped if players have no e-mail access for the summer. If we do not pass such a rule before we leave, play will halt until August. This will probably be the last (or second to last) turn where we are all here and playing, so if Chris Mayfield does not propose such a rule, there is a decreased likelihood of further play until August. 2. The mailing list averages 5 messages a day. Over the course of a summer, that would come to around 500 messages waiting for you when you return. If you aren't playing over the summer and don't want this, remove yourself from the mailing list before you leave. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 13:55:55) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: new player proposal I propose that Damon Luloff be added to the game and call for a vote on the matter. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 13:57:6) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Re: My platform >>Possible Tyranny of Immutible rules: >> Since (I believe) it only requires a simple majority to make a >>mutable rule into an immutable one, a small clique with just enough >>supporters could establish an immutable rule that would be nearly >>impossible to repeal. > >This is not true. Any transmutation requires unanimity, regardless of the >direction. --- Rule 109 states only that immutable rules need a majority to become mutable. Neither it, nor any of the other rules, as far as I can see, state anything about the requirements of mutable into immutable. Therefore I assume that this requires the default number of votes required of a proposal to pass, i.e. a simple majority as of right now. Clarifications welcomed, but I believe this is the way it stands. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 14:22:24) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: My platform At 01:57 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >>>Possible Tyranny of Immutible rules: >>> Since (I believe) it only requires a simple majority to make a >>>mutable rule into an immutable one, a small clique with just enough >>>supporters could establish an immutable rule that would be nearly >>>impossible to repeal. >> >>This is not true. Any transmutation requires unanimity, regardless of the >>direction. > >--- > >Rule 109 states only that immutable rules need a majority to become >mutable. Neither it, nor any of the other rules, as far as I can see, >state anything about the requirements of mutable into immutable. >Therefore I assume that this requires the default number of votes >required of a proposal to pass, i.e. a simple majority as of right now. > >Clarifications welcomed, but I believe this is the way it stands. > >Chris > Transmutation is a rule change. There is no explicit method for transmutation from mutable to immutable stated in 109, but 102 explicitly states that it can be done in either direction. Rule 116 states: "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." The last clause of this rule prevents such assumptions as Mr. Mayfield makes above -- the general voting rules contain no such permission to transmute rules based only on a majority. Because 109 is the only rule specifically dealing with voting on transmutations, it is singled out as a special case of voting. Transmutation of mutable to immutable is more similar to this special case than the general case of voting. We have no grounds for likening the case at hand to an unlike general case if a closer match is available. If any implication is present in 109, it is that unanimity is required in the other direction as well. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 14:58:29) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: new player proposal This is the second time you've said this, but you still haven't said what you're going to do if he is added. Enough with the not talking. I certainly won't vote for your proposal without a good reason, and neither should anyone else. Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >I propose that Damon Luloff be added to the game and call for a vote on the >matter. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 15:26:59) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: new player proposal I don't follow. What do you mean "what am I going to do if he's added"? I have already discussed it with him and he wants to be added to the game. In any case, there's no reason to vote against this unless you really don't want Damon to play -- it's an informal proposal, so no points are awarded or lost due to its outcome. At 02:58 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >This is the second time you've said this, but you still haven't >said what you're going to do if he is added. Enough with the not >talking. I certainly won't vote for your proposal without a good reason, >and neither should anyone else. > > >Josh > >____________________________________________________________ >"I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both > very interesting numbers." > - Larry Wall, creator of perl > >>I propose that Damon Luloff be added to the game and call for a vote on the >>matter. >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 18:35:16) From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Original Flavor Damon wants to rejoin the current game, or so most sources indicate. Thus there shouldn't be concern about the effects of adding a player to the game without their consent. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 21:0:59) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: voting Everyone does need to vote on the proposal to reinstate Damon. As of now, I only have 2 of 14 votes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 21:2:35) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: voting Hey, Mr. Sex Machine - I said I'd vote no unless you offer some explanation. I'm giving you a chance to explain before I cast my vote. Or do you want to take your chances? Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >Everyone does need to vote on the proposal to reinstate Damon. As of now, I >only have 2 of 14 votes. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 21:18:8) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: My platform >Transmutation is a rule change. There is no explicit method for >transmutation from mutable to immutable stated in 109, but 102 explicitly >states that it can be done in either direction. Rule 116 states: "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." The last clause >of this rule prevents such assumptions as Mr. Mayfield makes above -- the >general voting rules contain no such permission to transmute rules based >only on a majority. The last clause in Rule 116 states that CHANGING THE RULES is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. The "changing the rules" in this case is governed by 103/0. Definition of Rule Change (immutable) A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ versa. ^^^^^ (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You're correct that the rules contain no provision for making mutable-> immutable changes via majority votes. However, there is no prohibition against it, either, and rule 103 firmly establishes that simply transmuting the rule (by unspecified means) is allowed. >Because 109 is the only rule specifically dealing with voting on >transmutations, it is singled out as a special case of voting. >Transmutation of mutable to immutable is more similar to this special case >than the general case of voting. We have no grounds for likening the case >at hand to an unlike general case if a closer match is available. If any >implication is present in 109, it is that unanimity is required in the >other direction as well. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect. The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for immutable->mutable changes; it stands to reason that if the rule were meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule 103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. Josh NP: King Crimson, _Red_ ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 22:34:59) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: My platform At 09:18 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for >immutable->mutable changes; Not true. If it does state that unanimity is required for ONLY immutable->mutable changes, it does not exclude unanimity for mutable->immutable changes: i.e. while M->I does not follow from I->M, neither does it exclude it. Simple omission does not prevent the reverse from being true as well. You are making a case for I->M & ~(M->I), while the ~(M->I) part is not even present. Are we simply to suppose it is there? If so, what else are we to SUPPOSE exists in the rules? >it stands to reason that if the rule were >meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said >so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule >103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording >of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable >changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because >immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. > >Josh >NP: King Crimson, _Red_ > Not only is the similarity a completely valid one, speculation as to the intent of the game creator might shed some more light on this subject. The game was intended to be a simulation of self-modifying systems -- for such study, it would make no sense to have an operation that was not symmetrical simply because there is no compelling reason to do so. I can think of lots of systems in which actions which essentially create an immutable rule are perfectly symmetrical, but none in which such actions are not. The Constitution and virtually every state and organizational constitution have the feature of symmetry in amending them -- it took just as many concurring states to start Prohibition as it did to end it, for instance. I think this is merely an oversight on the part of the designer rather than an intentional subtlety, and should be treated as such. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 22:47:35) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: voting At 09:02 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Hey, Mr. Sex Machine - I said I'd vote no unless you offer some explanation. >I'm giving you a chance to explain before I cast my vote. Or do you >want to take your chances? > What is it that is not clear? Damon wants to rejoin the game. I proposed it under Rule 309 so he could. I am simply trying to fix a mistake I made. Since this is an informal proposal, no points will be transacted. If you have someting specific in mind, ask it so I have some idea what you are getting at. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 23:14:14) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: voting >At 09:02 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>Hey, Mr. Sex Machine - I said I'd vote no unless you offer some explanation. >>I'm giving you a chance to explain before I cast my vote. Or do you >>want to take your chances? >> > >What is it that is not clear? Damon wants to rejoin the game. I proposed it >under Rule 309 so he could. I am simply trying to fix a mistake I made. >Since this is an informal proposal, no points will be transacted. If you >have someting specific in mind, ask it so I have some idea what you are >getting at. As far as I know, Damon is thinking of rejoining the game "eventually" - with no provision made for when. Until he is definitely set on rejoining, your proposal may cause a player who is not represented by a human to be added. This is technically not a problem until his turn, due to automatic abstention, but it would require each auto-abstain period to be enforced - and simply waiting until Damon says "I want to play now" seems wiser. Has he done so, over there in Harwood-land, where we electronic players might not know? Josh NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 23:20:9) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: voting At 11:14 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >>At 09:02 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >>> >>>Hey, Mr. Sex Machine - I said I'd vote no unless you offer some explanation. >>>I'm giving you a chance to explain before I cast my vote. Or do you >>>want to take your chances? >>> >> >>What is it that is not clear? Damon wants to rejoin the game. I proposed it >>under Rule 309 so he could. I am simply trying to fix a mistake I made. >>Since this is an informal proposal, no points will be transacted. If you >>have someting specific in mind, ask it so I have some idea what you are >>getting at. > >As far as I know, Damon is thinking of rejoining the game "eventually" - >with no provision made for when. Until he is definitely set on rejoining, >your proposal may cause a player who is not represented by a human to >be added. This is technically not a problem until his turn, due to >automatic abstention, but it would require each auto-abstain period to >be enforced - and simply waiting until Damon says "I want to play now" >seems wiser. Has he done so, over there in Harwood-land, where we electronic >players might not know? > >Josh >NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ > Yes, I've already said this. Damon does want to rejoin now. We talked about this. Ask him if you don't believe me. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 23:30:38) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: My platform >At 09:18 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for >>immutable->mutable changes; > >Not true. If it does state that unanimity is required for ONLY >immutable->mutable changes, it does not exclude unanimity for >mutable->immutable changes: i.e. while M->I does not follow from I->M, >neither does it exclude it. Simple omission does not prevent the reverse >from being true as well. You are making a case for I->M & ~(M->I), while >the ~(M->I) part is not even present. Are we simply to suppose it is there? >If so, what else are we to SUPPOSE exists in the rules? Allow me to clarify - what I intended to mean was that the rule places requirements on I->M changes, and otherwise places no requirements. >>it stands to reason that if the rule were >>meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said >>so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule >>103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording >>of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable >>changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because >>immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. >> >>Josh >>NP: King Crimson, _Red_ >> >Not only is the similarity a completely valid one, speculation as to the >intent of the game creator might shed some more light on this subject. The >game was intended to be a simulation of self-modifying systems -- for such >study, it would make no sense to have an operation that was not symmetrical >simply because there is no compelling reason to do so. I can think of lots >of systems in which actions which essentially create an immutable rule are >perfectly symmetrical, but none in which such actions are not. The >Constitution and virtually every state and organizational constitution have >the feature of symmetry in amending them -- it took just as many concurring >states to start Prohibition as it did to end it, for instance. I think this >is merely an oversight on the part of the designer rather than an >intentional subtlety, and should be treated as such. As I've said in an earlier post, given the careful distinction Suber made in other rules wrt I->M and M->I, I think we should take this "oversight" as intentional. It is in the interests of simplicity to do so; otherwise, we will be setting a rules-precedent which will not always be enforceable, as it's not written into the rules. If I wanted an M->I proposal for a given rule to pass, and it didn't because of your unanimity requirement, I would certainly call for a judgement - every single time such a failure of passage occurs. Perhaps you cannot think of systems in which immutability actions are not symmetrical, but I believe that's because those systems contain "rules" which make it so. You're arguing against the wording of our rule simply because of a similarity to real-world systems. This is NOT a real-world system, though, and I think rather than shoehorning it into that mold it would be more interesting to deal with it as written. Question: what's so wrong with allowing M->I changes with a majority vote? "Because it's not symmetrical" is not a good reason. Josh NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 23:55:47) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: My platform At 11:30 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >>At 09:18 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >>> >>>The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for >>>immutable->mutable changes; >> >>Not true. If it does state that unanimity is required for ONLY >>immutable->mutable changes, it does not exclude unanimity for >>mutable->immutable changes: i.e. while M->I does not follow from I->M, >>neither does it exclude it. Simple omission does not prevent the reverse >>from being true as well. You are making a case for I->M & ~(M->I), while >>the ~(M->I) part is not even present. Are we simply to suppose it is there? >>If so, what else are we to SUPPOSE exists in the rules? > >Allow me to clarify - what I intended to mean was that the rule places >requirements on I->M changes, and otherwise places no requirements. Exactly. When no explicit restrictions are placed on rule changes, implicit restrictions take over. I've already stated what I think these are in previous posts with the same subject. >>>it stands to reason that if the rule were >>>meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said >>>so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule >>>103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording >>>of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable >>>changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because >>>immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. >>> >>>Josh >>>NP: King Crimson, _Red_ >>> >>Not only is the similarity a completely valid one, speculation as to the >>intent of the game creator might shed some more light on this subject. The >>game was intended to be a simulation of self-modifying systems -- for such >>study, it would make no sense to have an operation that was not symmetrical >>simply because there is no compelling reason to do so. I can think of lots >>of systems in which actions which essentially create an immutable rule are >>perfectly symmetrical, but none in which such actions are not. The >>Constitution and virtually every state and organizational constitution have >>the feature of symmetry in amending them -- it took just as many concurring >>states to start Prohibition as it did to end it, for instance. I think this >>is merely an oversight on the part of the designer rather than an >>intentional subtlety, and should be treated as such. > >As I've said in an earlier post, given the careful distinction Suber made >in other rules wrt I->M and M->I, I think we should take this "oversight" >as intentional. It is in the interests of simplicity to do so; otherwise, >we will be setting a rules-precedent which will not always be enforceable, >as it's not written into the rules. If I wanted an M->I proposal for a >given rule to pass, and it didn't because of your unanimity requirement, >I would certainly call for a judgement - every single time such a failure >of passage occurs. > >Perhaps you cannot think of systems in which immutability actions are >not symmetrical, but I believe that's because those systems contain "rules" >which make it so. You're arguing against the wording of our rule simply >because of a similarity to real-world systems. This is NOT a real-world >system, though, and I think rather than shoehorning it into that mold >it would be more interesting to deal with it as written. > >Question: what's so wrong with allowing M->I changes with a majority vote? >"Because it's not symmetrical" is not a good reason. > >Josh >NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ > "Because it's not symmetrical" in your interpretation of the rules IS a good reason for us to assume it cannot be that way, because: 1. Symmetry is consistent with real-world systems. There's no reason to ignore this just because it would supposedly be "more interesting" to do so. 2. There is no logical preclusion for symmetry. We both agree that this is the case. 3. Rule 116 requires us to look for any implicit meanings which could apply here. I believe I have sufficiently pointed out such clauses in existing rules. 4. There is no rational reason for this relation not to be symmetrical. What purpose could it possibly serve to allow immutable rules to be easily created while at the same time extremely difficult to eliminate? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 8:55:22) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Nomic II: The Next Mutation (And Call for Judgment!!) Uckleman sez: >Exactly. When no explicit restrictions are placed on rule changes, implicit >restrictions take over. I've already stated what I think these are in >previous posts with the same subject. Rule 116 states: 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. Thus 116 requires that rules governing rule changes (of which transmutation is a part) to be explicitly stated. No guesswork. I don't want this to become an ad hominem, but it seems that your arguments against this are primarily aesthetic ones, which, though nice, have exactly zippo to do with what's legal. Since there seems (as of right now) to be little chance in either side (Josh & Chris vs. Joel) convincing the other, I HEARBY CALL JUDGMENT AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR!! Have a nice day. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 9:24:6) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: My platform >At 11:30 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>>At 09:18 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >>>> >>>>The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for >>>>immutable->mutable changes; >>> >>>Not true. If it does state that unanimity is required for ONLY >>>immutable->mutable changes, it does not exclude unanimity for >>>mutable->immutable changes: i.e. while M->I does not follow from I->M, >>>neither does it exclude it. Simple omission does not prevent the reverse >>>from being true as well. You are making a case for I->M & ~(M->I), while >>>the ~(M->I) part is not even present. Are we simply to suppose it is there? >>>If so, what else are we to SUPPOSE exists in the rules? >> >>Allow me to clarify - what I intended to mean was that the rule places >>requirements on I->M changes, and otherwise places no requirements. > >Exactly. When no explicit restrictions are placed on rule changes, implicit >restrictions take over. I've already stated what I think these are in >previous posts with the same subject. > >>>>it stands to reason that if the rule were >>>>meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said >>>>so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule >>>>103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording >>>>of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable >>>>changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because >>>>immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. >>>> >>>>Josh >>>>NP: King Crimson, _Red_ >>>> >>>Not only is the similarity a completely valid one, speculation as to the >>>intent of the game creator might shed some more light on this subject. The >>>game was intended to be a simulation of self-modifying systems -- for such >>>study, it would make no sense to have an operation that was not symmetrical >>>simply because there is no compelling reason to do so. I can think of lots >>>of systems in which actions which essentially create an immutable rule are >>>perfectly symmetrical, but none in which such actions are not. The >>>Constitution and virtually every state and organizational constitution have >>>the feature of symmetry in amending them -- it took just as many concurring >>>states to start Prohibition as it did to end it, for instance. I think this >>>is merely an oversight on the part of the designer rather than an >>>intentional subtlety, and should be treated as such. >> >>As I've said in an earlier post, given the careful distinction Suber made >>in other rules wrt I->M and M->I, I think we should take this "oversight" >>as intentional. It is in the interests of simplicity to do so; otherwise, >>we will be setting a rules-precedent which will not always be enforceable, >>as it's not written into the rules. If I wanted an M->I proposal for a >>given rule to pass, and it didn't because of your unanimity requirement, >>I would certainly call for a judgement - every single time such a failure >>of passage occurs. >> >>Perhaps you cannot think of systems in which immutability actions are >>not symmetrical, but I believe that's because those systems contain "rules" >>which make it so. You're arguing against the wording of our rule simply >>because of a similarity to real-world systems. This is NOT a real-world >>system, though, and I think rather than shoehorning it into that mold >>it would be more interesting to deal with it as written. >> >>Question: what's so wrong with allowing M->I changes with a majority vote? >>"Because it's not symmetrical" is not a good reason. >> >>Josh >>NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ >> > >"Because it's not symmetrical" in your interpretation of the rules IS a >good reason for us to assume it cannot be that way, because: >1. Symmetry is consistent with real-world systems. There's no reason to >ignore this just because it would supposedly be "more interesting" to do so. This is a shitty reason, because there's a very simple reason to "ignore" this - we are stuck in this non-real-world-system, and it's currently set up to lack symmetry. >2. There is no logical preclusion for symmetry. We both agree that this is >the case. This is a shitty reason, because there is likewise no logical preclusion for the lack of symmetry, IN THE CURRENT RULES. >3. Rule 116 requires us to look for any implicit meanings which could apply >here. I believe I have sufficiently pointed out such clauses in existing >rules. Yes, it requires us to look for implicit meanings - but it does not give us free reign to make up whatever meanings we wish, and then apply them whilst waving our hands and yelling "implicit meaning, implicit meaning!" I prefer my "implicit meanings" to be grounded in the text, which yours are not. >4. There is no rational reason for this relation not to be symmetrical. >What purpose could it possibly serve to allow immutable rules to be easily >created while at the same time extremely difficult to eliminate? Perhaps as a "lesson," since this game has didactic purposes? Perhaps because Suber considered it important for I->M changes to be difficult, AND THAT'S ALL? Perhaps because he wanted to safeguard against the initially immutable rules being transmuted, but did not otherwise wory about the sanctity of immutable rules? And, again, the most "rational reason" there is for the relation not to be symmetrical: in the most basic sense possible, that's what the rules say. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 9:30:43) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Re: Doh!! Somebody or some_thing_ claiming to be me wrote: 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. Heh. Heh. Didn't see that. Still, everything I said before still stands (including the call for judgment), in that I think Joel is reaching for implicit meanings. Just because it ain't mentioned don't mean it's implied. Chris (slinking back under his rock) ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 10:17:58) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re: Platform Ok boys here's the deal, I->M transmutes are a bitch because Immutable rules, in this game, simulate a constitiution. Just as with our Federal Constitution it ain't supposed to be fucked with alot. Also let's remember the lawyer's pot of gold, it's the letter of the law that must be followed, not the spirit. Therefore "implicit meaning" don't mean shit, if it don't say it, it don't fly. 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: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 10:39:35) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: My platform At 09:24 AM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: >>"Because it's not symmetrical" in your interpretation of the rules IS a >>good reason for us to assume it cannot be that way, because: >>1. Symmetry is consistent with real-world systems. There's no reason to >>ignore this just because it would supposedly be "more interesting" to do so. > >This is a shitty reason, because there's a very simple reason to "ignore" >this - we are stuck in this non-real-world-system, and it's currently set >up to lack symmetry. > You are assuming that it lacks symmetry, and are basing your argument that it lacks symmetry on your assumption that it lacks symmetry. Circular, don't you think? >>2. There is no logical preclusion for symmetry. We both agree that this is >>the case. > >This is a shitty reason, because there is likewise no logical preclusion for >the lack of symmetry, IN THE CURRENT RULES. > I agree that there is no logical preclusion for either interpretation. I made this argument because you (or Chris, I don't remember) stated that symmetry was precluded. >>3. Rule 116 requires us to look for any implicit meanings which could apply >>here. I believe I have sufficiently pointed out such clauses in existing >>rules. > >Yes, it requires us to look for implicit meanings - but it does not give >us free reign to make up whatever meanings we wish, and then apply them >whilst waving our hands and yelling "implicit meaning, implicit meaning!" >I prefer my "implicit meanings" to be grounded in the text, which yours >are not. Stop making up meanings, then. I've already stated several times where the meaning I favor is drawn from, and I think it is supportable. If you don't agree, then I guess we've just found one more thing on which our opinions diverge. >>4. There is no rational reason for this relation not to be symmetrical. >>What purpose could it possibly serve to allow immutable rules to be easily >>created while at the same time extremely difficult to eliminate? > >Perhaps as a "lesson," since this game has didactic purposes? Perhaps >because Suber considered it important for I->M changes to be difficult, >AND THAT'S ALL? Perhaps because he wanted to safeguard against the initially >immutable rules being transmuted, but did not otherwise wory about the >sanctity of immutable rules? Again, I fail to see what you're getting at here. Is it supposed to be a good thing for us to be stuck with immutable rules we can't get rid of because there was never a consensus that we should have them in the first place? This is exactly the situation we would have if your interpretation is correct. >And, again, the most "rational reason" there is for the relation not to >be symmetrical: in the most basic sense possible, that's what the rules >say. > >Josh > I certainly don't perceive the rules that way. Once again, you're attempting to use your assumption to prove itself. In any case, I don't see either of us convincing the other (not that I ever do...), so further discussion is pointless. I intend to protest each and every mutable->immutable transmutation attempted in this way. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 10:45:32) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Damon and next proposal A few people (like 6 or 7) haven't voted yet on reinstating Damon in the game. Please do so. Chris Mayfield has not yet made a proposal. It would be appreciated if he did so, as we must be able to finish at least one more turn after his before everyone leaves if he doesn't propose something concerning skipping the turns of individuals who can't play during the summer. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 11:12:24) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: My platform >At 09:24 AM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: >>>"Because it's not symmetrical" in your interpretation of the rules IS a >>>good reason for us to assume it cannot be that way, because: >>>1. Symmetry is consistent with real-world systems. There's no reason to >>>ignore this just because it would supposedly be "more interesting" to do so. >> >>This is a shitty reason, because there's a very simple reason to "ignore" >>this - we are stuck in this non-real-world-system, and it's currently set >>up to lack symmetry. >> > >You are assuming that it lacks symmetry, and are basing your argument that >it lacks symmetry on your assumption that it lacks symmetry. Circular, >don't you think? If I give you a statement: P: I->M changes require a unanimity then the statement most certainly does not say P: I<->M changes require a unanimity and thus it should be quite clear, unless you are TRYING to read other things into the statement, that symmetry is not present. > >>>2. There is no logical preclusion for symmetry. We both agree that this is >>>the case. >> >>This is a shitty reason, because there is likewise no logical preclusion for >>the lack of symmetry, IN THE CURRENT RULES. >> > >I agree that there is no logical preclusion for either interpretation. I >made this argument because you (or Chris, I don't remember) stated that >symmetry was precluded. > >>>3. Rule 116 requires us to look for any implicit meanings which could apply >>>here. I believe I have sufficiently pointed out such clauses in existing >>>rules. >> >>Yes, it requires us to look for implicit meanings - but it does not give >>us free reign to make up whatever meanings we wish, and then apply them >>whilst waving our hands and yelling "implicit meaning, implicit meaning!" >>I prefer my "implicit meanings" to be grounded in the text, which yours >>are not. > >Stop making up meanings, then. I've already stated several times where the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Making up" is incorrect, as I am merely reading exactly what is written in the rules. "Letter of the law," as Haar says. >meaning I favor is drawn from, and I think it is supportable. If you don't >agree, then I guess we've just found one more thing on which our opinions >diverge. > >>>4. There is no rational reason for this relation not to be symmetrical. >>>What purpose could it possibly serve to allow immutable rules to be easily >>>created while at the same time extremely difficult to eliminate? >> >>Perhaps as a "lesson," since this game has didactic purposes? Perhaps >>because Suber considered it important for I->M changes to be difficult, >>AND THAT'S ALL? Perhaps because he wanted to safeguard against the initially >>immutable rules being transmuted, but did not otherwise wory about the >>sanctity of immutable rules? > >Again, I fail to see what you're getting at here. Is it supposed to be a >good thing for us to be stuck with immutable rules we can't get rid of >because there was never a consensus that we should have them in the first >place? This is exactly the situation we would have if your interpretation >is correct. If we had a consensus to pass rules via a simple majority, then it ultimately seems to have been due to consensus that any further rules were passed. If you don't like it you shouldn't have voted for simple majority passage. If you don't like the lack of symmetry, then propose something to fix it on your turn. I'm not opposed to fixing it; I'm just opposed to you taking liberties with the letter of the law. > >>And, again, the most "rational reason" there is for the relation not to >>be symmetrical: in the most basic sense possible, that's what the rules >>say. >> >>Josh >> > >I certainly don't perceive the rules that way. Once again, you're >attempting to use your assumption to prove itself. My argument is not circular; I am merely reading the current rules literally, which is the only thing we CAN do. Josh viva la literalism ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 11:17:24) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Damon and next proposal >A few people (like 6 or 7) haven't voted yet on reinstating Damon in the >game. Please do so. > >Chris Mayfield has not yet made a proposal. It would be appreciated if he >did so, as we must be able to finish at least one more turn after his >before everyone leaves if he doesn't propose something concerning skipping >the turns of individuals who can't play during the summer. Since Chris has called for judgement in a matter related to a proposal he is interested in making, it doesn't seem very sporting to expect him to make a proposal before judgement is cast. It is, after all, his turn to do with as he pleases within the constraints of the rules. Will we have a simple majority of voting players able to vote after finals? If so then we can always run through a proposal dealing with the absent players, as their votes will be auto-abstained and thus will not matter. Howzabout people send information to Joel regarding whether or not they will be able to read mail over the summer, and how often? Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 11:23:14) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Re: Damon and next proposal A few people (like 6 or 7) haven't voted yet on reinstating Damon in the game. Please do so. Chris Mayfield has not yet made a proposal. It would be appreciated if he did so, as we must be able to finish at least one more turn after his before everyone leaves if he doesn't propose something concerning skipping the turns of individuals who can't play during the summer. J. Uckelman --- The way I see this summer is this: If you don't got email, by the time you get back to school there will be one of two situations a) The game is over. b> The game is not over. After running all summer though, all the spring people will be incredibly far behind in points with little or no chance of getting caught up. My pragmatic suggestion (NOT A PROPOSAL) is that if you don't got email, quit. Other people may disagree with this. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 12:23:30) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Damon and next proposal At 11:23 AM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: >The way I see this summer is this: > >If you don't got email, by the time you get back to school there will be >one of two situations >a) The game is over. I certainly don't intend to let that happen. There are no procedures for ending the game even in the event of a win. Someone would get a win, and then we would keep going. >b> The game is not over. After running all summer though, all the spring >people will be incredibly far behind in points with little or no chance >of getting caught up. True, it nothing is done to prevent that. I suggest that they either receive the average points earned over the summer, or have some system of betting to determine points so they don't fall behind. >My pragmatic suggestion (NOT A PROPOSAL) is that if you don't got email, >quit. Other people may disagree with this. > >Chris > I disagree completely, for the reason stated above. It seems we agree on very little... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 14:0:52) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Damon and next proposal How 'bout if those of us who can get e-mail start a new game, because if i wasn't able to get mail, i still wouldn't want to quit. Another thing, most public libraries have internet access that i know of, and if one was willing to make an effort, you could get a hotmail account or something, right?(just another idea) Then the email problem would be mariginally solved. just brainstorming, Allan. ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 14:1:7) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: play over the summer I read through what Josh and Chris had to say and I would like to point out a few things that might not be clear. First of all, play will not automatically continue normally with players unable to play over the summer auto abstaining. I'm not sure about the numbers, but there might be problems. First of all, if a majority of players auto-abstain, then no proposal can be passed, as per Josh's rule (i don't remember the number). This may or may not be the case, I don't know. If it is not, then there still might be another problem. Players who cannot communicate cannot send proposals and thus cannot complete their turns, bringing the game to a screeching halt. This also wouldn't be a problem if a rule was passed before a player in such a position began a turn. Howver, Nick is the next player to play after Chris, and I believe he is going away for the summer and will not have e-mail(a problem). So, the best thing to do would be to take care of this now. I realize that the problem could be solved by having a bunch of people quit, but I don't know if that's the best solution. Things to think about any way. Mike ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 14:25:44) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic II: The Next Mutation (And Call for Judgment!!) As I see it: Transmutation of mutable rules to immutable rules requires a simple majority of players (as defined by rule 305). Comments: Rule 109 states that rule changes transmuting immutable rules to mutable rules require a unanimous vote. It makes no reference to transmuting mutable rules to immutable rules. Therefore mutable to immutable transmutations are governed by rule 306 (according to rule 103 all transmutations fall into the category "rule-changes" and ought therefore be governed by the rules that govern all rule changes, except when a rule specifically states otherwise, as in the case of transmuting immutable to mutable.) Regarding rule 116, the statement that anything not prohibited by the rules is thus permitted by the rules with the exception of changing the rules, changing of the rules in this case is already permitted. The question at hand deals solely with method of rule-change rather than the permissability of rule-change. Thus the matter of implicit or explicit permission is irrelevant to this judgment. Off-the-record thoughts: I am not happy about the judgment I have issued. I consider the disparity between requirements for trasmutation one way and the reverse transmutation an incredibly screwed-up situation. However, by rule 212, "all decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect." This judgment reflects the current rules as best I can. I strongly favor changing the current rules to make the requirements for transmutations identical. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 14:47:38) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: play over the summer A possible alternative: "fork" the current game so that it is copied wholly, and then let run separate from the original game. Have everyone who's out for the summer quit the second one, and have the first game remain in stasis until fall. Downside: having to play in the shitty old nomic once school starts. Upside: getting to play in the shitty old nomic through the summer Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes > >I read through what Josh and Chris had to say and I would like to point out >a few things that might not be clear. >First of all, play will not automatically continue normally with players >unable to play over the summer auto abstaining. I'm not sure about the >numbers, but there might be problems. First of all, if a majority of >players auto-abstain, then no proposal can be passed, as per Josh's rule (i >don't remember the number). This may or may not be the case, I don't know. > If it is not, then there still might be another problem. Players who >cannot communicate cannot send proposals and thus cannot complete their >turns, bringing the game to a screeching halt. This also wouldn't be a >problem if a rule was passed before a player in such a position began a >turn. Howver, Nick is the next player to play after Chris, and I believe >he is going away for the summer and will not have e-mail(a problem). So, >the best thing to do would be to take care of this now. I realize that the >problem could be solved by having a bunch of people quit, but I don't know >if that's the best solution. Things to think about any way. > >Mike > ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 16:58:7) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: hurrah Kudos to Kuhns for a sensible judgement. Josh-- have you been playing Magic lately? There's a card called "fork" that does what you're suggesting we do, sort of. Say... why don't no-email-during-summer-people just invest $1000 in new computer and another $80 for a few months worth of email? I mean, Nomic is worth such a sacrifice, no? 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: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 17:57:50) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: hurrah Well, not really, but of course they stole that idea from unix programming concepts... :) Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >Kudos to Kuhns for a sensible judgement. >Josh-- have you been playing Magic lately? There's a card called "fork" >that does what you're suggesting we do, sort of. >Say... why don't no-email-during-summer-people just invest $1000 in new >computer and another $80 for a few months worth of email? I mean, Nomic is >worth such a sacrifice, no? > >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: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 18:37:52) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: My Proposal Given the recent debate, and the judgment by Mr. Kuhns, here is my proposal. The transmutation of a mutable rule into an immutable rule shall require unanimity among votes cast (as per definition in 307). If either there is not unanimity or there is not a simple majority voting, the transmutation shall fail. Discussion topic: Should we up the ante? This still allows for a transmutation with less than the complete approval of all members if some members are unable to vote within the required period. However, this likelihood seems trivial. Discuss. I shall most likely, assuming I'm not dead from trying to finish my CS474 project, call for a vote after my Chaucer Final tomorrow (id est, between 12:30 and 2:00). Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 19:16:54) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: adding players I now have 10 votes in favor of adding Damon as a player. Since 10/14 > 2/3, we shouldn't have to wait for the rest of the votes. Damon is now a player again. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 19:24:13) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: score change I declare Matt Potter's score to be 200 points, thereby making him the winner and ending the game. Have a nice day. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 19:53:0) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: i can't help myself Well, Matt, this is a sad state of affairs. It reminds me of a little comment you made to me when I went through all my hullaballoo early in the game involving arbitrary actions. I belive it goes a little like "SHUT THE FUCK UP". I expected this eventually, but it's a surprise from you. Mike ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 21:40:49) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: play over the summer "forking" the game sounds like the best idea ive heard yet. Allan. ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 19:20:17) From: "Matthew G. Potter" Subject: arbitrary action & subsequent call for judgement I hereby arbitrarily declare that Joel's score is immediately reduced to -10. I do this based on what I will hereafter refer to as the "Uckelman principle," which is an assumption on the meaning of Rule 116. Rule 116, as you may or may not recall, reads: "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." The Uckelman principle is as follows: Rule 116 means actions which are not specifically prohibited or regulated in the rules are permissible. Even though a it may regard a mechanism of the game which is regulated by rules, as long as a certain action is specifically neither prohibited nor regulated, it is legal. As an example, even though scoring, the assignation of points, etc. are regulated by the rules, there is no rule regarding an instance where "Matthew Potter arbitrarily reduces Joel Uckelman's score to -10." As such, according to the Uckelman principle, my doing so is legal. Having said that, I realize that this is basically an anal and bass-ackwards way of interpreting a (IMHO) rather straightforward rule. Therefore, I CALL FOR JUDGEMENT. Does Rule 116, as the Uckelman principle suggests, only prohibit actions specifically proscribed by rules; or does it prohibit mucking around arbitrarily with any game mechanism regulated by the rules (i.e. the scoring process)? Matthew Potter [I realize that unlike some people we know, I have not hedged my bet by ascertained the opinion of the judge before making this statement; but hey, it's a game.] ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 20:1:31) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: arbitrary action & subsequent call for judgement Here we go again: The arbitrary re-assignment of any player's score is not permissable. Comments: Rule 116 states that "whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated." Note the presence of the word "regulated." Were that word absent, then the "Uckelman principle" would be in effect. However, the word "regulated" indicates that when a facet of gameplay is addressed in the rules, the area is therefore not totally unregulated beyond specific, literal applications of the rules. In this instance, scoring/allottment of points is regulated by (multiple) rules and as a result anything not specifically addressed by those rules is not necessarilly permitted. Off-the-record Notes: I am not entirely certain why this judgment was called for. It seems that there would have been an easier way to settle a disagreement than by testing the point of contention empirically and then calling for judgment. I may be wrong... but I hope this doesn't become a habit. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 22:37:50) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: arbitrary action & subsequent call for judgement A small point: As soon as Damon was added as a player - which was before Potter's CFJ and Joel's rule-fuckage, he became the judge for the remainder of Chris's turn, as the rule assigning judges says that the judge is the person whose turn comes "before the person moving." Luckily for us, Damon was going to cast the same judgement - almost the same words, even. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >Here we go again: > >The arbitrary re-assignment of any player's score is not permissable. > >Comments: > >Rule 116 states that "whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule >is permitted and unregulated." > >Note the presence of the word "regulated." Were that word absent, then >the "Uckelman principle" would be in effect. However, the word >"regulated" indicates that when a facet of gameplay is addressed in the >rules, the area is therefore not totally unregulated beyond specific, >literal applications of the rules. > >In this instance, scoring/allottment of points is regulated by (multiple) >rules and as a result anything not specifically addressed by those rules >is not necessarilly permitted. > >Off-the-record Notes: > >I am not entirely certain why this judgment was called for. It seems that >there would have been an easier way to settle a disagreement than by >testing the point of contention empirically and then calling for >judgment. I may be wrong... but I hope this doesn't become a habit. > >--- > Matt Kuhns > mjkuhns@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:3:42) From: Nick Osborn Subject: will the real judge please step forward... i must disagree with mr. kortbeins latest proclamation. the rules state that the judge is the player who precedes the player whose turn it currently is. mr. luloff is not a player--by his own rule he is a "new player"--nor does he precede mr. mayfield. mr. luloff will precede mr. mayfield in the future, but since mr. luloff did not propose a rule during his present entrance in the game, mr. kuhns precedes mr. mayfield. mr. kuhns is the judge. i call for a judgement on who holds the judgeship. n ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:7:37) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... According to Mr. Luloff's rule, upon his (re)instatement as a player, he posesses all normal player rights, except the right to make a formal proposal. As he was inserted into the list of players according to alphabetical order of surname, he is the player before Chris in the list. In addition, the rule regarding judging says simply that the player "preceding" the player currently moving is the judge. According to the player order, that player would currently be Damon. Read the rules, Nick. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >i must disagree with mr. kortbeins latest proclamation. the rules state >that the judge is the player who precedes the player whose turn it >currently is. mr. luloff is not a player--by his own rule he is a "new >player"--nor does he precede mr. mayfield. mr. luloff will precede mr. >mayfield in the future, but since mr. luloff did not propose a rule during >his present entrance in the game, mr. kuhns precedes mr. mayfield. mr. >kuhns is the judge. i call for a judgement on who holds the judgeship. > >n ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:11:38) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Idea for a proposal I think that someone should write (and subsequently propose) a proposal which does the following: creates a mechanism by which players may give away or accept points from other players creates a mechanism, linked to the previous one, by which players may contract out their votes - including penalties for reneging I intend for this proposal to be used by people like Joel who can't seem to play without having everything happen the way they like - for instance, he could give away points (being in the hole is acceptable) in order to gain acceptance for his future crackpot schemes. This would also be useful, if the economics work out correctly, for people who know their proposals may come up short, and would like a way to provide some incentive (this is most useful when the proposee is more concerned about passage than personal score). Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:15:14) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Another idea I think it would be interesting if there were a mechanism, formal or informal, for polling the electorate or whatever before CFVs are made. While it's true that players could vote no for personal benefit, at times going against their polled vote, this would provide a way for proposees to spot dissenters that aren't speaking up, and give them a chance to possibly change proposals. Comments? Josh NP: Damon's guitar (he is, not me) ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:18:24) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... Oh, BTW - How can you call for a judgement when it's the judge's identity which is under judgement???? Dumbass. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >i must disagree with mr. kortbeins latest proclamation. the rules state >that the judge is the player who precedes the player whose turn it >currently is. mr. luloff is not a player--by his own rule he is a "new >player"--nor does he precede mr. mayfield. mr. luloff will precede mr. >mayfield in the future, but since mr. luloff did not propose a rule during >his present entrance in the game, mr. kuhns precedes mr. mayfield. mr. >kuhns is the judge. i call for a judgement on who holds the judgeship. > >n ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:35:53) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... >According to Mr. Luloff's rule, upon his (re)instatement as a >player, he posesses all normal player rights, except the right >to make a formal proposal. As he was inserted into the list of >players according to alphabetical order of surname, he is the >player before Chris in the list. In addition, the rule regarding >judging says simply that the player "preceding" the player >currently moving is the judge. According to the player order, >that player would currently be Damon. > >Read the rules, Nick. I respectfully disagree with your admonition of Nick, Josh. Well, sort of. Actually, it seems to me that there's a wee bit of a problem with the rule of Damon's we passed. You see: "7. A new player will be afforded all of the rights as a player except for the right to make a formal proposal. 8. A new player will be awarded the status 'player' when his/her turn has been skipped once." here's where I see a problem... Damon is NOT a player, Josh. Damon is quite obviously, according to section 8, a "new player." Section 8 clearly makes a differentiation between the two types of players. Therefore, if he is not a player, he is incapable of being "the player preceding the one moving." The problem is this: section 7 would seem to imply that Damon still has the right to be judge. Assuming, of course, that the ability to be a judge is a right. But the phrasing of section seven doesn't placate my concern. As we knoe from rule 211, >>> If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. <<< Section 7 implicitly grants the ability to be a judge to a "new player." It does NOT "explicitly say of itself that it... takes precedence over another rule." Emphasis on explicitly, of course. And given the first part of 211, it seems to me that rule 212 granting judgship only to "player"s would take precendence over 309. But I'm really not sure. I'm not saying that you're wrong, Josh, but I *AM* saying there's nothing inappropriate about the request for judgement. Of course, I have absolutely no idea who's supposed to decide this matter. If you people hadn't been so eager to reinstate Damon after he acted so rashly, we never would have had this problem. I for one didn't vote for his reinstatement--one of my reasons was that I feared something like this might happen. So anyway, we're in a nasty mess and it sure ain't my fault! :) On another note, I am of the opinion that our construct for deciding passage may need revision. Damon's proposal had a mere 5 people vote for it and it passed. I don't know why this strikes me as uncool, but it does. :) "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: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:42:34) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Another idea At 11:15 PM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: > >I think it would be interesting if there were a mechanism, formal >or informal, for polling the electorate or whatever before CFVs are >made. While it's true that players could vote no for personal benefit, >at times going against their polled vote, this would provide a way >for proposees to spot dissenters that aren't speaking up, and >give them a chance to possibly change proposals. > >Comments? > > >Josh I think if one is a dissenter, the whole point of not speaking up is not to be discovered until it's too late. Such a rule would only encourage duplicity or further silence. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:45:20) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... >Oh, BTW - > >How can you call for a judgement when it's the judge's identity which >is under judgement???? How? Easy! Because the rules permit it! It is sick? YES! Do we know what to do? I dunno. In fact, if it weren't for what I'm about to quote, I'd say that we need to invoke rule 213 on impossibility of play. However, rule 212 states, "Unless a Judge is overruled, ONE Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge." (My emphasis) Matt Kuhns has already issued one judgement this turn. Therefore, he is our "one judge" and it is his job to decide his own legitimacy as Judge. This info might not help Kuhns make his decision, but it seems pretty clear to me that he's in charge of deciding if he ought to be in charge. Otherwise we'd have more than one judge this turn and be in violation of the rules. Once again let me reiterate that we never would have had this problem if most of you hadn't voted to reinstate our bicycling friend immediately. :) ACK! Loops! 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: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:57:30) From: Adam Haar Subject: Letter of the Law Byrne's got it, in making the distinction between New Player and Player (yes this is implied, but in such a way as to make the distinction) Damon has fixed this problem. The rules state ", then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question" Note the PLAYER, not the New Player. Mr. Lulof, being a New Player, does not become a Player until the end of the turn. Therefore Mr. Lulof cannot judge the question. 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: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 1:11:56) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Another idea >At 11:15 PM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>I think it would be interesting if there were a mechanism, formal >>or informal, for polling the electorate or whatever before CFVs are >>made. While it's true that players could vote no for personal benefit, >>at times going against their polled vote, this would provide a way >>for proposees to spot dissenters that aren't speaking up, and >>give them a chance to possibly change proposals. >> >>Comments? >> >> >>Josh > >I think if one is a dissenter, the whole point of not speaking up is not to >be discovered until it's too late. Such a rule would only encourage >duplicity or further silence. I don't really care about that; dissenters will dissent. The object of the poll is to air the opinions of those who dissent for ethical/logical/ political reasons, rather than personal gain reasons. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 1:21:13) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... >>According to Mr. Luloff's rule, upon his (re)instatement as a >>player, he posesses all normal player rights, except the right >>to make a formal proposal. As he was inserted into the list of >>players according to alphabetical order of surname, he is the >>player before Chris in the list. In addition, the rule regarding >>judging says simply that the player "preceding" the player >>currently moving is the judge. According to the player order, >>that player would currently be Damon. >> >>Read the rules, Nick. > > > I respectfully disagree with your admonition of Nick, Josh. Well, >sort of. Actually, it seems to me that there's a wee bit of a problem with >the rule of Damon's we passed. You see: > >"7. A new player will be afforded all of the rights as a player except for >the right to make a formal proposal. >8. A new player will be awarded the status 'player' when his/her turn has >been skipped once." > >here's where I see a problem... Damon is NOT a player, Josh. Damon is quite >obviously, according to section 8, a "new player." Section 8 clearly makes >a differentiation between the two types of players. Therefore, if he is not >a player, he is incapable of being "the player preceding the one moving." Though it's now a moot point, I think I'll make it anyway because I find it interesting: Damon's rule accords new players with "all the rights of a player, except the right to make a formal proposal." One could submit (as I would have done, prior to Mr. Kuhns' judgement) that the most fundamental right of a player, aside from perhaps existing, is being recognized as a player - otherwise, everything goes to hell. Thus, new players should be equivalent to players, for the purposes of judgeship, or judgeness, or whatever. Just a thought. > The problem is this: section 7 would seem to imply that Damon still >has the right to be judge. Assuming, of course, that the ability to be a >judge is a right. But the phrasing of section seven doesn't placate my >concern. As we knoe from rule 211, >>>> >If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more >immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest >ordinal >number takes precedence. > >If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it >defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another >rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical >method for determining precedence. ><< > > Section 7 implicitly grants the ability to be a judge to a "new >player." It does NOT "explicitly say of itself that it... takes precedence >over another rule." Emphasis on explicitly, of course. And given the first >part of 211, it seems to me that rule 212 granting judgship only to >"player"s would take precendence over 309. But I'm really not sure. I'm not >saying that you're wrong, Josh, but I *AM* saying there's nothing >inappropriate about the request for judgement. > Of course, I have absolutely no idea who's supposed to decide this >matter. If you people hadn't been so eager to reinstate Damon after he >acted so rashly, we never would have had this problem. I for one didn't >vote for his reinstatement--one of my reasons was that I feared something >like this might happen. So anyway, we're in a nasty mess and it sure ain't >my fault! :) > > > On another note, I am of the opinion that our construct for >deciding passage may need revision. Damon's proposal had a mere 5 people >vote for it and it passed. I don't know why this strikes me as uncool, but >it does. Seeing as how you voted for the simple majority rule, I don't see what you have to complain about. I even added the requirement for a simple majority of cast votes, to keep you and Haar (I think) happy! :) I think Damon's proposal may have been a pathological case; hadn't he quit before his proposal's passage had been decided? Perhaps that swayed all those auto-abstain hosers out there, or maybe they were confused about what was going on (that one, I think). You should also consider that not only 5 people voted, as there were no votes. The number of people voting is more important, I think. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 0:21:31) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... Judgments: you want 'em I got 'em: There can be only one judge per turn; once a player has served as judge he shall remain judge for the remainder of the turn. (Upshot: I remain judge) Comments: Upon first examination the situation at hand appeared to present an unresolvable paradox: If there is no defined judge, no one can pass judgment on who the judge is and thus the game cannot continue because judgment would be forever pending. However, according to rule 212, there can only be one judge per turn. Thus, because I have already been judge I shall continue as judge. Off-the-record notes: What a stinking morass we have landed ourselves in. Rather than let the game go to hell, however, I have made the best effort I could to permit play to continue. The only real issue now is whether or not the players of this game are willing to accept this judgment and continue our efforts to slog through the morass of a simulated legislative process. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 13:27:23) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Another idea >>I don't really care about that; dissenters will dissent. The object >>of the poll is to air the opinions of those who dissent for ethical/logical/ >>political reasons, rather than personal gain reasons. > They have the opportunity to air those if they so choose. They also >have the right to keep them to themselves if they so choose. you can't fore >people to tell you what they think, nor should you want to, as far as I'm >concerned. I got chewed out for trying to limit people's rights with my >yes/no/abstain only proposal, but I think forced or coerced dialogue is far >more absurd. Anyone with any strongly held ELP reasons will air them. Those >that don't have them will form their own opinion come voting time, probably >by looking at the arguments of those who have elected to speak. And some >don't give a shit and will vote for some other reason. Let each act how he >pleases. Oh, well JEE-ZUS, it wasn't intended to be any sort of pissing on players' personal freedoms. I SAID "formal or informal," and even if it were formal, polling need not be required. It's just intended to find out what those people who don't say much (like those with 1%'s on Joel's Uber-geeky messages sent graph) think. It's not as if I intended to hold a gun/guns to the heads of those who didn't want to be polled... Josh NP: Sugar, _Copper Blue_ ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 16:13:50) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: CFV: Mutability->Immutability proposal In hopes of speeding the game along (since no one has said anything about whether they're going to support this or not, and if I wait much longer for any sort of discussion everyone'll be gone), I call for a vote. The proposal: The transmutation of a mutable rule into an immutable rule shall require unanimity among votes cast (as per definition in 307). If either there is not unanimity or there is not a simple majority voting, the transmutation shall fail. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 16:56:10) From: Nick Osborn Subject: mr.mayfield a shot trip to the nomic webpage will reveal that mr. mayfield has voted "no" in fully half of all votes. these include the last three, the only votes on which a player could vote "no" and the proposal could still pass. it would appear that mr. mayfield is trying to take advantage of the rule under which players voting "no" on passing proposals gain points. while i have no problem with this rule, i feel mr. mayfield may be abusing it. i encourage all players to vote "no" on mr. mayfields proposal, regardless of its benefit toward the game. take this as you will, n ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 18:7:44) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: whatever No doubt Chris will say he voted against them on a philosophical basis, of course. In which case he's one of those silent folk that Josh in particular finds irritating. Cool. Nick, thanks for pointing this out! 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: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 19:11:28) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: whatever Surely you're not happy about this because you intend to chastise Chris? I can't really articulate why right now, but voting no for reasons like that seems incredibly short-sighted. (In other words, it could come back to bite one on the ass.) Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >No doubt Chris will say he voted against them on a philosophical basis, of >course. In which case he's one of those silent folk that Josh in particular >finds irritating. Cool. Nick, thanks for pointing this out! > >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: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 22:25:18) From: Nick Osborn Subject: Opposed Minority Scoring and Pettiness >"You sad, vindictive, pathetic little man." can i add that to treasonous, fuckwad (or head, depending on your preference), and remo? with love, n by the way, isnt it legal for me to vote however i wish, no matter what my motive? ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 22:15:47) From: Adam Haar Subject: Vindictive Bastards The subject says it, that's what you are if you vote against Chris's proposal based on his past voting. Chris can vote any damned way he wants on any proposal put to the group, for ANY REASON! If Chris is trying to score points through a loophole in the rules then I say DO IT! You can do the same any time you want. If you want to try to play the opposed minority game go for it. Yes, politics (and this game) is played on a Quid Pro Quo basis, and Chris has shown his Quid and deserves his Quo. But if you're simply doing it out of spite and not to try for gain get a life. 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: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 22:34:58) From: Adam Haar Subject: Damn Josh's a Geek Hate to be disparaging Josh, but damn that's bad. You must have even less of a life than I do. We need to introduce you to Welch Ave Station and Guiness. 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: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 0:0:44) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Damn Josh's a Geek Haar wishes me to let people know that he means "Damn Joel's a Geek," etc., because he constantly mis-names Joel as me. Apparently (since Haar neglected to say why), Haar has chosen to label Joel a geek for his proliferation of nomic-related graphs. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >Hate to be disparaging Josh, but damn that's bad. You must have even less >of a life than I do. We need to introduce you to Welch Ave Station and >Guiness. > > >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: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 0:46:7) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Vindictive Bastards Geeze everyobdy, settle down. Put some of that aggressive energy into studying or something. Allan "can't we all just get along?" Dudding. ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 0:52:26) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Opposed Minority Scoring and Pettiness At 09:41 PM 5/5/98 CDT, you wrote: >If my proposal fails because people think it's a bad thing, I'll take my >penalty (though somewhat grouchily, since I allowed two days for feedback >and no one said anything about the merits of the rule, only the situation >to which it applied). If my proposal fails because it would have been >close and a couple people guessed wrong about which way it was going to >swing, I can accept my penalty that way too, since it's part of the risks >involved with the game. However, if my proposal fails because someone >thinks I need some sort of come-uppance for trying to maximize my points >*by legal means endorsed by the rules of the game* then all I can say to >those who voted no for reasons of spite are "You sad, vindictive, >pathetic little man. I pity you." > >Chris (If we're penalized for following the rules, what anarchy awaits?) Last time I checked, persuasion was perfectly legal. If someone can persuade people that you deserve to lose points, you should have no extra-game reasons to complain about it. If your retort is meant to be taken entirely within the context of our game, then it's nothing but politics and deserves no moral weight. If it's external in nature, then don't play if you can't live with others' methods. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 21:41:20) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Opposed Minority Scoring and Pettiness a shot trip to the nomic webpage will reveal that mr. mayfield has voted "no" in fully half of all votes. these include the last three, the only votes on which a player could vote "no" and the proposal could still pass. it would appear that mr. mayfield is trying to take advantage of the rule under which players voting "no" on passing proposals gain points. while i have no problem with this rule, i feel mr. mayfield may be abusing it. i encourage all players to vote "no" on mr. mayfields proposal, regardless of its benefit toward the game. --- This has to be one of the more particularly stupid reasons for voting down any proposal which most people (I assume) would think to be a good thing. Voting no on these grounds opens the way to petty infighting which won't get the game anywhere. The Opposed Minority Scoring rule was designed (as I see it) to help cut down on unanimity (so as to put in something of a dampener on the points gotten via winning proposals) and to help put a squeeze on marginal rules. It's a bet: how do you think the other players will vote? If my proposal fails because people think it's a bad thing, I'll take my penalty (though somewhat grouchily, since I allowed two days for feedback and no one said anything about the merits of the rule, only the situation to which it applied). If my proposal fails because it would have been close and a couple people guessed wrong about which way it was going to swing, I can accept my penalty that way too, since it's part of the risks involved with the game. However, if my proposal fails because someone thinks I need some sort of come-uppance for trying to maximize my points *by legal means endorsed by the rules of the game* then all I can say to those who voted no for reasons of spite are "You sad, vindictive, pathetic little man. I pity you." Good night and may God bless. Chris (If we're penalized for following the rules, what anarchy awaits?) ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 9:33:56) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: voting hasn't the voting period ended 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: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 10:4:49) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: voting At 09:33 AM 5/6/98 -0500, you wrote: >hasn't the voting period ended 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 > > If voting started at 4:13 PM 5/5/98, then 36 hours later should be 4:13 AM 5/7/98. I think my math is right. If I'm making an error here, please point it out. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 10:13:55) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: nevermind I'm just dumb "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: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 10:20:36) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Game playing and personality >If my proposal fails because people think it's a bad thing, I'll take my >penalty (though somewhat grouchily, since I allowed two days for feedback >and no one said anything about the merits of the rule, only the situation >to which it applied). If my proposal fails because it would have been >close and a couple people guessed wrong about which way it was going to >swing, I can accept my penalty that way too, since it's part of the risks >involved with the game. However, if my proposal fails because someone >thinks I need some sort of come-uppance for trying to maximize my points >*by legal means endorsed by the rules of the game* then all I can say to >those who voted no for reasons of spite are "You sad, vindictive, >pathetic little man. I pity you." > >Chris (If we're penalized for following the rules, what anarchy awaits?) Last time I checked, persuasion was perfectly legal. If someone can persuade people that you deserve to lose points, you should have no extra-game reasons to complain about it. If your retort is meant to be taken entirely within the context of our game, then it's nothing but politics and deserves no moral weight. If it's external in nature, then don't play if you can't live with others' methods. J. Uckelman --- (Nota bene: the "you"s below are non-directed "you"s, so don't take anything personally, Joel.) Certainly one is allowed to do this. One is also allowed to invoke judgment on any action anyone in the game makes, thus grinding the game to a complete halt. However, the fact that one _can_ do something does not make it good gaming strategy. My argument is not that one cannot do such a thing (since they obviously can), but that from a game playing standpoint, such actions are sheer idiocy. In the long run, it is bad strategy since it creates an atmosphere of tit-for-tat which will ultimately lead nowhere except to bruised egos and sore feelings. If we were playing Monopoly and every time you bought a house or hotel I complained because you were taking advantage of the fact that you had more property and money than I, people would a) laugh, b) make me quit since I'm a whiny weiner boy, c) quit since the whiny weiner boy is not making the game fun. So in the end, one is free to vote yes or no for whatever reasons one wants. However, certain reasons are analogous to the little boy who demands to be quarterback or else he'll take his ball inside and no one can play. If we want to be jerks to each other, we can do it without a game. Play the game to play the game and leave personality out of it. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 12:1:40) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Retaliation Unfortunately for those advocating that retaliation against Mayfield would be a silly and childish act, I wonder how they believe problems should be solved, if not by, or threat of, retaliation. So far Mayfield has had far and away the worst record of supporting others. What reason have we to suppose that this will not continue? And what reason would Mayfield have to not continue with this policy? Fear (a bad word, I know, but the only one that really works) of retaliation. It's just that simple. Ultimately, the pros and cons of every situation must be weighed. However, in the case of minority dissention, there cannot really be any cons. Sure, the proposal may fail, but so the hell what? The game won't come to an end. So best case is that you gain points, worst case is that you will stay even and your opponents will lose points becasue the proposal failed. Unless, of course, there is threat of retaliation at a later date, namely those who Mayfield has taken advantage of. I would ask you, when else should said retailation take place? When else should can the incentive to be cooperative be handed out? The only time this is possible is during his turn, which is, of course, now. This is the only time for Mayfield to suffer the consequences of his actions. It is immaterial that minority dissention is in the rules as far as whether or not people *should* use it. People can chose to utalize it if they are willing to suffer the ire and animosity of their peers. And the retaliation and uncooperativeness that could follow. Without such a threat there is no reason *not* to vote agains virtually every proposal that comes up. Perhaps if Mayfield had considered that before casting 50% no votes he wouldn't be in this position. Nate ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 13:21:35) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Retaliation Your thesis of Chris "not supporting others" is flawed; see below. >Unfortunately for those advocating that retaliation against Mayfield >would be a silly and childish act, I wonder how they believe problems >should be solved, if not by, or threat of, retaliation. So far Mayfield >has had far and away the worst record of supporting others. What reason >have we to suppose that this will not continue? And what reason would >Mayfield have to not continue with this policy? > >Fear (a bad word, I know, but the only one that really works) of >retaliation. > >It's just that simple. Ultimately, the pros and cons of every situation >must be weighed. However, in the case of minority dissention, there >cannot really be any cons. Sure, the proposal may fail, but so the hell >what? The game won't come to an end. So best case is that you gain >points, worst case is that you will stay even and your opponents will >lose points becasue the proposal failed. > >Unless, of course, there is threat of retaliation at a later date, namely >those who Mayfield has taken advantage of. I would ask you, when else should >said retailation take place? When else should can the incentive to be >cooperative be handed out? The only time this is possible is during his >turn, which is, of course, now. This is the only time for Mayfield to >suffer the consequences of his actions. It is immaterial that minority >dissention is in the rules as far as whether or not people *should* use >it. People can chose to utalize it if they are willing to suffer the ire >and animosity of their peers. And the retaliation and uncooperativeness >that could follow. Without such a threat there is no reason *not* to >vote agains virtually every proposal that comes up. > >Perhaps if Mayfield had considered that before casting 50% no votes he >wouldn't be in this position. "Casting 50% no votes?" You're talking about something very different from what Nick brought up; some of those no votes occurred before Chris was able to reap the benefit of points. The first two were no votes to proposals the group, as a whole, could obviously not agree were meritorious. In the second case, Chris changed his vote after a judgement was cast ( I should add that you, too, voted no in that case, so I assume YOU must have thought the proposal lacked merit). So there are still only really 3 votes with which you should be able to take issue, at least rationally speaking. A polemic based on three votes seems to veer strongly toward anecdotally obtained evidence, which as we all know is naughty. It's nice that you're so big on cooperation, etc., but you choose to promote it in apparently the first major way you've found resonance with by trying to foster cooperation to poke Chris's eye out. If it works, I certainly hope y'all's efforts usher in a new era of Cooperation. It would definitely be easier to pass proposals that way, with a band of guerilla strongarms standing by, ready to punish any dissenters. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 13:55:22) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: here to help "It would definitely be easier to pass proposals that way, with a band of guerilla strongarms standing by, ready to punish any dissenters." As we all know, I am the fugitive leader of a band of Mexican rebels. I am able to provide trainded guerillas to the higest bidder. Meet me by the rusty shed. Subcomandante Marcos ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 14:13:48) From: ellefson@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Retaliation Kudos and congratualtions, Josh! You have hit upon the first fundamental law of party politics: strong-arm men using guerilla tactics are absolutely the best way there is to get what you and your supporters want! In congresses and parliaments across the world these people who keep the troops in line through threat are called "whips." I don't suppose you can guess where the name comes from? And so I seek to usher in the new era, a "New Nomic Order," as it were, where, together with my compatriots, we shall fight the powers of injustice who would seek to oppose us. I am founding the Oppression Party, due to our opposition of oppression. Yeah, that's the ticket. Not that it will have anything to do with our tactics or policies. So, anyone who wants to join me in creating the best party on Earth can email me after the summer, since I doubt that I will have any access to email over that time. Long live Oppression! Nate, Oppression Party Chairman, Chief Whip, Chief Ideologue, Defender of the Faith ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 15:3:53) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Retaliation My, politics is an odious creation. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >Kudos and congratualtions, Josh! You have hit upon the first fundamental >law of party politics: strong-arm men using guerilla tactics are >absolutely the best way there is to get what you and your supporters >want! In congresses and parliaments across the world these people who >keep the troops in line through threat are called "whips." I don't suppose >you can guess where the name comes from? > >And so I seek to usher in the new era, a "New Nomic Order," as it were, >where, together with my compatriots, we shall fight the powers of >injustice who would seek to oppose us. I am founding the Oppression >Party, due to our opposition of oppression. Yeah, that's the ticket. >Not that it will have anything to do with our tactics or policies. So, >anyone who wants to join me in creating the best party on Earth can email >me after the summer, since I doubt that I will have any access to email >over that time. > >Long live Oppression! > >Nate, Oppression Party Chairman, Chief Whip, Chief Ideologue, Defender of >the Faith ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 15:44:10) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Politics I donno, I think most politicians shower at least once a week. Can't smell all that bad! ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 21:53:21) From: Nick Osborn Subject: discussion on prop 311(?) the semester is ending down