________________________________________ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:29:26 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Lee Olson I propose that Lee Olson be added to our game of Nomic. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 14:31:02 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting The voting period for Prop. 313 expired without a majority of players casting votes. Consequently, the voting period has been extended as per Rule 307 until such time as the proposal will necessarily pass or fail. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 15:07:43 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 313, name the game, and the next turn Proposal 313 passed (9-0-0-8). Everyone should now begin submitting game names for consideration. Rich Peter's turn has begun. This may raise an interesting problem: as we haven't heard from Rich yet, we don't know for sure if he's playing or not. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 15:11:18 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: On names for our Nomic Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 This is, of course, the obvious hands-down All-American A-1 top notch choice name for our nomic. Besides including the tasty words "fuck" and "weasel", the Microsoft-product-naming-convention style will cause the game to become obsolete, assuming it holds up until 2000 (sort of like Windows). Luckily, this sets us up for an uber-geeky Arthur C. Clarke style scheme, wherein our next nomic is named Fuckweasel Nomic 2001, the next Fuckweasel Nomic 2061, and then finally Fuckweasel Nomic 3001: The Final Nomic. Do your civic duty: vote Fuckweasel Nomic 2000! As we here at Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 Campaign Central realize that sometimes one just has personal moral and ideological obigations that force one to, for instance, vote against "Fuckweasel Nomic 2000", we also gladly offer up the following alternate suggestions for Nomic names: we threw gasoline on the fire and now we have stumps for arms and no eyebrows Suffers a bit due to the missing "Nomic", but hey, we here at Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 Campaign Central sometimes buck the trends. Major benefits include trendy-online-lack-of-capitalization, atopicality, and the mention of major burn damage. Who can not like major burn damage? (0x02) The trend started by Purple Rain crooner whatsisname is catching on everywhere, so why not on the Nomic scene? That's why we propose low-ASCII 0x02 as our new name. Unfortunately, most glyph sets are lacking a symbol for 0x02, so we'll have to invent one of our own. Then, benefits of this sassy new symbol will include: nonstandard font requirements, incompatible cross-platform Nomic, and low frequency of use (since no one will be able to type the $%@%! thing). Nick Nomic We'll be honest. We're not too hot on this one - but Nick asked us to put it in here, and hey - it's his rule, so what the hell. This name combines the cool elegance of "Nomic" with the street-smart snap of "Nick". Best when used with Nomics containing only Nick. Well... it looks like Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 is still the clear-cut winner. Regardless, I am going to vote for we threw gasoline on the fire and now we have stumps for arms and no eyebrows because it sounds so damn cool. Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 Campaign Central -- Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination. - G.K. Chesterton ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 15:32:46 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: name suggestions ErgoNomic: a double pun on ergo. Firstly, a referal to comfortable design, and seondly, to the Latin word meaning "therefore". The People's Popular Nomic Front: for all those Python fans out there (Splitters!). ASCII 0x07 Nomic (or, alternatively, Beep Nomic): we (that is, Mike, Tom, and I) thought of this before Josh's ASCII 0x02 Nomic, but just didn't post it right away. The Nomic Formerly Known as Nomic: of course, we'd need an arcane symbol to use most of the time instead. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 16:11:35 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Nomic name proposals Josh and Joel have started things off pretty well. Some more proposals: 1. Nomic Popular People's Front For the record, Joel and Mike are splitters. 2. McNomic Did somebody say McNomic? 3. NomicPro Gold '98 How long before Symantic releases this? 4. Jeane Kirkpatrick ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 16:36:33 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Nomic: Name I second Tom's proposal of Jeane Kirkpatrick, as any good Bloom County fan should. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 16:34:04 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Nomic: Nomic Name I second Tom's proposal of Jeane Kirkpatrick, as any good Bloom County fan should. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 16:32:42 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Nomic: name proposal I second Tom's proposal of Jeane Kirkpatrick. Any good Bloom County fan will do so as well. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 17:12:35 CDT From: Haar Subject: Nomic: Nomic Names First off Jeane Kirkpatrick is hands down the only name we can use, but if that sentiment is not shared here are some other possibilities. Bob- Friendly, non-invasive destroyer of Microsoft marketing schemes, Bob is my hero Shitferret Nomic 3000- Just to one up Josh and look witty without trying Haar's Loophole Playground- Ego, pure, unadulterated Ego --- Life used to suck But now I'm better Haar caerdwyn@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 17:32:45 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Ben Byrne has been seleced to judge RFJ 25: The "fraction of favorable votes" received by a Proposal in Rule 202/1 refers to the expression (favorable votes)/(total non-neutral votes). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 17:30:55 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 25 I call for Judgment in the following matter: The "fraction of favorable votes" received by a Proposal in Rule 202/1 refers to the expression (favorable votes)/(total non-neutral votes). Comments: Essentially, it is not clear to me whether the rule refers to (favorable votes)/(total possible votes) or (favorable votes)/(total non-neutral votes). As such, I cannot calculate Andy Palecek's score without clarification. I exclude Andy Palecek since this directly affects him, and Rich Peters and Jill Wittrock as I don't know whether they're actually playing. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 17:47:37 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: time limit The submission deadline for names is 16:07 CDT, 10 September. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 17:43:27 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Nomic: names Nomic People's Front : Fighting the romans via terrorist action was all my idea to began with (a short jump from my work in Mexico) so Joel, Tom, and anyone else who's not on board with the subcommandante are just splitters. And remember, you're gonna wish you played ball when your back's against the wall. ok, that one was just for form. Now it's time to get down to business. THE PENTAVERATE : this one should be immediately recognized as the pinnacle of perfection. Obviously the next actions would be renaming the web page "The Meadows" and we would have to introduce as players the Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothchilds, and, before he goes tits up, the Colonel. (and yes, he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly, smart ass). These complications should not pose a problem, however. B.L.O., division of Games and Recreation : if you haven't heard about the B.L.O, call our toll-free number or send us a SASE for our free pamphlet and money-saving coupons. det(Pleasure Matrix) : visit our website at www.pleasurematrixinformationcenter.com I can't think of another one now, but just wait. Chew on these tasty bits of mutton for a while, but spit the gristle. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 18:10:38 CDT From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: names 1. [chaos, nomic] As Joel pointed out, the above is nonsense because neither "chaos" nor "nomic" represent values. I beg to differ, positing that they represent qualitative values. 2. SuperPar Hurry up and vote for this name before some lousy ska band takes it! 3. This isn't nomic, this is my only source of human interaction, unless you count Churchill or Roosevelt. This requires no explanation. My other submissions are forthcoming. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 19:15:48 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: New Game Names --============_-1306822344==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Check it out, five first-rate appelations for this sick sad thing we call "Nomic." *LANPOYS* A connection to the roots of this game. (For those unaware, when Nomic first entered Harwood, it was slyly referred to as "Looking at naked pictures of your sister" to avoid suspicion.) *Stankopoly* With all apologies to Josh Kortbein. *Fun With Fire* No, there is technically no fire directly involved in Nomic yet. But there could be. And doesn't "Fun with Fire" have a sense of little-kid-with-matches-forbidden-excitement? *Nomic II: Urban Harvest* This is the second game of Nomic begun with the same core group of people. And "urban harvest" was the coolest follow-up to "part II" I could think of. *Uckelman for President* It's got a nice disturbing quality which is perversely appealing. Sort of. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns --============_-1306822344==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Check it out, five first-rate appelations for this sick sad thing we call "Nomic." *LANPOYS* A connection to the roots of this game. (For those unaware, when Nomic first entered Harwood, it was slyly referred to as "Looking at naked pictures of your sister" to avoid suspicion.) *Stankopoly* With all apologies to Josh Kortbein. *Fun With Fire* No, there is technically no fire directly involved in Nomic yet. But there could be. And doesn't "Fun with Fire" have a sense of little-kid-with-matches-forbidden-excitement? *Nomic II: Urban Harvest* This is the second game of Nomic begun with the same core group of people. And "urban harvest" was the coolest follow-up to "part II" I could think of. *Uckelman for President* It's got a nice disturbing quality which is perversely appealing. Sort of. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns --============_-1306822344==_ma============-- ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 21:52:43 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Name nominations In the spirit of Dada, I randomly opened the American Heritage Dictionary to the word "pander" (in the noun form). Pander n 1 A gobetween or liason in sexual intrigues; procurer. 2 One who caters to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploits their weaknesses. The best of BOTH worlds. It means pimp, it means powerful manipulator, it means perceptive. This is a name to be proud of, especially since it was randomly chosen. If the more tradition-bound insist, I also propose Pandernomic which includes the word nomic and has clever flavors of pandemonium and panic to boot. Finally, I propose the string "Harf!" (for those interested in this reference, follow here: http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/harfproj.html ) To recap: 1. Pandernomic 2. Pander 3. Harf! Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 23:51:23 CDT From: caerdwyn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Name nominations > In the spirit of Dada, I randomly opened the American Heritage Dictionary > to the word "pander" (in the noun form). > > Pander n 1 A gobetween or liason in sexual intrigues; procurer. 2 One who > caters to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploits their weaknesses. > > The best of BOTH worlds. It means pimp, it means powerful manipulator, it > means perceptive. This is a name to be proud of, especially since it was > randomly chosen. > > If the more tradition-bound insist, I also propose Pandernomic which > includes the word nomic and has clever flavors of pandemonium and panic to > boot. > > Finally, I propose the string "Harf!" (for those interested in this > reference, follow here: > http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/harfproj.html ) > > To recap: > > 1. Pandernomic > 2. Pander > 3. Harf! > > Tom Mueller > mueller4@sonic.net Tom, I protest your use of the name Harf! as it impinges on an existing registered trademark. Existing case law prohibits the use of trademarks and names that cause confusion of product to reasonable people. Clearly Harf! is a direct competitor to Haar!, which as we all know is a product enshrined in Harwood and Nomic folklore. Please withdraw this suggested name before legal action is pursued. Thank you and good day. --- Life used to suck But now I'm better Haar caerdwyn@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 01:40:06 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Name nominations On 9/8/98 Haar wrote: >> Finally, I propose the string "Harf!" (for those interested in this >> reference, follow here: >> http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/harfproj.html ) >> >> To recap: >> >> 1. Pandernomic >> 2. Pander >> 3. Harf! > >Tom, I protest your use of the name Harf! as it impinges on an existing >registered trademark. Existing case law prohibits the use of trademarks >and names that cause confusion of product to reasonable people. Clearly >Harf! is a direct competitor to Haar!, which as we all know is a product >enshrined in Harwood and Nomic folklore. Please withdraw this suggested >name before legal action is pursued. > >Thank you and good day. > Fah and Scoff! (Controversial bickering! :) Clearly, no reasonable person could mistake Haar! and Harf! Furthermore, I see that even were I to grant your slanderous lies as true, there is no rule nor judgement which compells me to withdraw the glorious name of Harf! from its place of contention. Even more insidious is YOUR request which would have me violate the good and proper rules of our fair game by perverting a rule-regulated process of name proposing by performing the extra-legal action of retracting a name. Were we able to engage in fisticuffs I would call you outside, valued Fellow Nomican and dishonorable cur! Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net PS For all that I must protect the good name of my proposals and self, I'd like to note that among my proposals Pandernomic is my favorite. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 13:05:22 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: naming At present, I'm partial to (0x02) for our name. The filled-in smiley face conveys so much more than any word ever could. [chuckle]. If perchance we did adopt this name, how would it be represented in the rules? Would the graphical and ASCII code representations be equivalent? Does anyone have a font that contains this character (as none of mine do)? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 14:14:07 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: naming Well, fortuantely, since Jeane Kirkpatrick will be that hands-down winner, this question is completely moot. At 01:05 PM 9/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >At present, I'm partial to (0x02) for our name. The filled-in smiley face >conveys so much more than any word ever could. [chuckle]. > >If perchance we did adopt this name, how would it be represented in the >rules? Would the graphical and ASCII code representations be equivalent? >Does anyone have a font that contains this character (as none of mine do)? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 18:57:42 -0500 (CDT) From: "Santos L. Halper" Subject: Nomic: RFJ 25 & name proposals >Ben Byrne has been seleced to judge RFJ 25: > >The "fraction of favorable votes" received by a Proposal in Rule 202/1 >refers to the expression (favorable votes)/(total non-neutral votes). My Judgement: TRUE. Explanation: I get too little sleep these days to be able ot explain my actions. But rest assured they make sense to me. It think it has to do with discouraging fence-sitting neutrality. That is, if you don't want someone scoring points, you should have to actually take action of a definitive nature in order to do, rather than affecting that individuals point total while remaining noncommital. But I'm not sure, really. It just makes more sense this way somehow. Is just me or do I get assigned a lot of cases? Seems odd given that I have admitted to having never read the rules. Seems lik a conspiarcy to cost me points given that checking email for me is a long-distance call. Some game name ideas: That Dumb Game Works well in conversation: "Hey, man, did you see all the new messages from that dumb game?" Plus it offers the ever-popular advnatage of speaking in acronym form, a pastime enjoyed by engineers and computer enthusiasts alike. Imagine how impressed your friends will be when they hear you raked in 15 points in T.D.G. last week! N If it's good enough for Kafka, which no doubt this name is, then it's good enough for you. This option is ideal for those concerned with preserving valuable bandwidth, as well as the lazy typists in the group. Just think of the savings! Additionally, if you've ever wanted to enhance the "secret agent" feel of your life, imagine then adrenaline rush steeming from discussion of N. Lapmojo 11 This term, recently created at the jiggleodrome by assembling various letters from a bag of Hy-Vee alphabet crackers, carries oh-so-unique sexual innuendo coupled with a number so as to emphasize the role technology plays in the game. A must vote for those tired of somehow meaningful names. Thanks for the anal rape, USWest. My score is going down because USWest is full of inept fuckwads who have misplaced my DSL order and now tell me it will be 3 weeks before they can hook me up. It's getting to the point where I need to get a whole 'nother jar of vaseline, and I stay standing in all my classes. beN byrNe --------- "Why am I so fond of inactivity?" -Evan Wyse Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:29:05 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: points As per Judgment 25, Andy Palecek gets 22 points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 20:09:55 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: another name suggestion Berserker Nomic: "My love for you is like a truck, berserker...." (this was Kuhns' suggestion, but he used his 5, and this is now my new favorite). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 21:49:13 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: naming Joel D Uckelman writes: >At present, I'm partial to (0x02) for our name. The filled-in smiley face >conveys so much more than any word ever could. [chuckle]. > >If perchance we did adopt this name, how would it be represented in the >rules? Would the graphical and ASCII code representations be equivalent? >Does anyone have a font that contains this character (as none of mine do)? perl -e 'print pack("c", 0x02), "\n"' You'd have to toss it around using some sort of program, or a very smart editor. I know vi and probably emacs will let you enter control characters into a file; perhaps they'll do the same for skank low ascii values. In many programs and fonts skank characters are shown as other skank-looking, but visible, garbage characters. Other than that, one reading the rules wouldn't be able to see the Nomic's name. Try the perl one-liner above, and see what you get on your system. Josh -- Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess play: a chess player ma y offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the g ame. - G.H. Hardy ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 21:42:30 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 25 & name proposals [Snippage is for hosers] "Santos L. Halper" writes: >>Ben Byrne has been seleced to judge RFJ 25: >> >>The "fraction of favorable votes" received by a Proposal in Rule 202/1 >>refers to the expression (favorable votes)/(total non-neutral votes). > >My Judgement: > TRUE. > >Explanation: > I get too little sleep these days to be able ot explain my actions. >But rest assured they make sense to me. It think it has to do with >discouraging fence-sitting neutrality. That is, if you don't want someone >scoring points, you should have to actually take action of a definitive >nature in order to do, rather than affecting that individuals point total >while remaining noncommital. But I'm not sure, really. It just makes more >sense this way somehow. > > > > Is just me or do I get assigned a lot of cases? > Seems odd given that I have admitted to having > never read the rules. Seems lik a conspiarcy to cost > me points given that checking email for me is a > long-distance call. You're not the first to suspect something like this. It's unclear whether or not the judge assignment has been random or not, but the evidence (the process by which Joel assigns numbers to choose from to players) seems to favor it actually being random, and you being unlucky. Dial 268-3638 with a terminal program to access the FREE campus modem pool, which is sufficient for checking one's mail, and many other things as well. If you're dying for PPP you can dial in to the modem pool and run slirp on your account. > > > >Some game name ideas: > > >That Dumb Game > Works well in conversation: "Hey, man, did you see all the new >messages from that dumb game?" Plus it offers the ever-popular advnatage of >speaking in acronym form, a pastime enjoyed by engineers and computer >enthusiasts alike. Imagine how impressed your friends will be when they >hear you raked in 15 points in T.D.G. last week! > > >N > If it's good enough for Kafka, which no doubt this name is, then >it's good enough for you. This option is ideal for those concerned with >preserving valuable bandwidth, as well as the lazy typists in the group. >Just think of the savings! Additionally, if you've ever wanted to enhance >the "secret agent" feel of your life, imagine then adrenaline rush steeming >from discussion of N. > > >Lapmojo 11 > This term, recently created at the jiggleodrome by assembling >various letters from a bag of Hy-Vee alphabet crackers, carries >oh-so-unique sexual innuendo coupled with a number so as to emphasize the >role technology plays in the game. A must vote for those tired of somehow >meaningful names. > > >Thanks for the anal rape, USWest. > My score is going down because USWest is full of inept fuckwads who >have misplaced my DSL order and now tell me it will be 3 weeks before they >can hook me up. It's getting to the point where I need to get a whole >'nother jar of vaseline, and I stay standing in all my classes. At least they're equal opportunity assfuckers. They screwed DWX for > 3 weeks this summer, on a BUSINESS order to move T1 lines. Josh -- "I've just had seventeen straight whiskeys, I think that's a record." -Dylan Thomas ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:15:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "Santos L. Halper" Subject: Re: Nomic: naming >At present, I'm partial to (0x02) for our name. The filled-in smiley face >conveys so much more than any word ever could. [chuckle]. > >If perchance we did adopt this name, how would it be represented in the >rules? Would the graphical and ASCII code representations be equivalent? >Does anyone have a font that contains this character (as none of mine do)? > Since I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, I really can't help you out, sorry. I looks to me like "zero multiplied by 2 with an insignificant zero in front of the two" more than a filled-in smiley or whatever it's supposed to represent. Other than the names I have thus far suggested, I'd have to say that Pander, Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 and Jeane Kirkpatrick are the best candidates. I must admit I am amazed by the creativity this group of otherwise-staid technical majors has generated. Best batch of Nomic posts i've ever seen! Ben P.S. Haar! and Harf! are clearly different, anyone who has trouble with those probably can't tell the difference between, say, rule 202 and rule 203. beN byrNe --------- "Why am I so fond of inactivity?" -Evan Wyse Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:32:19 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: randomness and Judge selection The dice server I use for Judge selection has produced lots of high and low numbers and few in between. I'm not sure if this is indicitive of non-randomness or just "bad luck" as Ben put it - - Mike and I discussed this at length last week. If no one has any objections, I could start using dice to select Judges. I'd like some input on this: should we stick with the current method, or shoud I reach for the dice pouch next time? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:41:38 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: naming At 09:49 PM 9/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At present, I'm partial to (0x02) for our name. The filled-in smiley face >>conveys so much more than any word ever could. [chuckle]. >> >>If perchance we did adopt this name, how would it be represented in the >>rules? Would the graphical and ASCII code representations be equivalent? >>Does anyone have a font that contains this character (as none of mine do)? > >perl -e 'print pack("c", 0x02), "\n"' > >You'd have to toss it around using some sort of program, or a very >smart editor. I know vi and probably emacs will let you enter control >characters into a file; perhaps they'll do the same for skank low >ascii values. > >In many programs and fonts skank characters are shown as other >skank-looking, but visible, garbage characters. > >Other than that, one reading the rules wouldn't be able to see >the Nomic's name. Try the perl one-liner above, and see what you get >on your system. > >Josh For anyone who doesn't know: (0x02) is the hexidecimal ASCII code for a filled-in smiley face. I tried the perl above. When viewed in DOS, the filled-in smiley face shows up just fine; however, it just shows up as a black rectangle in everything else. Unfortunately, this is not as cool as I thought it would be. The smiley has much more character than a black rectangle can convey. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 23:56:08 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: randomness and Judge selection Joel D Uckelman writes: >The dice server I use for Judge selection has produced lots of high and low >numbers and few in between. I'm not sure if this is indicitive of >non-randomness or just "bad luck" as Ben put it - - Mike and I discussed >this at length last week. If no one has any objections, I could start using >dice to select Judges. I'd like some input on this: should we stick with >the current method, or shoud I reach for the dice pouch next time? I think we have far too little data to shy away from the dice server just yet. Josh -- Homer: So you're selling what? Apu: Karmic realignment. Homer: You can't sell that. Karma can only be apportioned by the universe. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:06:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: naming Joel D Uckelman writes: >For anyone who doesn't know: (0x02) is the hexidecimal ASCII code for a >filled-in smiley face. > >I tried the perl above. When viewed in DOS, the filled-in smiley face shows >up just fine; however, it just shows up as a black rectangle in everything >else. Unfortunately, this is not as cool as I thought it would be. The >smiley has much more character than a black rectangle can convey. *BZZZT*! >From the ANSI document defining ASCII: /x02 START OF TEXT (STX) ASCII 0x02 is called "stx" or "" for short. What you see when printed is not, AFAIK, defined by the ASCII definition, and is probably largely terminal- and font-dependent. My guess is that this particular ASCII code is used at some low level like during modem, etc. communications, in order to signal the start of a block of data being transmitted. I didn't see any etymology in my quick search, though. Thus, 0x02 is not the ASCII code for a "filled-in smiley face." There is no such ASCII glyph. It's probably just the case that the font in which you were viewing text (i.e. the skank DOS window font) contained some "garbage" glyphs for the nonprinting characters, either for fun or utility. Some fonts, like the one I'm currently seeing my typing in, will show no glyph for nonprinting characters. Some will display a white square, on my machine. Josh -- If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:51:35 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Please vote on Lee As votes have been kind of slow on the subject of Mr. Olson's entry into our soon-to-be-named game, this is just a reminder: You need to vote whether or not to allow Lee into the game. (Of course I would hope everyone will vote yes; given that Lee is such an agreeable sort, who could vote against him?) Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:56:42 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Options As you may or may not have caught in a recent Joel message, Rich Peters, whose turn falls after Palacek's, has not been responding to email, and it's not clear whether or not he has actually been reading it and is aware of what's going on. We need to begin considering, as a group, what we might want to do if Rich is in fact not in contact with the game. Joel and I have discussed this at length, and basically the ideas we have are: o Force us to skip Rich's turn via a call for judgment Sort of cheaty but possible with the way the judicial system works, what with the judgments-have-rule-force clause. o Force us to remove Rich from the game via a call for judgment More cheaty because the rules specifically say that self-removal is the only way to remove a player. But still possible with the way the judicial system works. o Consider Rich's absence an action that renders the game unplayable, and end the game (starting right back where we left off, but without Rich, or at least starting after his turn) Technically, if Rich is not actually "playing," then us being stuck on his turn freezes the game on his turn forever, because there's no legal way to remove him from the game which doesn't involve him removing himself. Because Rich could hypothetically begin turnlike activities at any point, though, we can't say with 100% certainty that his turn will never start, unless he's like dead or something. I think such a decision calls for a healthy dose of pragmatism. More rules-friendly options are scarce since the rules-friendly ones all involve passing proposals, which we are not currently able to do. I've probably misrepresented Joel by saying "ideas we have", but if he cares he'll correct me. Or further explain why he thinks the various options above are morally un-culpable, etc. blah blah blah yackety yack. Josh -- Karma police arrest this man He talks in maths, he buzzes like a fridge He`s like a detuned radio ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 02:13:42 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Please vote on Lee >As votes have been kind of slow on the subject of Mr. Olson's entry into >our soon-to-be-named game, this is just a reminder: > >You need to vote whether or not to allow Lee into the game. (Of course I >would hope everyone will vote yes; given that Lee is such an agreeable >sort, who could vote against him?) Yes Tom Mueller (another new player) mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:47:52 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Options At 12:56 AM 9/10/98 -0500, you wrote: >As you may or may not have caught in a recent Joel message, >Rich Peters, whose turn falls after Palacek's, has not been >responding to email, and it's not clear whether or not he >has actually been reading it and is aware of what's going on. > >We need to begin considering, as a group, what we might want to >do if Rich is in fact not in contact with the game. Joel and I have >discussed this at length, and basically the ideas we have are: > >o Force us to skip Rich's turn via a call for judgment > >Sort of cheaty but possible with the way the judicial system works, >what with the judgments-have-rule-force clause. > >o Force us to remove Rich from the game via a call for judgment > >More cheaty because the rules specifically say that self-removal >is the only way to remove a player. But still possible with the >way the judicial system works. Of course, I would be compelled to appeal either of these decisions on principle, and I would hope that any judge would not consider such a gross violation of the rules. >o Consider Rich's absence an action that renders the game unplayable, > and end the game (starting right back where we left off, but without > Rich, or at least starting after his turn) > >Technically, if Rich is not actually "playing," then us being stuck >on his turn freezes the game on his turn forever, because there's >no legal way to remove him from the game which doesn't involve him >removing himself. Because Rich could hypothetically begin turnlike >activities at any point, though, we can't say with 100% certainty >that his turn will never start, unless he's like dead or something. >I think such a decision calls for a healthy dose of pragmatism. This option seems weak in its conclusion. If Rich is not actually "playing", and therefore not a Player, then we don't have to worry about all of this and it would now be Schroeder's turn. By virtue that a Player must consent to representation in the game as per the definition of Player, if we wait a reasonable amount of time after asking for that consent, then we could possibly conclude that Rich does not qualify as a player. This situation, to me, is the least questionable mehtod of attack. >More rules-friendly options are scarce since the rules-friendly ones >all involve passing proposals, which we are not currently able to do. > >I've probably misrepresented Joel by saying "ideas we have", but >if he cares he'll correct me. Or further explain why he thinks >the various options above are morally un-culpable, etc. blah blah >blah yackety yack. > >Josh Finally, we may not need recourse to the legal system to handle this. I tried calling Rich last evening, and I'll try again tonight if he hasn't returned my call. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:05:44 CDT From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: name I wish to repeal my previous three submissions in favor of what I believe to be a true hum-dinger. The English phonetic spelling follows: "nomic thanatou" This translates to "nomic of death" or "death's nomic." I feel a connection back to the roots of the game would serve us well; plus,x it makes us sound like we know what we're doing. I'm just starting to learn Greek, but I know this is accurate. Nomic is not an actual Greek word; it's just based on "nomos." When written in Greek, the above name would look something like the following: "vouik 0avatou" I desire my submission to be in the actual Greek characters. If anyone would like to know what this would be, let me know. I don't have time to spell it out. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:48:43 CDT From: caerdwyn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Please vote on Lee > As votes have been kind of slow on the subject of Mr. Olson's entry into > our soon-to-be-named game, this is just a reminder: > > You need to vote whether or not to allow Lee into the game. (Of course I > would hope everyone will vote yes; given that Lee is such an agreeable > sort, who could vote against him?) > > > Matt Kuhns > mjkuhns@iastate.edu > * * * * * * * * > "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics > he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" > -Brodie, "Mallrats" Hear, Hear! Lee Olson's the shit, I vote to allow his entry into the game on the grounds that he always where his cowboy boots and hat when posting to the group. Yeeeeeha! --- Life used to suck But now I'm better Haar caerdwyn@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:44:39 CDT From: caerdwyn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: randomness and Judge selection > The dice server I use for Judge selection has produced lots of high and low > numbers and few in between. I'm not sure if this is indicitive of > non-randomness or just "bad luck" as Ben put it - - Mike and I discussed > this at length last week. If no one has any objections, I could start using > dice to select Judges. I'd like some input on this: should we stick with > the current method, or shoud I reach for the dice pouch next time? > > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu Pull out the old dice bag, better yet, pair up the names on the list of eligible judges and flip a coin, top player heads, bottom tails. Then place the 'winner's' name in a second list, and repeat step one. A few iterations should give a fine random selection. --- Life used to suck But now I'm better Haar caerdwyn@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:46:49 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: name Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I wish to repeal my previous three submissions in favor of what I believe >to be a true hum-dinger. The English phonetic spelling follows: Is this allowed? :) There were no provisions made for repeal of submissions, so if you've hit your five you can't submit any more. :) >"nomic thanatou" > >This translates to "nomic of death" or "death's nomic." I feel a >connection back to the roots of the game would serve us well; plus,x it >makes us sound like we know what we're doing. I'm just starting to learn >Greek, but I know this is accurate. Nomic is not an actual Greek >word; it's just based on "nomos." When written in Greek, the above name >would look something like the following: > >"vouik 0avatou" Something like nu omega ? iota kappa theta alpha nu alpha tau omega ? Are the u's upsilons? Josh -- I read in the proof sheets of Hardy on Ramanujan: "As someone said, each of the positive integers was one of his personal friends." My reaction was, "I wonder who said that; I wish I had." In the next proof­sheets I read, "It was Littlewood who said..." - J.E. Littlewood ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:41:00 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Options Joel D Uckelman writes: >Of course, I would be compelled to appeal either of these decisions on >principle, and I would hope that any judge would not consider such a gross >violation of the rules. I don't think you're completely justified in doing so unless you can provide any alternative plans, which you're satisfied with. If you can find no other alternatives and we're forced to stick to principles, the game will not go on. >This option seems weak in its conclusion. If Rich is not actually >"playing", and therefore not a Player, then we don't have to worry about >all of this and it would now be Schroeder's turn. By virtue that a Player >must consent to representation in the game as per the definition of Player, >if we wait a reasonable amount of time after asking for that consent, then >we could possibly conclude that Rich does not qualify as a player. This >situation, to me, is the least questionable mehtod of attack. If we arrive at Sunday and we haven't heard from Rich I'd say that's far more than enough time. Of course, as you say, no amount of time is actually "long enough." Slippery slope, slipperly slope. Isn't the game-signon the process in which "consent" is obtained? Afterward, I don't recall anything that says a player must reaffirm his or her consent, so we're not necessarily justified in asking for his consent to representation again, since he's already given it. Josh -- Don`t just read it; fight it! Ask your own questions, look for your own example s, discover your own proofs. Is the hypothesis necessary? Is the converse true? What happens in the classical special case? What about the degenerate cases? Where does the proof use the hypothesis? - Paul Halmos ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:14:07 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: name At 11:46 AM 9/10/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>I wish to repeal my previous three submissions in favor of what I believe >>to be a true hum-dinger. The English phonetic spelling follows: > >Is this allowed? :) There were no provisions made for repeal of submissions, >so if you've hit your five you can't submit any more. :) Well, in the interest of selecting the best name, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to submit the 5 (or less) that you want rather than be forced to stick with the first 5 you send in, so long as you specify that you're doing this. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:13:58 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Please vote on Lee >Hear, Hear! Lee Olson's the shit, I vote to allow his entry into the game >on the grounds that he always where his cowboy boots and hat when posting >to the group. Yeeeeeha! > >Haar >caerdwyn@iastate.edu I don't know Mr. Olson personally, and I'm sure he is in fact the shit, but I'm tempted to vote against him on the grounds that his supporter here is obviously a fugitive, on the run from the Grammar Police. :) But, I sup-pooose. Add one more to the "yes" column. ----- -tom "That morning in Miami when the President got me on the phone, I said: 'Judy, he wants me to run for Vice President.' And Judy said: 'Can you get out of it?'" -Spiro T. Agnew ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:28:53 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: naming is almost over The name suggestion period will be over in approximately 37 minutes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:08:33 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: suggestion period is over That's it. No more suggestions. I'll send the ballot out to the list as soon as I return from quiz bowl practice. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:19:18 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Names Ballot Below is the list of names submitted within the allowable period. For your ballot to be considered valid, you must assign a unique integer in the range [0,200] (the square brackets mean inclusive) to each name. If you screw up by using the same number twice or don't assign a number to each choice, your ballot will be invalid. The moral here: be careful. Recheck your ballot before you send it to me, as I wouldn't want to be forced to disqualify it. Also, this is a _48_ hour voting period, unlike our normal 36 hour ones. If you have any questions or think I made a mistake in these instructions or on the list, please let me know ASAP so it can be rectified. *************************************************************************** Fuckweasal Nomic 2000 we threw gasoline on the fire and now we have stumps for arms and no eyebrows (0x02) Nick Nomic ErgoNomic The People's Popular Nomic Front ASCII 0x07 Nomic The Nomic Formerly Known as Nomic Nomic Popular People's Front McNomic NomicPro Gold '98 Jeane Kirkpatrick Bob Shitferret Nomic 3000 Haar's Loophole Playground Nomic People's Front THE PENTAVERATE B.L.O., Division of Games and Recreation det(Pleasure Matrix) LANPOYS Stankopoly Fun With Fire Nomic II: Urban Harvest Uckelman for President Assgoblin Nomic 4000 Pander Pandernomic Harf! That Dumb Game N Lapmojo 11 Thanks for the anal rape, USWest. Berserker Nomic nomic thantatou **************************************************************************** ****** J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:46:52 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: name > > Nicholas C Osborn writes: > >I wish to repeal my previous three submissions in favor of what I believe > >to be a true hum-dinger. The English phonetic spelling follows: > > Is this allowed? :) There were no provisions made for repeal of submissions, > so if you've hit your five you can't submit any more. :) > > >"nomic thanatou" > > > >This translates to "nomic of death" or "death's nomic." I feel a > >connection back to the roots of the game would serve us well; plus,x it > >makes us sound like we know what we're doing. I'm just starting to learn > >Greek, but I know this is accurate. Nomic is not an actual Greek > >word; it's just based on "nomos." When written in Greek, the above name > >would look something like the following: > > > >"vouik 0avatou" > > Something like > > nu > omega > ? > iota > kappa > > theta > alpha > nu > alpha > tau > omega > ? > > Are the u's upsilons? > > > Josh > > -- > I read in the proof sheets of Hardy on Ramanujan: "As someone said, each of > the positive integers was one of his personal friends." My reaction was, "I > wonder who said that; I wish I had." In the next proof­sheets I read, "It was > Littlewood who said..." > - J.E. Littlewood > Thanks, Josh. The first "u" is a mu, the second an upsilon. n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:07:30 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: name nosborn@iastate.edu writes: >Thanks, Josh. The first "u" is a mu, the second an upsilon. > >n [Digression follows] Mu? Then what makes a [m] sound in Greek? I thought it was mu, but I don't really know my Greek alphabet that well. Josh -- The mechanics of writing can be taught, the basic rules and tools and guidelines, but as in any art, all the rest comes from doing and doing and doing. The most important part of the process is learning to trust one's own vision, to work hard at developing one's own style and voice, and then having the confidence to follow where it goes. - Mary McGarry Morris ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 23:25:35 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: yet another Ballot Fix "nomic thantatou" should read instead, "nomic thanatou". I regret any inconvenience this may have caused to those of us who read Greek. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:32:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "Santos L. Halper" Subject: Re: Nomic: Names Ballot 160 >Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 188 >we threw gasoline on the fire and now we have stumps for arms and no eyebrows 0 >(0x02) 1 >Nick Nomic 75 >ErgoNomic 8 >The People's Popular Nomic Front 3 >ASCII 0x07 Nomic 28 >The Nomic Formerly Known as Nomic 4 >Nomic Popular People's Front 5 >McNomic 10 >NomicPro Gold '98 162 >Jeane Kirkpatrick 40 >Bob 110 >Shitferret Nomic 3000 180 >Haar's Loophole Playground 7 >Nomic People's Front 2 >THE PENTAVERATE 92 >B.L.O., Division of Games and Recreation 116 >det(Pleasure Matrix) 6 >LANPOYS 9 >Stankopoly 25 >Fun With Fire 64 >Nomic II: Urban Harvest 80 >Uckelman for President 13 >Assgoblin Nomic 4000 111 >Pander 198 >Pandernomic 150 >Harf! 197 >That Dumb Game 182 >N 200 >Lapmojo 11 199 >Thanks for the anal rape, USWest. 146 >Berserker Nomic 118 >nomic thantatou Note: Joel, aren't you glad YOU were deemed vote tabulator? What a fucking pain in the arse! beN byrNe --------- "Why am I so fond of inactivity?" -Evan Wyse Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:23:42 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: name > > nosborn@iastate.edu writes: > >Thanks, Josh. The first "u" is a mu, the second an upsilon. > > > >n > > [Digression follows] > > Mu? Then what makes a [m] sound in Greek? I thought it was mu, > but I don't really know my Greek alphabet that well. > > > > Josh > > -- > The mechanics of writing can be taught, the basic > rules and tools and guidelines, but as in any art, > all the rest comes from doing and doing and doing. > The most important part of the process is learning > to trust one's own vision, to work hard at developing > one's own style and voice, and then having the > confidence to follow where it goes. > > - Mary McGarry Morris > Mu does make the "m" sound. It's just that "u" has the closest appearance to mu. That's why I used "u" in place of mu. n ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:30:32 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Ballot Fix There should be 34 names on your ballots. If you've finished assigning scores and have not assigned 34 of them, you've made a mistake. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:07:55 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Names Ballot "Santos L. Halper" writes: >Note: Joel, aren't you glad YOU were deemed vote tabulator? What a fucking >pain in the arse! Thanks for contaminating the voting process, Santos. 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 ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:05:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: name nosborn@iastate.edu writes: >Mu does make the "m" sound. It's just that "u" has the closest appearance >to mu. That's why I used "u" in place of mu. > >n My question arose from the fact that I thought one of the 'u's you said was a mu was in a place which did not in fact have an [m] sound in the phrase "nomic thanatous". Was I mistaken? Josh -- This paper contains much that is new and much that is true. Unfortunately, that which is true is not new and that which is new is not true. - Anonymous Referee's report ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:48:46 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Crisis averted, our game is saved at the zero hour... I was finally able to contact Rich and thus have confirmed that he is indeed not playing. Since Tom Plagge's turn must be skipped the first time before he becomes a full-flegged player, it is now Jeff Schroeder's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:29:34 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Problem with N If N wins as a name, Jeff Schroeder may win the game. It just happens that N (or n) is used as a variable in several rules (viz. the def. of majority, winning conditions). If N is defined as the name of the game, then it may become impossible to count votes. Does anyone else see this as the case? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:47:19 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: N Who the hell is going to vote for N? Except maybe Jeff, now. It's a dumb name and it wouldn't matter anyway because 'N' is completely different from 'n'. Plus, you can have two different things with the same name. It wouldn't be a problem if another Joel Uckelman joined the game, at least no game problem. Damon __________ The very stone one kicks with one's boot will outlast Shakespeare. -- Virginia Woolf ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:54:14 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: N At 04:47 PM 9/11/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Who the hell is going to vote for N? Except maybe Jeff, now. It's a dumb >name and it wouldn't matter anyway because 'N' is completely different >from 'n'. Plus, you can have two different things with the same name. It >wouldn't be a problem if another Joel Uckelman joined the game, at least >no game problem. > >Damon > I disagree on all counts. Rule 001 holds all case permutations of N to be identical. Also, I think we'd have a problem if anyone with the same surname as an existing player tried to join the game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:41:13 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Not on all counts Joel, You still never addressed the popularity argument against this situation ever occurring. It is not clear that you disagree on all counts. Anyway, rule 001 says, "Nomic shall refer to the specific instance of a Nomic game which possesses the body of rules containing this definition, unless it is made clear, whether explicitly or via the context, that Nomic refers to something else." In my opinion it is made clear via context that the name of the game and the variable are in fact different entities used for different things. The sentence implies common sense be used in determining this: "is made clear." I disagree with Mr. Uckelman on all counts also; and I add a completely unnecessary, "Your Mom!" Damon __________ The very stone one kicks with one's boot will outlast Shakespeare. -- Virginia Woolf ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:02:12 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: name > > nosborn@iastate.edu writes: > >Mu does make the "m" sound. It's just that "u" has the closest appearance > >to mu. That's why I used "u" in place of mu. > > > >n > > My question arose from the fact that I thought one of the 'u's you > said was a mu was in a place which did not in fact have an [m] sound > in the phrase "nomic thanatous". Was I mistaken? > > > > > Josh > > -- > This paper contains much that is new and much that is true. Unfortunately, > that which is true is not new and that which is new is not true. > - Anonymous Referee's report > I don't know what I originally posted, but the closest-proximity-to actual-Greek version should have read "vouik 0avatou". The first "u" is mu, the second upsilon. n ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:13:52 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem with N Poppycock! Bull! That's ridiculus! You might have a point. Somebody please give this some thought. We should be able to withdraw our ballots and revote if necessary. Nick Osborn > If N wins as a name, Jeff Schroeder may win the game. It just happens that > N (or n) is used as a variable in several rules (viz. the def. of majority, > winning conditions). If N is defined as the name of the game, then it may > become impossible to count votes. Does anyone else see this as the case? > > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:58:54 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem with N Joel D Uckelman writes: >If N wins as a name, Jeff Schroeder may win the game. It just happens that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No offense to Jeff, but I don't remember Jeff being real big on Kafka, etc. I recall the spiel for "N" talking about, "well, Kafka would dig it," or something like that. Are you sure someone else didn't propose this name? If Jeff is in fact into Kafka, then I'll put my foot in my mouth just as soon as I can find my nail clippers. Josh thinks somebody is tripping, maybe it's me -- "I've just had seventeen straight whiskeys, I think that's a record." -Dylan Thomas ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:55:13 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Not on all counts "Abyss of ..." writes: >Anyway, rule 001 says, "Nomic shall refer to the specific instance of a >Nomic game which possesses the body of rules containing this definition, >unless it is made clear, whether explicitly or via the context, that >Nomic refers to something else." > >In my opinion it is made clear via context that the name of the game and >the variable are in fact different entities used for different things. >The sentence implies common sense be used in determining this: "is made >clear." To emphasize Damon's point, note the following rule text: For a given r, an r-majority shall be defined as a function from the positive integers to the positive integers, whose value for an argument N is the smallest integer m such that m is greater than or equal to r multiplied by N. A simple majority shall be defined as an (N+1)/(2N)-majority. Convention in a mathematical or semi-mathematical contex such as the one in this rule (and don't argue with me about whether or not it's mathematical or semi-mathematical, because it is, I help write it to be that way) is that if a variable name is introduced "informally," i.e. in a fashion similar to that above, "an argument N," what is actually meant is E N [1] or "there exists an N." Note that above since an r-majority is defined as r: Z+ -> Z+, "an argument N" means that N is in Z+, so we can be more specific, and say we actually mean E N in Z+ Now: why the fuck do you, the dear reader, care? Because a variable introduced in this fashion has a certain scope, governed by the scoping rules for "E". In effect variables quantified existentially are "dummy" variables for any subformula within the scope of the quantifier, which do not contain their own quantifiers quantifying the same variable name again. This should remind the dear reader of integration, in certain situations. Thus, in closing: 'N's which appear in the manner Joel suggested might be harmful should not be and are not a problem. [2] Josh [1]: Note that the "E" is really written backwards. [2]: Unless you WANT to be a fuckhead if, say, you are forced to issue a judgment on this point. -- "I've just had seventeen straight whiskeys, I think that's a record." -Dylan Thomas ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:25:54 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Crisis averted, our game is saved at the zero hour... Joel D Uckelman writes: >(1) 1. Ax(Tx -> Px) Assumption >(1) 2. Tr -> Pr 1, A instantiation >(3) 3. ~Pr Assumption >(1,3) 4. ~Tr 2,3 modus tolens > >(note: the A's are supposed to be inverted as universal quantifiers, but I >can't do that by e-mail). > >For those not versed in predicate logic, the above argument runs thusly: I didn't send this to anyone but you, so unless you copied it (which I don't think you did) I'm the only one to see your reply. However, I'm sending this to the list because I think something important has come up. READ THIS CAREFULLY. >For any x such that x has a turn, x must be a player. If Rich has a turn, >then he must be a player. Rich is not a player. Therefore, Rich cannot have >a turn. > >Does that address your concern? I think you're probalby questioning the >truthfulness of assumption 1. Rules 201/1 and 202/1 imply (at least to me) >that turns are solely the province of Players, that turns exist only due to >their corresponding Player, and would cease to be upon the non-existance of >said player. I claim that if you see that in the rules, then you're seeing too much. At most you should be able to say that 201, 202 => that turns' beginnings require players. It's the ceasing that I'm questioning. 201 says each player shall take "one whole turn." This implies that there are deviant turns, which are bad. Rule 201/1, mutable Order of Play Players shall alternate alphabetical order by surname, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All Players begin with zero points. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 0. Initial Mutable Rule, 11 March 1998 1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998 ______________________________________________________________________ Rule 202/1, mutable Parts of a Turn and Proposal Scoring One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the proposal, multiplying the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer, and adding the resulting value to the Player's score. Note the under-emphasized (heh heh) portions. I posit that by moving on to the next turn, after Rich's turn had officially started, we or somebody did at least one of the following: skipped or passed a turn, Rich's omitted the first part to Rich's turn omitted the second part to Rich's turn It's arguable that we didn't do the first, as we had at least begun the turn. The second two are IMO just plain true, since we started Rich's turn, and when we moved on to the next turn, neither (1) or (2) in 202 had occurred. Thus, I'll call for judgment on the following statement: Former player Rich Peters did not complete a whole turn, as described in rule 202, and thus rule 201 was violated. I exclude Joel Uckelman, Jill Wittrock, and Jeff Schroeder from the pool. Joel because I'd like this statement to be judged TRUE, Jill because I'd like the judge to be responsive, and Jeff because it's putatively his turn now, and we don't want any funny business with Jeff being determined the one who broke the rules, by taking the next turn. Sorry, Jeff. :) If the judgment is TRUE, we must then determine who broke the rule. If it wasn't Rich then things get hazy. Josh -- Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. - William of Occam ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:31:19 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem with N At 11:58 PM 9/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>If N wins as a name, Jeff Schroeder may win the game. It just happens that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >No offense to Jeff, but I don't remember Jeff being real big on >Kafka, etc. I recall the spiel for "N" talking about, "well, Kafka >would dig it," or something like that. Are you sure someone else >didn't propose this name? > >If Jeff is in fact into Kafka, then I'll put my foot in my mouth >just as soon as I can find my nail clippers. > >Josh >thinks somebody is tripping, maybe it's me The origin of the name (it was Ben's) and it being Jeff's turn are unrelated. If the name N would prevent votes from being counted through redefining of the majority function, Jeff would win the game (not the naming contest) as it is currently his turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:30:09 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem with N Josh Kortbein writes: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>If N wins as a name, Jeff Schroeder may win the game. It just happens that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >No offense to Jeff, but I don't remember Jeff being real big on >Kafka, etc. I recall the spiel for "N" talking about, "well, Kafka >would dig it," or something like that. Are you sure someone else >didn't propose this name? > >If Jeff is in fact into Kafka, then I'll put my foot in my mouth >just as soon as I can find my nail clippers. > >Josh >thinks somebody is tripping, maybe it's me I now think this was one of Ben's names. See the list of proposed names: That Dumb Game N Lapmojo 11 Thanks for the anal rape, USWest. Joel apparently lists them in the order they were submitted, as the first of these and the last three are all Ben's. Furthermore, all of my names came first, as per the submission order. So if Joel's claims about N were even tenable, it would be Ben who would win, probably, not Jeff. Josh -- Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. - William of Occam ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:46:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem with N Joel D Uckelman writes: >The origin of the name (it was Ben's) and it being Jeff's turn are >unrelated. If the name N would prevent votes from being counted through >redefining of the majority function, Jeff would win the game (not the >naming contest) as it is currently his turn. Silly me, I was thinking that the impossibility-of-further-play condition was nice enough to grant the winnership to the person who caused the problem. The person unable to complete a turn is not necessarily that person. If this all fell apart, I would consider Ben to be at the root of the problem. Clearly this is tendentious as, if we were allowed to trace things back, we could just as well trace them back to Peter Suber. Irrelevant anyway since Joel's tripping, but interesting. Josh -- I read in the proof sheets of Hardy on Ramanujan: "As someone said, each of the positive integers was one of his personal friends." My reaction was, "I wonder who said that; I wish I had." In the next proof­sheets I read, "It was Littlewood who said..." - J.E. Littlewood ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:52:23 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem with N At 12:30 AM 9/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >Josh Kortbein writes: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>If N wins as a name, Jeff Schroeder may win the game. It just happens that >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>No offense to Jeff, but I don't remember Jeff being real big on >>Kafka, etc. I recall the spiel for "N" talking about, "well, Kafka >>would dig it," or something like that. Are you sure someone else >>didn't propose this name? >> >>If Jeff is in fact into Kafka, then I'll put my foot in my mouth >>just as soon as I can find my nail clippers. >> >>Josh >>thinks somebody is tripping, maybe it's me > >I now think this was one of Ben's names. See the list of >proposed names: > > That Dumb Game > N > Lapmojo 11 > Thanks for the anal rape, USWest. > >Joel apparently lists them in the order they were submitted, as >the first of these and the last three are all Ben's. Furthermore, >all of my names came first, as per the submission order. > >So if Joel's claims about N were even tenable, it would be Ben who >would win, probably, not Jeff. > >Josh You are failing to see my point. Ben could not win the game due to contradiction if N is selected, as it is not currently his turn. If N won, I wouldn't be able to deliver a decision as to the passage/failure of the next proposal, thus Schroeder would win due to contradiction because it would become impossible for his turn to end. If there is something glaringly wrong in my reasoning, please point it out, for I am oblivious to it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 01:02:36 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Matt Kuhns has been assigned to RFJ 26: Former player Rich Peters did not complete a whole turn, as described in rule 202, and thus rule 201 was violated. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 01:04:10 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem with N Joel D Uckelman writes: >contradiction if N is selected, as it is not currently his turn. If N won, >I wouldn't be able to deliver a decision as to the passage/failure of the ... and of course, you mean, "If N won, and if I weren't able to...", because you would be able to, unless you have some sort of brilliant reason why not. Josh -- Professional music critics rarely possess any aptitude for mathematics. Hence, they like to compare musical processes unintelligible to them with the equally darksome methods of mathematical thinking. - Nicholas Slonimsky ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 01:02:49 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem with N Joel D Uckelman writes: >You are failing to see my point. Ben could not win the game due to >contradiction if N is selected, as it is not currently his turn. If N won, >I wouldn't be able to deliver a decision as to the passage/failure of the >next proposal, thus Schroeder would win due to contradiction because it >would become impossible for his turn to end. If there is something >glaringly wrong in my reasoning, please point it out, for I am oblivious to >it. NB: Majordomo does not always send messages to the list in chronological order with respect to sending time. Check the dates and I think you'll find that I send that message before you had even explained that Jeff would indeed be the winner - or at least, before that message had arrived at the list. Sheesh. Josh -- If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:13:22 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Judgment #26 Statement: >Former player Rich Peters did not complete a whole turn, as described >in rule 202, and thus rule 201 was violated. Judgment: FALSE Comments: Former player Rich Peters did not complete a whole turn, but more importantly did not ever begin a turn at all. As Osborn pointed out, Rule 202 describes a turn as "two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the proposal, multiplying the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer, and adding the resulting value to the Player's score. While it has been our custom to assume a turn as beginning immediately following the completion of the previous turn, this is stated nowhere in the rules, nor is it stated that it must always be someone's turn. Therefore, no turn was skipped, passed or partially omitted, and rule 201 was not violated. OFF THE RECORD: Another disaster averted... but this area is still hazy and just a little unstable. Something for future proposals to address, I hope. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 20:42:23 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Name results Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The results are in: we are now playing Berserker Nomic. (Olaf: Skerlnik.) Congratulations to Matt Kuhns for creating the winning name. Below are the final name standings: 1151 Berserker Nomic 1028 Pandernomic 984 N 886 Nomic II: Urban Harvest 848 nomic thantatou 792 we threw gasoline on the fire and now we have stumps for arms and no eyebrows 761 Nomic People's Front 743 THE PENTAVERATE 735 B.L.O., Division of Games and Recreation 721 Fuckweasal Nomic 2000 656 That Dumb Game 654 ErgoNomic 620 The People's Popular Nomic Front 590 det(Pleasure Matrix) 583 Lapmojo 11 564 Jeane Kirkpatrick 560 Nomic Popular People's Front 551 Fun With Fire 531 Pander 521 Assgoblin Nomic 4000 485 The Nomic Formerly Known as Nomic 482 Stankopoly 467 Thanks for the anal rape, USWest. 392 Harf! 363 (0x02) 363 ASCII 0x07 Nomic 363 NomicPro Gold '98 338 Shitferret Nomic 3000 311 LANPOYS 276 Uckelman for President 251 Haar's Loophole Playground 234 Bob 226 McNomic 46 Nick Nomic J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 00:47:37 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: RFJ 27 >X-envelope-info: >X-Sender: mueller4@sonic.net >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) >Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 23:00:35 -0400 >To: uckelman@iastate.edu >From: Mueller >Subject: Re: Nomic: Name results > >At 08:42 PM 9/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The results are in: we are now playing Berserker >>Nomic. (Olaf: Skerlnik.) Congratulations to Matt Kuhns for creating the >>winning name. Below are the final name standings: >> >>1151 Berserker Nomic >>1028 Pandernomic >> 984 N >> 886 Nomic II: Urban Harvest > >I'm not sure if I post publicly or to you, so if its you, here is my RFJ >(not including this stuff before the colon): > >I name Matt Kuhns as not to judge this RFJ because it is his suggested game >name that is being called into question. > >Rule 313 says (among other things): > >>Any player has the right protest an elected name on >>grounds that it is profane or vulgar within 48 hours >>of its passage. > >The American Heritage dictionary describes profane as being: > >>Showing contempt or irreverance towards God or sacred >>things; blasphemous. > >Under Rule 313 I protest the name Berserker Nomic. If I show that it is >profane or vulgar this RFJ should be successful. I choose to try for >profane. Something is profane if it shows either contempt OR irreverance >towards either God OR sacred >things. Not wanting to involve myself in a theological debate on Nomic's >status as a God. I decide to demonstrate that Nomic is a sacred thing, and >that the name Berserker Nomic shows contempt for this sacred thing. > >Contempt (from the same source) is: > >>Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the >>authority of a court of law or a legislative body. > >Sacred is: > >>Worthy of respect; venerable. > >Note that this interpretation is consistent: both definitions speak of >disrespect. I ask, among a group defined by a common participation in a >rule game which requires respect of the rules to be played, what is most >venerable? The game and rules themseles. Moreover, what is a Nomic but a >legislative body? > >How does the name Berserker Nomic disrespect a legislative body? By >drawing on a word like berserk which is defined (in the same source as >above) as: > >>Destructivey or frenetically violent; deranged. > >If a nomic describes itself thusly it does two things: >(1) It calls into question (by reference) the respect for the rules which >is necessary to play the game when it mentions violent derangment (a state >clearly not conducive to care and respect for delicate rule systems) >or >(2) It indicates a dangerous predatory bent. What can a nomic game hope to >be frenetically violent against but other nomics. This is a much more >egregious disrespect of other nomics, other legislative bodies. (Not to >mention the fact that pragmatically speaking, this name might lead other >nomics to distrust us.) > >By this reasoning, I believe that whoever judges this RFJ will see that >agreement with this RFJ is required. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net > J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 00:57:18 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 27 judge assignment Nick Osborn has been assigned to judge RFJ 27: The name "Berserker Nomic" is vulgar or profane under Rule 313/0. [This is my reconstruction of the statement from the RFJ. It's probably pointless to dismiss this on grounds that there was no clearly defined statement, as this is obviously the claim, and if it were dismissed, T. Mueller would just submit this claim again anyway. -- J.U.] J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:00:00 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: page updates As soon as the name is settled, I plan to do all of the page updates from the last several days. I appologize for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused, as the page is now 3 days out of date. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:01:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: page updates Joel D Uckelman writes: >As soon as the name is settled, I plan to do all of the page updates from >the last several days. I appologize for any inconvenience or confusion this >may have caused, as the page is now 3 days out of date. We're very disappointed in you! Josh :) -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:22:23 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: RFJ 27 A response: At 12:47 AM 9/13/98 -0500, Tom Mueller wrote: >>The American Heritage dictionary describes profane as being: >> >>>Showing contempt or irreverance towards God or sacred >>>things; blasphemous. >> >>Under Rule 313 I protest the name Berserker Nomic. If I show that it is >>profane or vulgar this RFJ should be successful. I choose to try for >>profane. Something is profane if it shows either contempt OR irreverance >>towards either God OR sacred >>things. Not wanting to involve myself in a theological debate on Nomic's >>status as a God. I decide to demonstrate that Nomic is a sacred thing, and >>that the name Berserker Nomic shows contempt for this sacred thing. My dictionary, Webster's Collegiate, 10th Ed., gives no indication in any of its definitions that profane has any denotation specifically toward sacred things. In any case, both "profane" and "vulgar" are meant as "obscene" in this case, i.e. taboo in polite usage. >>Contempt (from the same source) is: >> >>>Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the >>>authority of a court of law or a legislative body. >> >>Sacred is: >> >>>Worthy of respect; venerable. I take issue with your use of "sacred" here. The definition you use is 2b by my dictionary, i.e. not the most common usage. "Sacred" generally implies connections to one or more dieties; it's meaning is more at "holy." >>Note that this interpretation is consistent: both definitions speak of >>disrespect. I ask, among a group defined by a common participation in a >>rule game which requires respect of the rules to be played, what is most >>venerable? The game and rules themseles. Moreover, what is a Nomic but a >>legislative body? >> >>How does the name Berserker Nomic disrespect a legislative body? By >>drawing on a word like berserk which is defined (in the same source as >>above) as: >> >>>Destructivey or frenetically violent; deranged. >> "Berserker" is distinct in two senses from "berserk": 1. It is the title of a song in the movie _Clerks_, which has very little to do with your def. 2. It is an epithet applied to Viking warriors. Both senses were considered when submitting this name, and 1 was more strongly appealed to than 2 in this case, although I have no objections to 2. Neither of these could be said to be profane or vulgar under a more reasonable definition. >>If a nomic describes itself thusly it does two things: >>(1) It calls into question (by reference) the respect for the rules which >>is necessary to play the game when it mentions violent derangment (a state >>clearly not conducive to care and respect for delicate rule systems) Violent bursts of action do tend to characterize the game play thus far, and I'd venture to say that we all have to be a little deranged (in relation to the "normal" person) to enjoy this game anyway. No argument there -- that fits pretty well. >>(2) It indicates a dangerous predatory bent. What can a nomic game hope to >>be frenetically violent against but other nomics. This is a much more >>egregious disrespect of other nomics, other legislative bodies. (Not to >>mention the fact that pragmatically speaking, this name might lead other >>nomics to distrust us.) I don't see how our name could prevent us from bein a peace-loving nomic. Of course, I may be wrong in saying that we're a peaceful nomic in the first place, but I digress. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:40:19 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: RFJ 27 Joel D Uckelman writes: >A response: ... and some agreement with it. >My dictionary, Webster's Collegiate, 10th Ed., gives no indication in any >of its definitions that profane has any denotation specifically toward >sacred things. In any case, both "profane" and "vulgar" are meant as >"obscene" in this case, i.e. taboo in polite usage. Merriam-Webster online supports your first statement. "profane" is limited largely to things theological. Main Entry: 2profane Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English prophane, from Middle French, from Latin profanus, from pro- before + fanum temple -- more at PRO-, FEAST Date: 15th century 1 : not concerned with religion or religious purposes : SECULAR 2 : not holy because unconsecrated, impure, or defiled : UNSANCTIFIED 3 : serving to debase or defile what is holy : IRREVERENT 4 a : not being among the initiated b : not possessing esoteric or expert knowledge > >>>Contempt (from the same source) is: >>> >>>>Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the >>>>authority of a court of law or a legislative body. >>> >>>Sacred is: >>> >>>>Worthy of respect; venerable. > >I take issue with your use of "sacred" here. The definition you use is 2b >by my dictionary, i.e. not the most common usage. "Sacred" generally >implies connections to one or more dieties; it's meaning is more at "holy." ... which meaning would be the one required to match up with "profane." Looks like Mr. Mueller is using one word in one sense, then one in another, both of which senses were chosen out of convenience. >I don't see how our name could prevent us from bein a peace-loving nomic. >Of course, I may be wrong in saying that we're a peaceful nomic in the >first place, but I digress. As there's not really a way defined in our Nomic to gauge other Nomics' attitudes or intents, it doesn't really seem useful to try and characterize our own. Perhaps it's interesting, but it serves no game purpose. Josh all of the sudden suspicious about majordomo collapsing whitespace, and wanting to see five lines above here when this post comes back -- Prosecutors will be violated. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:51:43 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: RFJ 27 Josh Kortbein writes: >our own. Perhaps it's interesting, but it serves no game purpose. > > > > > >Josh >all of the sudden suspicious about majordomo collapsing whitespace, >and wanting to see five lines above here when this post comes back > >-- >Prosecutors will be violated. Hmmm. I didn't, but they were present because they showed up when I replied. Josh because of this, has lost all faith in the laws of science -- Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination. - G.K. Chesterton ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 09:49:28 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player proposal I propose that Andy "Ed" Proeschold be added to our game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:36:05 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: new player proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >I propose that Andy "Ed" Proeschold be added to our game. It's a good thing you said "Ed" or I would have voted no on account of the suspicious name! Josh -- "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." - Mitch Ratliffe, _Technology Review_ April, 1992 ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:43:19 CDT From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Judgement 27 Claim: The name "Berserker Nomic" is vulgar or profane under Rule 313/0. Verdict: False Comments: Mueller himself makes no claim of "Berserker Nomic" being vulgat, so that is not worth comment. I must admit that I have rarely been witness to a more twisted pile of "dictionary logic." Mueller's argument takes "profane" out of context, uses words from its definition out of context, continuing so until he can finally twist it into what he wants it to mean, disrespectful of accepted connotation or even rational denotation. The intent of including the word "profane" in Rule 313/0 could have been equally accomplished by the word "obscene." This is the appropriate conotation of "profane." As Mueller makes no arguement as to the obscenity of "Berserker Nomic," his claim is false. A personal note: Mueller, I extend my condolances and congradulations, whichever you prefer. I consider it quite honorable that one of your name submissions garnered second place. And to think, if this judgement had gone in your favor, it would have won. Better luck next time. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:51:55 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: new player proposal Let Ed play. He's a nice boy and has a good constitution. > I propose that Andy "Ed" Proeschold be added to our game. > > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:02:33 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Voting Another reminder: THERE IS NO NEED TO SEND VOTES TO THE LIST. Unless you think it exceptionally important that everyone else immediately know how you voted, that is. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:22:11 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Voting Joel D Uckelman writes: >Another reminder: THERE IS NO NEED TO SEND VOTES TO THE LIST. Unless you >think it exceptionally important that everyone else immediately know how >you voted, that is. ... which is not to say that there is a need to not send votes to the list. Except the need to avoid the wrath of a dozen-odd incensed Nomic nerds. Josh -- "When I have a little money I buy music; if any is left I buy food and clothing." - Erasmus, slightly paraphrased ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 15:14:09 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: page redesign The new page is up. As always, please point out any mistakes, broken links, etc. Also, did anyone find having game news on the front page in any way useful? If not, I won't continue to post it there. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 15:14:13 CDT From: caerdwyn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: new player proposal > I propose that Andy "Ed" Proeschold be added to our game. > > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu In a barely obscured attempt to empanel an Oldtimer Harwood voting block (with the prior addition of Lee Olsen) I vote aye to allow Ed's entrance into the game. -- Life used to suck But now I'm better Haar caerdwyn@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:09:17 CDT From: Andrew D Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: new player name misspelling Just so everyone knows, my last name is spelled Proescholdt, not Proeschold as it has been seen on this list. And another thing, if you haven't voted for (or against I geuss) me yet, do so soon. I don't want to go around to people's places and try to look menacing to get them to send a piece of email. Andrew "Ed" Proescholdt ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:34:32 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Nomic: protest Already having witnessed the failing of this attempt once, I will give it another shot, from another angle. As joel pointed out, berserker is an epithet applied to viking warriors. Myself having descended from said warriors, I am mortally offended that my fellow colleagues would adopt as a name for a game I am playing a derogatory racial slur. If you racist bastards don't take it back right now I'll sue your ass. Anyway, I'm sure we would all agree that racial slurs are vulgar by their very nature. Hence, it is clear that this name is vulgar and obscene (although not necessarily profane). Therefore, I call for judgement: "The name "Berserker Nomic" is vulgar and should be chucked" ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:36:37 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement 27 At 12:43 9/13/98 CDT, Osborn wrote: >I must admit that I have rarely been witness to a more twisted pile of >"dictionary logic." Mueller's argument takes "profane" out of context, >uses words from its definition out of context, continuing so until he can >finally twist it into what he wants it to mean, disrespectful of accepted >connotation or even rational denotation. I didn't really think that would work, but I wanted to try. >A personal note: > >Mueller, I extend my condolances and congradulations, whichever you >prefer. I consider it quite honorable that one of your name submissions >garnered second place. And to think, if this judgement had gone in your >favor, it would have won. Better luck next time. I accept both the condolances and congradulations. :) I remember that even I gave Berserker a high vote, but when I saw it at the top, I wondered why and tried to change it. Can't win them all. :) Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:02:41 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 28 judge selection Nick Osborn has been selected as a judge for RFJ 28: The name "Berserker Nomic" is vulgar and should be chucked". J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:14:28 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player Lee Olson has been added to the game as a new player. Voting continues on Andy "Ed" Proescholdt... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 17:57:39 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement 27 Mueller, thanks for being such a sport. It makes the game a lot more fun. Glad to have you in the ranks. Osborn > At 12:43 9/13/98 CDT, Osborn wrote: > >I must admit that I have rarely been witness to a more twisted pile of > >"dictionary logic." Mueller's argument takes "profane" out of context, > >uses words from its definition out of context, continuing so until he can > >finally twist it into what he wants it to mean, disrespectful of accepted > >connotation or even rational denotation. > > I didn't really think that would work, but I wanted to try. > > >A personal note: > > > >Mueller, I extend my condolances and congradulations, whichever you > >prefer. I consider it quite honorable that one of your name submissions > >garnered second place. And to think, if this judgement had gone in your > >favor, it would have won. Better luck next time. > > I accept both the condolances and congradulations. :) > > I remember that even I gave Berserker a high vote, but when I saw it at the > top, I wondered why and tried to change it. > > Can't win them all. :) > > Tom Mueller > mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 21:35:30 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 28 judge selection Claim: The name "Berserker Nomic" is vulgar and should be chuck Verdict: False Comments: According to Rule 220/0, "Judgments have the force of rules until they are overturned or no longer apply." The previous judgement stated that "Berserker Nomic" is not vulgar. This can only be overturned by an appeal. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:12:03 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 28 judge selection Claim: > >The name "Berserker Nomic" is vulgar and should be chuck This is not the statement I presented for judjement. Obviously the game shouldn't be "chuck." I'm not even sure what that means. I do know a few people named Chuck, but they spell it with a capitol C. Are you maybe referring to trail cowboy food, as in "yippee-aye-eh, comin getcher grub at the chuck wagon" somehow suggesting that the chuck wagon is so named because chuck is what is served out of it? I must admit I am a little confused. Be that as it may, I must congratulate you on making a timely judgement and not waiting the full 72 hrs as Joel suggested so that any appeals would fall out of the 48 hour limit. That's all. Think I'll get me some chuck. > > >Verdict: > >False > > >Comments: > >According to Rule 220/0, "Judgments have the force of rules until they are >overturned or no longer apply." The previous judgement stated that >"Berserker Nomic" is not vulgar. This can only be overturned by an >appeal. > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:41:56 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Nomic: proposal 314 Ok, here's my proposal at last. The trading of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) to a second Player (referred as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the following circumstances: a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the Tradee must be a positive integer value. b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the point trade. example: if NB = number of points held by the Trader before the trade if NA = number of points held by the Trader after the trade where (NB - NA) >= 0 once the trade has been completed. c) The Tradee must not obtain a number of points through any trade where their new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding those necessary to be declared a Winner. d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. e) Upon notification of the point trade any Player who sees fit to protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 hours to disallow the trade. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:57:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "Santos L. Halper" Subject: Re: Nomic: new player proposal >I propose that Andy "Ed" Proeschold be added to our game. Isn't there a "T" on the end of his last name? beN byrNe --------- "Why am I so fond of inactivity?" -Evan Wyse Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:13:18 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: new player proposal At 09:57 PM 9/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >>I propose that Andy "Ed" Proeschold be added to our game. > Isn't there a "T" on the end of his last name? > > >beN byrNe Yes, there is. I screwed up, but Ed promptly corrected me. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:27:52 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Thoughts on trading At 09:41 PM 9/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >Ok, here's my proposal at last. > >The trading of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) to a >second Player (referred as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the following >circumstances: > a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the > Tradee must be a positive integer value. > b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the > point trade. > example: if NB = number of points held by the Trader before the trade > if NA = number of points held by the Trader after the trade > where (NB - NA) >= 0 once the trade has been completed. > c) The Tradee must not obtain a number of points through any trade > where their new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding > those necessary to be declared a Winner. > d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient > to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. > e) Upon notification of the point trade any Player who sees fit to > protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 > hours to disallow the trade. 1. Defining the Trader and Tradee seems superflous so long as restriction b is present. I also see no reason why there couldn't be multiple parties engaged in a single trade. 2. Do you plan to keep the example in b in the propsal, or is it just there as an example now, to be discarded before a vote is taken? 3. What grounds would there be for protesting a trade? Why is section e necessary? 4. You may want to include something to indicate that all parties in a trade are willing. 5. The mechanism in d to make trades official seems to me to be too weak -- if only one party to a trade has to email the list to make it official, confusion could result. I suggest that all parties involved should have to confirm it, either on the list, or by emailing me that confirmation. I prefer the latter, because it means that (at least) one less message is sent to the list for every trade. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:31:18 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: rule 313/0 self-repeal Rule 313/0 repealed itself at 19:19 this evening. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:33:06 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: More thoughts on trading Specifying exactly when the trade takes place might also be a good idea. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:54:03 -0500 From: Adam E Haar Subject: Nomic: Prop 314 I would second all of Joel's submissions for amendment Adam Haar "I have not yet begun to hold this court in contempt" -Susan MacDougal, prior to her first 18 month term of incarceration for Contempt of Court. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:52:26 -0500 From: Adam E Haar Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 314 At 09:41 PM 9/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >Ok, here's my proposal at last. > >The trading of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) to a >second Player (referred as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the following >circumstances: > a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the > Tradee must be a positive integer value. > b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the > point trade. > example: if NB = number of points held by the Trader before the trade > if NA = number of points held by the Trader after the trade > where (NB - NA) >= 0 once the trade has been completed. > c) The Tradee must not obtain a number of points through any trade > where their new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding > those necessary to be declared a Winner. > d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient > to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. > e) Upon notification of the point trade any Player who sees fit to > protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 > hours to disallow the trade. > Ok, first amendment that should be made is to require agreement of the Trader and Tradee of the trade. Second clause C, must not should be altered to may not Adam Haar "I have not yet begun to hold this court in contempt" -Susan MacDougal, prior to her first 18 month term of incarceration for Contempt of Court. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:14:49 -0500 From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 314 What exactly is the inteded benifit of this proposal? The most obvious would be such that two people who would have enough points to win as it where, could give points to the other to achieve victory. Although this may be prevented by the majority right to overturn it and provision c. The only other use that i can see as of now is to bribe other players to vote for their proposals, which may be interesting, if tedious with provisions d and difficult with provision e. At 09:41 PM 9/14/98 CDT, you wrote: >Ok, here's my proposal at last. > >The trading of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) to a >second Player (referred as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the following >circumstances: > a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the > Tradee must be a positive integer value. > b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the > point trade. > example: if NB = number of points held by the Trader before the trade > if NA = number of points held by the Trader after the trade > where (NB - NA) >= 0 once the trade has been completed. > c) The Tradee must not obtain a number of points through any trade > where their new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding > those necessary to be declared a Winner. > d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient > to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. > e) Upon notification of the point trade any Player who sees fit to > protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 > hours to disallow the trade. > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:46:35 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Benefits of Trade >What exactly is the inteded benifit of this proposal? I wondered that myself, at first. Of course, basic economic theory will teach that trading works out much better than trying to meet all of one's needs by oneself, but it's not quite the same thing here. Trading points would make for a more interesting game. In the long run, it lays the groundwork for other proposals, such as gambling or a stock market, which would rely on the exchange of points. The proposal would have some immediate results, too. For example, you could buy votes! This game could use an element of corruption, I think. I'd like to take this opportunity to throw out a suggestion. This proposal would have much more immediate appeal if more players had points to trade. To this end, perhaps Jeff could include a clause granting every player ten points or so, or allow them to run a debit of points up to -10. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:02:28 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Benefits of Trade >I'd like to take this opportunity to throw out a suggestion. This proposal >would have much more immediate appeal if more players had points to trade. >To this end, perhaps Jeff could include a clause granting every player ten >points or so, or allow them to run a debit of points up to -10. > > >Matt Kuhns Note that giving everyone 10 points wouldn't even give three of our players positive scores. :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:28:57 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Benefits of Trade Matthew J Kuhns writes: >>What exactly is the inteded benifit of this proposal? > >I wondered that myself, at first. Of course, basic economic theory will >teach that trading works out much better than trying to meet all of one's >needs by oneself, but it's not quite the same thing here. > >Trading points would make for a more interesting game. In the long run, it >lays the groundwork for other proposals, such as gambling or a stock >market, which would rely on the exchange of points. > >The proposal would have some immediate results, too. For example, you could >buy votes! This game could use an element of corruption, I think. > >I'd like to take this opportunity to throw out a suggestion. This proposal >would have much more immediate appeal if more players had points to trade. >To this end, perhaps Jeff could include a clause granting every player ten >points or so, or allow them to run a debit of points up to -10. Why not just start us of where we are? After people use up their free points, under your system, they'd be back where they started, and would be forced to earn points either by passing rules, or by "selling" their votes. Then players who are more successful in passing proposals would be the only ones to create new points which could be traded. That seems to me to be a big incentive toward striving for proposal passage. Given that, why not just have people start striving right away? Those who have to wait until their turns to propose will get their taste eventually. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:33:56 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 314 Andrew J Palecek writes: >What exactly is the inteded benifit of this proposal? > >The most obvious would be such that two people who would have enough points >to win as it where, could give points to the other to achieve victory. >Although this may be prevented by the majority right to overturn it and >provision c. The only other use that i can see as of now is to bribe other >players to vote for their proposals, which may be interesting, if tedious >with provisions d and difficult with provision e. Vote-buying seems to be the primary reason right now, and one sufficient to pass the proposal. Consider, though, that vote-buying really ought to have another rule, governing the "contract" made between a buyer and a voter. As is, a voter may agree to vote for the buyer's proposal in exchange for 10 points, and then not vote appropriately. If the trade is made more than 48 hours before the vote, the buyer has no out. If the trade is made after the vote, the buyer can protest, but the voter suffers nothing, and the votes for the buyer's proposal are compromised in some possibly meaningful way. Note that this also creates some sort of foundation for a future economy. Josh -- "We are starting a movement in the state legislatures...to forbid the installation of clinics that dispense contraceptives." - Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:42:16 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 314 At 12:33 AM 9/15/98 -0500, Kortbein wrote: >Consider, though, that vote-buying really ought to have another rule, >governing the "contract" made between a buyer and a voter. As is, >a voter may agree to vote for the buyer's proposal in exchange for >10 points, and then not vote appropriately. If the trade is made more >than 48 hours before the vote, the buyer has no out. If the trade is >made after the vote, the buyer can protest, but the voter suffers >nothing, and the votes for the buyer's proposal are compromised in >some possibly meaningful way. As we currently have no regulations concerning contracts, I see no reason why players would be required to follow through on bribes. Although a player failing to do so would draw the ire of the proposer and the mistrust of other players, neither our rules nor Jeff's proposal would grant any legal recourse (nor should it, in the case of bribes). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:56:05 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 314 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:33 AM 9/15/98 -0500, Kortbein wrote: >>Consider, though, that vote-buying really ought to have another rule, >>governing the "contract" made between a buyer and a voter. As is, >>a voter may agree to vote for the buyer's proposal in exchange for >>10 points, and then not vote appropriately. If the trade is made more >>than 48 hours before the vote, the buyer has no out. If the trade is >>made after the vote, the buyer can protest, but the voter suffers >>nothing, and the votes for the buyer's proposal are compromised in >>some possibly meaningful way. > >As we currently have no regulations concerning contracts, I see no reason >why players would be required to follow through on bribes. Although a >player failing to do so would draw the ire of the proposer and the mistrust >of other players, neither our rules nor Jeff's proposal would grant any >legal recourse (nor should it, in the case of bribes). Didn't I just say that? What I mean is, for the vote-buying process to be nicer, we would like (or at least I would like) additional legislation. Josh -- "The best students always are flunking. Every good teacher knows that." -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:38:48 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 314 At 01:56 AM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 12:33 AM 9/15/98 -0500, Kortbein wrote: >>>Consider, though, that vote-buying really ought to have another rule, >>>governing the "contract" made between a buyer and a voter. As is, >>>a voter may agree to vote for the buyer's proposal in exchange for >>>10 points, and then not vote appropriately. If the trade is made more >>>than 48 hours before the vote, the buyer has no out. If the trade is >>>made after the vote, the buyer can protest, but the voter suffers >>>nothing, and the votes for the buyer's proposal are compromised in >>>some possibly meaningful way. >> >>As we currently have no regulations concerning contracts, I see no reason >>why players would be required to follow through on bribes. Although a >>player failing to do so would draw the ire of the proposer and the mistrust >>of other players, neither our rules nor Jeff's proposal would grant any >>legal recourse (nor should it, in the case of bribes). > >Didn't I just say that? > >What I mean is, for the vote-buying process to be nicer, we would >like (or at least I would like) additional legislation. > > >Josh Why should vote-buying be "nicer"? I like the element of trust that would have to exist for it to work now. A prohibition on bribing Judges would be nice though... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:26:25 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 314 Joel D Uckelman writes: >Why should vote-buying be "nicer"? I like the element of trust that would >have to exist for it to work now. A prohibition on bribing Judges would be >nice though... If this is to help found an economic system, I'd like to skip past the barter-and-ambush-later-to-get-your-money-back type deal thing. Que? Shto? Josh -- How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality? - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:21:54 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Nomic: Proposal 314 I talked with Kuhns in depth last night as to the benefits of the proposal, and, as several have stated, this proposal would create a currency system for future game expansion. The buying of votes is another interesting aspect of the game. The idea of a gambling system that has been suggested will need some sort of point transfer mechanism in addition to this proposal, but the basic idea of trading points will be at the center of a currency system for the game. In regards to Joel's question as to multiple parties engaged in a single trade, how do you think points should be divided between the different parties? I personally think it would be easier in that case to have each person in the party declare their trade with a different individual in the second party. >2. Do you plan to keep the example in b in the propsal, or is it just there >as an example now, to be discarded before a vote is taken? Do you think it's necessary in the final proposal? >3. What grounds would there be for protesting a trade? Why is section e >necessary? I put this in as a safeguard against anything in the future that may happen to jeopardise the gameplay. I feel that if a deal were to take place that somehow would end the game (or other misfortune for the majority) there would be a mechanism built in for a protest. See the updated proposal coming in soon... ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:36:24 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 314 At 04:26 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Why should vote-buying be "nicer"? I like the element of trust that would >>have to exist for it to work now. A prohibition on bribing Judges would be >>nice though... > >If this is to help found an economic system, I'd like to skip past >the barter-and-ambush-later-to-get-your-money-back type deal thing. Que? >Shto? > >Josh I doubt that such tactics have long-term benefits -- rogues generally meet bad ends once their actions become known. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:41:42 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Nomic: Proposal 314 revision I am debating on limiting the bribing of judges, opinions? ----- The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the following circumstances: a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the Tradee must be a positive integer value. b) The Trader and Tradee must both agree to the trade. b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the point trade. c) The Tradee may not obtain a number of points through any trade where their new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding those necessary to be declared a Winner. d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. e) The Trader and Tradee must both consent to the trade. Upon notification of the point trade as in part d) by one, the other must show his consent as a second message posted to the mailing list. f) Upon confirmation of the point trade any Player who sees fit to protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 hours to disallow the trade. g) The trade will not be completed until the 48 hour protest time has ended. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:43:25 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 At 04:21 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >I talked with Kuhns in depth last night as to the benefits of the >proposal, and, as several have stated, this proposal would create a >currency system for future game expansion. The buying of votes is >another interesting aspect of the game. The idea of a gambling system >that has been suggested will need some sort of point transfer mechanism >in addition to this proposal, but the basic idea of trading points will >be at the center of a currency system for the game. > >In regards to Joel's question as to multiple parties engaged in a single >trade, how do you think points should be divided between the different >parties? I personally think it would be easier in that case to have each >person in the party declare their trade with a different individual in >the second party. Well, so long as everyone involved in a trade gives consent, there should be no need to specify an upper limit on the number of parties involved. Ensuring that each trade involves _at least_ two players could be important, though. >>2. Do you plan to keep the example in b in the propsal, or is it just there >>as an example now, to be discarded before a vote is taken? > >Do you think it's necessary in the final proposal? No, I think the point is quite clear without it. >>3. What grounds would there be for protesting a trade? Why is section e >>necessary? > >I put this in as a safeguard against anything in the future that may >happen to jeopardise the gameplay. I feel that if a deal were to take >place that somehow would end the game (or other misfortune for the >majority) there would be a mechanism built in for a protest. There is a mehcanism built in for protest -- the legal system we have now. With or without this provision, players would be able to protest illegal point trades, since they have the right to protest anything illegal already. Thus, I see no reason to state it again here. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:43:03 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 >>>3. What grounds would there be for protesting a trade? Why is section e >>>necessary? >> >>I put this in as a safeguard against anything in the future that may >>happen to jeopardise the gameplay. I feel that if a deal were to take >>place that somehow would end the game (or other misfortune for the >>majority) there would be a mechanism built in for a protest. > >There is a mehcanism built in for protest -- the legal system we have now. >With or without this provision, players would be able to protest illegal >point trades, since they have the right to protest anything illegal >already. Thus, I see no reason to state it again here. This is here for a legal point trade, something not covered by the legal system. It's mostly for future expansion of more rules governing other aspects of a possible game economy. Jeff ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:45:48 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 revision At 04:41 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >I am debating on limiting the bribing of judges, opinions? If we are concerned with receiving good judgments, we should prohibit bribing of Judges. > d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient > to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. > e) The Trader and Tradee must both consent to the trade. Upon > notification of the point trade as in part d) by one, the other must > show his consent as a second message posted to the mailing list. Again, you could cut the number of messages sent to the list about trades in half if the confirmations were sent to me and then I sent out a single message about it to the list. > f) Upon confirmation of the point trade any Player who sees fit to > protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 > hours to disallow the trade. I presume that this case would apply to legal trades, as illegal trades could be handled through our judiciary system. That said, it has yet to be shown why an otherwise _legal_ point trade should be disallowed. On the basis of this alone, I hesitate to support this proposal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:50:07 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 2 b's or not 2 b's? Please note that Jeff's proposal now has 2 section b's. Hopefully this too will be corrected. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:04:30 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Nomic: too many bees Please ignore the first b as it was already in e The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the following circumstances: a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the Tradee must be a positive integer value. b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the point trade. c) The Tradee may not obtain a number of points through any trade where their new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding those necessary to be declared a Winner. d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. e) The Trader and Tradee must both consent to the trade. Upon notification of the point trade as in part d) by one, the other must show his consent as a second message posted to the mailing list. f) Upon confirmation of the point trade any Player who sees fit to protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 hours to disallow the trade. g) The trade will not be completed until the 48 hour protest time has ended. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:00:35 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 revision >At 04:41 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >>I am debating on limiting the bribing of judges, opinions? > >If we are concerned with receiving good judgments, we should prohibit >bribing of Judges. > >> d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient >> to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or >Tradee. > e) The Trader and Tradee must both consent to the trade. Upon >> notification of the point trade as in part d) by one, the other must >> show his consent as a second message posted to the mailing list. > >Again, you could cut the number of messages sent to the list about trades >in half if the confirmations were sent to me and then I sent out a single >message about it to the list. You would send out a message that the confirmation was received and give the time that it would end anyway (I would assume), so it really doesn't save any messages on the list that I can see. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? >> f) Upon confirmation of the point trade any Player who sees fit to >> protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 >> hours to disallow the trade. > >I presume that this case would apply to legal trades, as illegal trades >could be handled through our judiciary system. That said, it has yet to be >shown why an otherwise _legal_ point trade should be disallowed. On the >basis of this alone, I hesitate to support this proposal. As I just stated in my last mailing, it is indeed for legal point trades that would be disallowed by a majority of Players. Don't you agree that it is good practice to leave an out for something that the majority (possibly 2/3) of the players in the game may see as distructive, however legal it may be. I have no examples of this yet, but for later expansion of the game it may come up. I don't understand why you would vote down the entire proposal as a result of your protest of the existance of this safeguard (as I see it). Does anyone else agree with Joel's POV? jeff ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:48:48 CDT From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: current proposal This proposal needs to be more specific about when point trades occur. I would suggest basing it on the time that the second confirmation message is sent. I presume these would be sent to Joel, so he would inform us of the time. If you want to tag on 48 hours, add it on to the above time. On another note, this whole thing could be a lot easier if we had a bulletin board. I'm sure most of you know what a bulletin board is; if you don't, ask someone else. I think it would be a great boon to our game. If anyone sees any problem with this, please share. Also, if anyone could help in developing this, let someone else know. N ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:57:48 CDT From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: New Players Ed needs one more vote before he can play. Also, I am sponsoring Dakota Bailey, avatar@iastate.edu, as a new player. Vote for him. Vote early and vote often. Why don't you vote right now? N ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:03:11 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 revision > >At 04:41 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: > >>I am debating on limiting the bribing of judges, opinions? > > > >If we are concerned with receiving good judgments, we should prohibit > >bribing of Judges. > > > >> d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient > >> to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or > >Tradee. > e) The Trader and Tradee must both consent to the trade. Upon > >> notification of the point trade as in part d) by one, the other must > >> show his consent as a second message posted to the mailing list. > > > >Again, you could cut the number of messages sent to the list about trades > >in half if the confirmations were sent to me and then I sent out a single > >message about it to the list. > > You would send out a message that the confirmation was received and give > the time that it would end anyway (I would assume), so it really doesn't > save any messages on the list that I can see. Does anyone else have an > opinion on this? > > >> f) Upon confirmation of the point trade any Player who sees fit to > >> protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 > >> hours to disallow the trade. > > > >I presume that this case would apply to legal trades, as illegal trades > >could be handled through our judiciary system. That said, it has yet to be > >shown why an otherwise _legal_ point trade should be disallowed. On the > >basis of this alone, I hesitate to support this proposal. > > As I just stated in my last mailing, it is indeed for legal point trades > that would be disallowed by a majority of Players. Don't you agree that > it is good practice to leave an out for something that the majority > (possibly 2/3) of the players in the game may see as distructive, > however legal it may be. I have no examples of this yet, but for later > expansion of the game it may come up. I don't understand why you would vote > down the entire proposal as a result of your protest of the existance of > this safeguard (as I see it). Does anyone else agree with Joel's POV? > > jeff I agree with Joel. N ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:34:45 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: current proposal Nicholas C Osborn writes: >On another note, this whole thing could be a lot easier if we had a >bulletin board. I'm sure most of you know what a bulletin board is; if >you don't, ask someone else. I think it would be a great boon to our >game. I anticipate your meaning, but would you mind spelling it out? Also, are you thinking of a bulletin board, or a MUD? A bulletin board doesn't seem to be interestingly enough removed from our current arrangement. If you're envisioning something highly automated, I humbly direct you to the story of Agora Nomic's old MUD. Josh -- There is no hell. There is only France. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:36:04 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 revision Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 04:41 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >>I am debating on limiting the bribing of judges, opinions? > >If we are concerned with receiving good judgments, we should prohibit >bribing of Judges. How are you going to do that? What if someone bribes someone in order to obtain their favorable judgment in the _future_? It doesn't seem sufficient to simply disallow those who are acting as judges from participating in trades. Josh -- "Whereas the truth is that fullness of soul can sometimes overflow in utter vapidity of language, for none of us can ever express the exact measure of his needs or his thoughts or his sorrows; and human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars." - G. Flaubert ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:57:38 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player Andrew " J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:58:25 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player Andrew "Ed" Proescholdt is now a player. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:50:49 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: current proposal At 07:34 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>On another note, this whole thing could be a lot easier if we had a >>bulletin board. I'm sure most of you know what a bulletin board is; if >>you don't, ask someone else. I think it would be a great boon to our >>game. > >I anticipate your meaning, but would you mind spelling it out? > >Also, are you thinking of a bulletin board, or a MUD? A bulletin >board doesn't seem to be interestingly enough removed from our >current arrangement. > >If you're envisioning something highly automated, I humbly direct you >to the story of Agora Nomic's old MUD. > > >Josh I believe that Nick is refering to a message board. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:54:02 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 revision At 07:36 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 04:41 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >>>I am debating on limiting the bribing of judges, opinions? >> >>If we are concerned with receiving good judgments, we should prohibit >>bribing of Judges. > >How are you going to do that? What if someone bribes someone in order >to obtain their favorable judgment in the _future_? It doesn't seem >sufficient to simply disallow those who are acting as judges from >participating in trades. > > > >Josh I've thought about this, but disallowing trades during Judgeships won't help much: the trade can happen after the Judgeship is over. I'd like to think that if we simply outlaw it, our players will be bound by Rule 101 to refrain bribery in re the legal system, but that may be naive. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:10:08 CDT From: Andrew D Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: nomic: proposal 314 I just have a few comments on proposal 314 Bribing judges: I don't see why judges shouldn't be bribed, but there should be some sort of check to make sure judgements don't get too out of hand. This could be the use for part f. We also have an appeal system. Perhaps a clause could be added to the effect of an appeals court being able to fine both the bribed judge and the briber if it looks like a judgement has been bought. Part f: I think this part is absolutly necessary. Under the current version of the proposal, there is nothing against the tradee receiving one point less than enough to win, and then voting against a winning proposal to go over the top. Also, if there is an attitude that any judge is being bribed this would allow for a method of stopping future trades to this person. Other: Perhaps it would be wise to have something against bribing the person who picks the judges "randomly." It might be possible for judges to be picked much less randomly than they should be. Of course, another rule does say that judges will be selected randomly, so this is already illegal. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:07:07 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: On the Incorruptability of the Administrator At 10:10 PM 9/15/98 -0500, Ed wrote: >I just have a few comments on proposal 314 >Other: >Perhaps it would be wise to have something against bribing the person who >picks the judges "randomly." It might be possible for judges to be >picked much less randomly than they should be. Of course, another rule >does say that judges will be selected randomly, so this is already illegal. > >Ed Just a comment on my adminsitrative duties: I consider there to be complete seperation between my administrative duties and my prerogatives as a player. At the very least, I will continue to be incorruptable in all administrative tasks, i.e. attempts to bribe me for vote counting, judge selection, and the like will be ignored. This has always been and always will be my policy regarding my duties. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:12:16 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 revision At 06:00 PM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >....Does anyone else agree with Joel's POV? > >jeff He may have a point. The current system would allow a plurality of players to disallow any trade that wasn't to their own benefit. This is a rule that could be abused very easily and render the whole system rather bloody worthless. -tp ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:21:03 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: nomic: proposal 314 >Perhaps a clause could be added to the effect of an appeals court being >able to fine both the bribed judge and the briber if it looks like a >judgement has been bought. The prospect of fining points (or even awarding points) based on judgements is an interesting one. I'm looking at the ole scoreboard right now, and it seems to me that if this concept is added to the proposal, it could drastically change the course of the game. It could also lead to what I guess you could call "Civil" (as opposed to Criminal) CFJ's. Interesting... -tp ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:37:41 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: nomic: proposal 314 Ed wrote: >Bribing judges: >I don't see why judges shouldn't be bribed, but there should be some sort of >check to make sure judgements don't get too out of hand. This could be >the use for part f. We also have an appeal system. >Perhaps a clause could be added to the effect of an appeals court being >able to fine both the bribed judge and the briber if it looks like a >judgement has been bought. >Ed Perhaps this debate can be cleared up by the rules Rule 216/1, mutable "Duties of Judges" says: >Judges shall make rulings on only the questions presented for >Judgment, consisting of TRUE/FALSE answers and analysis as the >Judges see fit. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance >with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are > silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then >the Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the >game before applying other standards. It seems to me that bribes can only legally affect the outcome of a Judgement when the rules are less than clear and then only if the Judge indicates that ruling on the basis of who contributed the most is in keeping with "game-custom and the spirit of the game". On appeal the next judge merely has to disagree as to the nature of "game-custom and the spirit of the game" to throw the decision out. >Part f: >I think this part is absolutly necessary. Under the current version of >the proposal, there is nothing against the tradee receiving one point >less than enough to win, and then voting against a winning proposal to go >over the top. Also, if there is an attitude that any judge is >being bribed this would allow for a method of stopping future trades to >this person. I think that if we are concerned over this sort of thing we should change the rule so that it prohibits trading to within 11 of the winning number. More to the point, I think that certain abilities should be able to be made (among them commerce) without checking to see if it might anger people. Either make it against the rules, or let it happen. I will vote for this either way (as I don't see f as creating abuse) but I would perefer to leave it out. >Other: >Perhaps it would be wise to have something against bribing the person who >picks the judges "randomly." It might be possible for judges to be >picked much less randomly than they should be. Of course, another rule >does say that judges will be selected randomly, so this is already illegal. I think that if we have to worry about the ethics of Mr. Uckelman (or someone else in the future) then the game is already over. If things like this happened, the rules could be TOTALLY ignored and Uckelman could do something totally out there like declaring himself dictator and then requesting a judgement and appealing it and doing all the judging himself and say that it's legal despite all the laws everyone else would claim had been broken. If this sort of coruption existed an anti-bribing rule wouldn't matter. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:36:50 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: On the Incorruptability of the Administrator Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 10:10 PM 9/15/98 -0500, Ed wrote: >>I just have a few comments on proposal 314 > >>Other: >>Perhaps it would be wise to have something against bribing the person who >>picks the judges "randomly." It might be possible for judges to be >>picked much less randomly than they should be. Of course, another rule >>does say that judges will be selected randomly, so this is already illegal. >> >>Ed > >Just a comment on my adminsitrative duties: I consider there to be complete >seperation between my administrative duties and my prerogatives as a >player. At the very least, I will continue to be incorruptable in all >administrative tasks, i.e. attempts to bribe me for vote counting, judge >selection, and the like will be ignored. This has always been and always >will be my policy regarding my duties. I think it would be foolish of us to attempt "restricting" Joel in any way wrt corruption, as if it were to ever actually happen, it would be really fucking cool, and why should we want to pass up the chance to see it? Josh -- With a Pair of heavy-duty Zircon-encrusted tweezers in my hand Every other wrangler would say I was mighty grand ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:42:51 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 revision Joel D Uckelman writes: >I've thought about this, but disallowing trades during Judgeships won't >help much: the trade can happen after the Judgeship is over. I'd like to >think that if we simply outlaw it, our players will be bound by Rule 101 to >refrain bribery in re the legal system, but that may be naive. I class that as an understatement. Josh -- Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater. - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:52:01 -0500 From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: Nomic: too many bees At 06:04 PM 9/15/98 CDT, you wrote: >Please ignore the first b as it was already in e > >The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) >to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the >following circumstances: > a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the > Tradee must be a positive integer value. > b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the > point trade. This wording may be unclear if a Trader is already in the negative. > c) The Tradee may not obtain a number of points through any trade > where their new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding > those necessary to be declared a Winner. > d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient > to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. > e) The Trader and Tradee must both consent to the trade. Upon > notification of the point trade as in part d) by one, the other must > show his consent as a second message posted to the mailing list. > f) Upon confirmation of the point trade any Player who sees fit to > protest the trade may call for a simple majority vote within 48 > hours to disallow the trade. > g) The trade will not be completed until the 48 hour protest time has > ended. > ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:42:00 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: too many bees At 11:52 AM 9/16/98 -0500, Andy wrote: >>The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) >>to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the >>following circumstances: >> a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the >> Tradee must be a positive integer value. >> b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the >> point trade. > >This wording may be unclear if a Trader is already in the negative. How could a Trader begin in the negative? It prohibits trading yourself into debt, and you can't trade away points if you're already negative, as you'd be violating part b. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:43:54 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: too many bees At 12:42 PM 9/16/98 -0500, J. Uckelman wrote: >At 11:52 AM 9/16/98 -0500, Andy wrote: >>>The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) >>>to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the >>>following circumstances: >>> a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the >>> Tradee must be a positive integer value. >>> b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the >>> point trade. >> >>This wording may be unclear if a Trader is already in the negative. > >How could a Trader begin in the negative? It prohibits trading yourself >into debt, and you can't trade away points if you're already negative, as >you'd be violating part b. Perhaps a player could be set there by a rule. Or some system of debt could be created in the future. I think we should be explicit, just in case. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:30:53 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: too many bees At 04:43 PM 9/16/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >At 12:42 PM 9/16/98 -0500, J. Uckelman wrote: >>At 11:52 AM 9/16/98 -0500, Andy wrote: >>>>The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) >>>>to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the >>>>following circumstances: >>>> a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the >>>> Tradee must be a positive integer value. >>>> b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the >>>> point trade. >>> >>>This wording may be unclear if a Trader is already in the negative. >> >>How could a Trader begin in the negative? It prohibits trading yourself >>into debt, and you can't trade away points if you're already negative, as >>you'd be violating part b. > >Perhaps a player could be set there by a rule. Or some system of debt >could be created in the future. I think we should be explicit, just in case. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net > But look at part b: if you are the source of the points being traded, but you start with a non-positive number of points, it is IMPOSSIBLE to finish the trade with a non-negative number of points! E.g. A has -10 points. A decides to give B 10 points, which would put A at -20 upon completing the trade. Sec b. would prevent the trade from occurring, since A NECESSARILY could not end with a non-negative score. Having one's score set negative by a rule is irrelevant here, since no trade could happen. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:53:55 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: too many bees At 04:30 PM 9/16/98 -0500, J. Uckelman wrote: >At 04:43 PM 9/16/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >>At 12:42 PM 9/16/98 -0500, J. Uckelman wrote: >>>At 11:52 AM 9/16/98 -0500, Andy wrote: >>>>>The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) >>>>>to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the >>>>>following circumstances: >>>>> a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the >>>>> Tradee must be a positive integer value. >>>>> b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the >>>>> point trade. >>>> >>>>This wording may be unclear if a Trader is already in the negative. >>> >>>How could a Trader begin in the negative? It prohibits trading yourself >>>into debt, and you can't trade away points if you're already negative, as >>>you'd be violating part b. >> >>Perhaps a player could be set there by a rule. Or some system of debt >>could be created in the future. I think we should be explicit, just in case. >> > >But look at part b: if you are the source of the points being traded, but >you start with a non-positive number of points, it is IMPOSSIBLE to finish >the trade with a non-negative number of points! E.g. A has -10 points. A >decides to give B 10 points, which would put A at -20 upon completing the >trade. Sec b. would prevent the trade from occurring, since A NECESSARILY >could not end with a non-negative score. Having one's score set negative by >a rule is irrelevant here, since no trade could happen. That's a lot of >'s. :) I see your point now, initially I believed that "must maintain a non-negative point total following the point trade" could mean that "maintaining" might mean that you could keep whatever sign you had. On closer examination it appears to me that "maintain" would imply that you had to start and end with non-negative points. People with negative points may never be a trader, only a tradee. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:39:04 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Lee forfeits Lee Olson forfeits for lack of time. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:38:54 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Time for vote. I think Jeff should now call for a vote. It seems like all problems have been addressed, opinions have been formed, and discussion ended. I am ready. Bring it on so that I may give away all my points. (Oh wait, I have none.) Damon __________ Get down and pray to the oven She thinks that God is there - in there. -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:36:41 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Nomic: Proposal 314 On popular demand, I removed part f. I shall call for a vote tonight if no more discussion is needed... The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the following circumstances: a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the Tradee must be a positive integer value. b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the point trade. c) The Tradee may not obtain a number of points through any trade where their new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding those necessary to be declared a Winner. d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. e) The Trader and Tradee must both consent to the trade. Upon notification of the point trade as in part d) by one, the other must show his consent as a second message posted to the mailing list. f) The trade will be completed as soon as confirmation has been recieved. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:33:51 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal 314 confirmation Now that the proposal contains a clause specifying that trades occur upon receipt of the consent of both players, I see no reason to have both people send messages to the list -- trades could still occur upon my reciept of both players consent, and then I could send notification of this to the list, thereby cutting trade-generated mail in half. I ask that everyone (especially Jeff) consider this change to the proposal before the impending CFV. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:27:38 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 314 confirmation I agree, I will display the final copy when I call for a vote. Now that the proposal contains a clause specifying that trades occur upon receipt of the consent of both players, I see no reason to have both people send messages to the list -- trades could still occur upon my reciept of both players consent, and then I could send notification of this to the list, thereby cutting trade-generated mail in half. I ask that everyone (especially Jeff) consider this change to the proposal before the impending CFV. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:30:58 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 I guess I'll display it one more time to avoid errors. The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the following circumstances: a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the Tradee must be a positive integer value. b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the point trade. c) The Tradee may not obtain a number of points through any trade where their new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding those necessary to be declared a Winner. d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. e) The Trader and Tradee must both consent to the trade. Upon notification of the point trade as in part d) by one, the other must show his consent as a second message posted to Joel Uckelman. f) The trade will be completed as soon as confirmation has been recieved. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:39:30 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 314 I call for a vote on Proposal 314 The transfer of points from one Player (referred herafter as the Trader) to a second Player (referred to as the Tradee) shall be allowed under the following circumstances: a) The total number of points transferred from the Trader to the Tradee must be a positive integer value. b) The Trader must maintain a non-negative point total following the point trade. c) The Tradee may not obtain a number of points through any trade where his/her new total number of points would be equal to or exceeding those necessary to be declared a Winner. d) All Players must be notified of all point trades. It is sufficient to post a message upon the mailing list by either the Trader or Tradee. e) The Trader and Tradee must both consent to the trade. Upon notification of the point trade as in part d) by one, the other must show his consent as a second message posted to Joel Uckelman. f) The trade will be completed as soon as confirmation has been recieved. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:01:48 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Nomic: Vote Shoor ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:11:31 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Nomic: Vote I also wave my right to a secret ballot. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:08:51 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Vote Nathan D Ellefson writes: >I also wave my right to a secret ballot. At what are you waving it? Josh -- In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection. - Hugo Rossi ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:47:17 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: Vote At 10:08 PM 9/17/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Nathan D Ellefson writes: >>I also wave my right to a secret ballot. > >At what are you waving it? Many beautiful ladies. In a suggestive manner. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:51:24 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Vote Nathan D Ellefson writes: >At 10:08 PM 9/17/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Nathan D Ellefson writes: >>>I also wave my right to a secret ballot. >> >>At what are you waving it? > >Many beautiful ladies. In a suggestive manner. Hey, little girl. Wanna try a salted nut roll? -- This paper contains much that is new and much that is true. Unfortunately, that which is true is not new and that which is new is not true. - Anonymous Referee's report ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:27:07 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting While your're all in a voting mood, why not cast your vote in re allowing Dakota Bailey into the game? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:00:07 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Fine He (Dakota) can play, too. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 09:25:46 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal 314 and next turn Proposal 314 passed (6-5-0-5). It is now my turn (well, at least it will be once I make a proposal). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 09:29:51 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Here's the scoring summary from Schroeder's turn: +13 points -- Schroeder +5 points -- Kortbein, Osborn, Palecek, Plagge, Proescholdt (opposed scoring) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 09:52:54 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: variations on a theme To date, the game has progressed rather slowly, and given our glacial progress, it seems that the more developed game many of us have envisioned is currently far in the distance. To hasten the comming of that glorious day, I intend to propose a new mechanism for handling proposals, viz. handling proposals in parallel. Because there are countless ways in which this could be accomplished, and I currently have no strong preference for one way over another (at least among the ones I've considered myself), I will enumerate below my suggestions as to how this could be done, and I await your comments and further suggestions if none of these prove satisfactory. 1. Modified turn-based -- allows several turns to occur concurrently. -- when one turn is finished, next person in alphabetical order fills the empty spot. -- would probably need a prohibition on the same player having >1 turn at a time. 2. Time-based -- allows several turns to occur concurrently. -- turns begin at a specified time. -- automatic CFV on all active proposals after a specified time period, e.g. 1 week. 3. Queue-based -- open proposal submission, with possibly a limit on the number of active proposals or the number of active proposals one player can have -- automatic CFV on a certain number of proposals at regular intervals Option 1 would be most like our current system -- the only real difference would be that instead of one person having a turn at any given time, maybe 5 people would have turns. Option 2 would fix times for events to happen, e.g. a certain number of players's turns would begin at once, they would make proposals and debate would happen, and then all of the active proposals would be voted on during the same voting period. Option 3, by far the most laissez-faire of the three, would use the regular intervals of 2 but dispense with turns as we know them altogether -- turns would essentially become cycles based on time rather than on players' actions. Comments and criticism are welcome -- I won't write up formal proposal until there has been some discussion of our options, as the three ideas I have would require radically different proposals. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:44:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: variations on a theme Joel D Uckelman writes: >To date, the game has progressed rather slowly, and given our glacial >progress, it seems that the more developed game many of us have envisioned >is currently far in the distance. To hasten the comming of that glorious >day, I intend to propose a new mechanism for handling proposals, viz. >handling proposals in parallel. Because there are countless ways in which >this could be accomplished, and I currently have no strong preference for >one way over another (at least among the ones I've considered myself), I >will enumerate below my suggestions as to how this could be done, and I >await your comments and further suggestions if none of these prove >satisfactory. > >1. Modified turn-based > -- allows several turns to occur concurrently. > -- when one turn is finished, next person in alphabetical order fills t >he >empty spot. > -- would probably need a prohibition on the same player having >1 turn >at >a time. > >2. Time-based > -- allows several turns to occur concurrently. > -- turns begin at a specified time. > -- automatic CFV on all active proposals after a specified time period, >e.g. 1 week. > >3. Queue-based > -- open proposal submission, with possibly a limit on the number of act >ive >proposals or the number of active proposals one player can have > -- automatic CFV on a certain number of proposals at regular intervals > > >Option 1 would be most like our current system -- the only real difference >would be that instead of one person having a turn at any given time, maybe >5 people would have turns. > >Option 2 would fix times for events to happen, e.g. a certain number of >players's turns would begin at once, they would make proposals and debate >would happen, and then all of the active proposals would be voted on during >the same voting period. > >Option 3, by far the most laissez-faire of the three, would use the regular >intervals of 2 but dispense with turns as we know them altogether -- turns >would essentially become cycles based on time rather than on players' actions. > >Comments and criticism are welcome -- I won't write up formal proposal >until there has been some discussion of our options, as the three ideas I >have would require radically different proposals. IMO, (1) is the least desirable, as it's the most like our current system. If the number of turn "slots" is less than the number of players, then there will still be a lot of waiting, because the people filling the slots will take a while to empty them. Changing any sort of turn ordering won't make the individual actions of a turn go that much faster. Plus: are you thinking of having the slots filled out-of-order? The way you suggest it, with (for example) 5 turn slots, we could have A B C D E taking their turns, B finishing, and then A C D E F in the slots. It seems as if some restriction on not starting one's turn until those preceeding one in the slot assignment list have taken theirs might be desirable. Maybe. Anyone have good reasons why not? I like (3) the best. Josh -- "Kill them all, God will know His own." - Bishop of Angouleame, when asked how to tell 'true believers' from 'heretics', during the Albigensian Crusades ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:57:16 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: variations on a theme At 10:44 AM 9/19/98 -0500, Kortbein wrote: >IMO, (1) is the least desirable, as it's the most like our current >system. If the number of turn "slots" is less than the number of players, >then there will still be a lot of waiting, because the people filling >the slots will take a while to empty them. Changing any sort of >turn ordering won't make the individual actions of a turn go that much >faster. Plus: are you thinking of having the slots filled out-of-order? >The way you suggest it, with (for example) 5 turn slots, we could have > >A B C D E > >taking their turns, B finishing, and then > >A C D E F > >in the slots. It seems as if some restriction on not starting one's >turn until those preceeding one in the slot assignment list have taken >theirs might be desirable. Maybe. Anyone have good reasons why not? > Well, I see no problem with this situation, so long as we don't end up with A C D E A -- that is the turns cycled through such that the first player got another turn before he finsished the his initial one. As to the speed argument, I agree that individual turns would probably last about as long as they do now, but some gains would be made by having 5 turns going simultaneously -- assuming, that is, that the people having turns maintained the current turn speed. There is the danger here that individual turns would slow due to a perceived diffusion of repsonsibility, so to speak, which would have us doing five things five times as slowly -- a strong negative, on the whole. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:57:12 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: variations on a theme I'm all for option 3 myself. It would liven things up a little bit. I like the idea of some sort of time limit, though, so we don't get a bunch of proposals backlogged. Seems, though, that we might have to do something about the 200 point rule... -tp ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:56:02 -0500 From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: Nomic: variations on a theme By far, the greatest potential difficult with any method of cocurrent proposals is that of cocurrent proposals affecting each other. Perhaps three proposal periods could overlap in a way. But the first one would have to have a call for vote before the second one, the same way with the second and third. A time limit in this respect could by rather constraining, as some people only don't check their email that often. Any more than three proposals on the table at a time could be rather confusing and as such bog the game down. I believe that the subject window of emails commenting on proposals should begin witht the proposal number in order to assist in our figuring out what is what. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:42:38 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: variations on a theme Andrew J Palecek writes: >By far, the greatest potential difficult with any method of cocurrent >proposals is that of cocurrent proposals affecting each other. > >Perhaps three proposal periods could overlap in a way. But the first one >would have to have a call for vote before the second one, the same way with >the second and third. A time limit in this respect could by rather >constraining, as some people only don't check their email that often. Suppose we have a 1-2 week period in which people may propose, say some limit that we set, like 1-5 proposals max per player. The votes for these proposals all happen during one 2-3 day voting period, at the end of the 1-2 weeks. Proposals are, officially, voted upon in the order in which they are numbered. Proposals also pass in that order. Proposals are assigned numbers on a first-come, first-served basis. Does that solve the problem you're thinking of? > >Any more than three proposals on the table at a time could be rather >confusing and as such bog the game down. I believe that the subject window >of emails commenting on proposals should begin witht the proposal number in >order to assist in our figuring out what is what. Maybe if we had a modified proposal system, a "daily nomic" would also be worthwhile. Not just a digest of messages, as Joel is working on, but a compiled summary of the commentary on particular proposals. Perhaps we could pass such a duty around, or reward a small number of points for working on it. Josh -- "Kill them all, God will know His own." - Bishop of Angouleame, when asked how to tell 'true believers' from 'heretics', during the Albigensian Crusades ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:43:47 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Problems with op3 I would hesitate to endorse proposal #3, simply because I could see it lending a major advantage to more active players. The people who spend 5-7 hours per day on nomic would most likely be putting together multiple proposals per week, while those on the fringe of involvement might not put forth any proposals without it ever being their specific responsibility to do so. Some may see nothing wrong with this, but I would like to keep the game competetive and keep more than the super-dedicated players involved. Towards this end, I tend to favor options 1 and 2, with a slight preference for #1 right now because I think it would cause fewer simultaneous-proposals- dealing-with-the-same-subject problems... but if I'm wrong and someone thingks option 2 would work better in this respect, lemme know. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:14:16 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Problems with op3 Matt Kuhns wrote: >Towards this end, I tend to favor options 1 and 2, with a slight preference >for #1 right now because I think it would cause fewer >simultaneous-proposals- >dealing-with-the-same-subject problems... but if I'm wrong and someone >thingks option 2 would work better in this respect, lemme know. > I too am having reservations. I'm still very much in the consideration stage on this idea, but I do see how a great change might affect Berserker Nomic very much. I've played on other nomics (more developed nomics) and the bottleneck on proposals didn't exist in them. I never saw the kind of scrutiny that is applied to Berserker proposals applied to any proposals out there. How much does the current amount of message traffick have to do with a lack of things to discuss and how much to a lack of time? Do you see youself spending five times as much time considering proposals and discussing them? Is your answer acceptable with respect to where you'd like to see Berserker going? I'm still answering these question myself, and I don't knwo what I'd prefer, but I think these are important questions to ask. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:32:50 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Problems with op3 At 04:43 PM 9/19/98 -0500, you wrote: >I would hesitate to endorse proposal #3, simply because I could see it >lending a major advantage to more active players. The people who spend 5-7 >hours per day on nomic would most likely be putting together multiple >proposals per week, while those on the fringe of involvement might not put >forth any proposals without it ever being their specific responsibility to >do so. > >Some may see nothing wrong with this, but I would like to keep the game >competetive and keep more than the super-dedicated players involved. Would mandating that everyone make at least one proposal during some period of time ease this worry? What about some type of priority system? If "priority points" were awarded in an inverse proportion to how many times players had proposed, players could assign PP's to their proposal(s), and the docket could be determined by ordering the active proposals by PP's. Consider the following example: 3 players (A, B, C) each with 2 proposals (A1, A2 ...). A has proposed 5 times before. B has proposed 1 time before. C has never proposed before. If priority points are awarded according to P = 1/(f+1), then the points are as follows: A has 1/6 B has 1/2 C has 1. The proposals are thus: a1 a2 b1 b2 c1 c2 C can guarantee priority for one of his proposals by assigning all of his points to either c1 or c2. Both of A's proposals will be last since he has been more prolific that B or C. So, the docket order could be the following (points assigned are in parenthesis): 1. c1 (1) 2. b1 (1/2) 3. b2 (1/2) 4. a1 (1/3) 5. a2 (1/3) 6. c2 (0) I think the effects of such a system (if refined and given some more thought, especially to eliminate the fractions), when combined with option 3, would safeguard against less active players being unable to get their proposals in. The only way the proposals of the most prolific proposers would get a high place on the docket would be if less active players presented nothing for consideration -- and in that case, I see no problem with the game moving forward. >Towards this end, I tend to favor options 1 and 2, with a slight preference >for #1 right now because I think it would cause fewer >simultaneous-proposals- >dealing-with-the-same-subject problems... but if I'm wrong and someone >thingks option 2 would work better in this respect, lemme know. >Matt Kuhns >mjkuhns@iastate.edu The simultaneous proposals thing could be solved through allowing people to withdraw proposals. Now that I've given it more thought, I think that option 2 would be less chaotic than option 1. With 1, there would be more voting to worry about, while with 2 all voting would occur at a predetermined time. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 22:02:31 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Problems with op3 Matthew J Kuhns writes: >I would hesitate to endorse proposal #3, simply because I could see it >lending a major advantage to more active players. The people who spend 5-7 >hours per day on nomic would most likely be putting together multiple >proposals per week, while those on the fringe of involvement might not put >forth any proposals without it ever being their specific responsibility to >do so. 5-7 hours per day? Aside from Joel and his administrative tasks, is anyone at Harwood spending that much time on it? Unless there is a particularly busy week, I spend less than 2 hrs/week on Nomic. Unless I am missing something, it seems that I would be on the high end of the scale. [Thus: I hope you're exaggerating.] Consider this: Is it wrong to give an advantage to players who are participating more? You claim so, but for what reasons? Games like Monopoly grant advantages to more active players, in that one is much more likely to accrue wealth if one invests in property, instead of just waiting for others to go broke by, for example, landing on the "Income Tax" space. Also consider that just because active players may be able to make multiple proposals per week, that doesn't mean they should or will. Do you think people are likely to vote on all the proposals if, for example, Joel and I crank out 20 proposals per week, in addition to what anyone else does? I don't think so, and that changes the kinds of numbers such proposals would need for passage. Not to mention the negative political side effects that might come from overwhelming the average players with proposals. I agree that #3 should be implemented only with some requirement of proposal made of every player. Josh -- I am the author of all tucks & damask piping I am the Chrome Dinette I am the Chrome Dinette I am the eggs of all persuasion ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 22:11:50 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Problems with op3 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 04:43 PM 9/19/98 -0500, you wrote: >>I would hesitate to endorse proposal #3, simply because I could see it >>lending a major advantage to more active players. The people who spend 5-7 >>hours per day on nomic would most likely be putting together multiple >>proposals per week, while those on the fringe of involvement might not put >>forth any proposals without it ever being their specific responsibility to >>do so. >> >>Some may see nothing wrong with this, but I would like to keep the game >>competetive and keep more than the super-dedicated players involved. > >Would mandating that everyone make at least one proposal during some period >of time ease this worry? > >What about some type of priority system? If "priority points" were awarded >in an inverse proportion to how many times players had proposed, players >could assign PP's to their proposal(s), and the docket could be determined >by ordering the active proposals by PP's. Consider the following example: > >3 players (A, B, C) each with 2 proposals (A1, A2 ...). > >A has proposed 5 times before. >B has proposed 1 time before. >C has never proposed before. > >If priority points are awarded according to P = 1/(f+1), then the points >are as follows: > >A has 1/6 >B has 1/2 >C has 1. > >The proposals are thus: > >a1 >a2 >b1 >b2 >c1 >c2 > >C can guarantee priority for one of his proposals by assigning all of his >points to either c1 or c2. Both of A's proposals will be last since he has >been more prolific that B or C. So, the docket order could be the following >(points assigned are in parenthesis): > >1. c1 (1) >2. b1 (1/2) >3. b2 (1/2) >4. a1 (1/3) >5. a2 (1/3) >6. c2 (0) > >I think the effects of such a system (if refined and given some more >thought, especially to eliminate the fractions), when combined with option >3, would safeguard against less active players being unable to get their >proposals in. The only way the proposals of the most prolific proposers >would get a high place on the docket would be if less active players >presented nothing for consideration -- and in that case, I see no problem >with the game moving forward. What purpose do you see this docket system serving? Only the first N proposals on the ordered docket are up for voting? What happens after voting? Are the remaining proposals kept around? What happens to them during the next round - is their priority increased? Less active players would be unable to get their proposals in under option #3 only if the system limited the total number of proposals out, and either didn't limit the number of proposals per person, or limited it in such a way that one person could propose more proposals than the minimal number which each person would be required to make the total. In the "PP" system outlined above, there are two ways in which points could be alotted for distribution: based on the number of times one has proposed for the given proposal wave, or based on the number of times one has proposed, total. Which do you intend? I find the second offensive, and will explain why if it's the one you pick. :) Josh -- "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 22:45:49 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: What's this? >From the web page: News for 19 September 1998: * Proposal 314 passed (6-5-0-5). * Jeff Schroeder gained 13 points. * Josh Kortbein, Tom Plagge, Andy Palecek, "Ed" Proescholdt, and Nick Osborn gained 5 points each. * Joel Uckelman's turn has begun. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, are you going to claim that your turn has started, or or will you claim it starts when you make your proposal, as you've said earlier? :) Josh -- We are servants rather than masters in mathematics. - Charles Hermite ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 00:30:59 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: What's this? At 10:45 PM 9/19/98 -0500, you wrote: > >From the web page: > > News for 19 September 1998: > * Proposal 314 passed (6-5-0-5). > * Jeff Schroeder gained 13 points. > * Josh Kortbein, Tom Plagge, Andy Palecek, "Ed" Proescholdt, and > Nick Osborn gained 5 points each. > * Joel Uckelman's turn has begun. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Well, are you going to claim that your turn has started, or or >will you claim it starts when you make your proposal, as you've >said earlier? :) > >Josh > >-- >We are servants rather than masters in mathematics. > - Charles Hermite No, this is technically incorrect and will shortly be remedied. Kudos to Josh for keeping me honest. :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:54:24 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Berserker: Voting After due consideration, I think that we should either (1)keep the system we've got which permits exactly this sort of discussion on every proposal, or (2)go to a totally laissez-faire approach which would work like adding new players: anyone can bring up a prop, request a vote, and vote a certain number of days after the request. I'd think the pace should actively promote some philosophy, the former in this case promoting slow consideration, the latter promoting speedy change. I'd like to avoid the middle ground because it seems like a half-way system. Also, too complicated and speedy a system will drastically increase both the volume and the processing devoted to the voting process. Laissez-faire is easy to deal with as it minimizes the processing on the increased volume. Otherwise, I sorta like the sedate and measured pace Berserker has evinced thus far. As to the risks of laissez-faire, I don't see them as a problem. If someone does want to spend inordinate amounts of time chrurning out proposals and other people only want to put out one a month (or never) more power to them, they get what they deserve. If the volume is simply annoying, frivolous proposals might be the victims of voter backlash. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 01:28:45 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: a refined statement of our options Below is a refinement of the options I see along with a short summary of pros, cons, and unanswered questions for each: 1. modified turn-based: Multiple turns are allowed to exist in parallel. When one turn ends, the next person in alphabetical order would fill that slot, with the rider that the same person may not fill more than one slot. Thus, proposals need not be voted on in the order they were proposed. Pros: - Preserves proposals/players ratio. Cons: - May not considerably reduce waiting. - May slow _individual_ turns. - May cause unnecessary proliferation of messages. - May cause confusion as to the possibility of multiple voting periods occuring simultaneously. - May cause problems with proposal overlap. To be resolved: - How many turns would be allowed to run in parallel? - Is slots being filled out of order, i.e. the slots being filled with non-lexically consecutive players, actually a problem? 2. limited time-based Multiple turns begin simultaneously at a designated time. After a debate period of fixed length, a CFV automatically made for ALL active proposals. Proposals would be passed in the order of their numbers even though the voting would be simultaneous. Example: Five players' turns start at time A. The automatic CFV on all five proposals will come at time B. In the interval AB, debate occurs on all of the proposals. Pros: - Preserves player/proposal ratio. - Creates orderly system for proposing, voting. - Will fix length of each set of turns, which in most cases will reduce wait. - Should be easier to deal with proposal overlap. Cons: - May not allow enough time for debate. - May introduce unintended consequences of passing large blocks of proposals at once. (which may not be a con, depending on your POV) To be resolved: - Once again, how many turns should be allowed to run in parallel? - How long should the time periods be? 3. unlimited time-based Turns become proposal and voting cycles as described in the limited time-based option, with the exception that neither the source nor the number of proposals made is predetermined. To avoid confusion, players would necessarily have the right to withdraw proposals. Pros: - Allows more rapid game development. - Creates orderly system of proposing, voting. - Eliminates wait entirely. Cons: - Reliant on individuals showing restraint if no proposal limit exists. - Could become overwhelming for less active players. To be resolved: - Should there be limits on the number of active proposals? per player or total? - Would a system of priority be desirable? necessary? As we don't seem to have expressed a clear group prefernce for any one option as of yet, I will continue to hold off on making a formal proposal until I have a clearer notion of the path we should take. Are there any pros/cons I have overlooked or misrepresented here? Additionally, I see the questions I herein expressed as important substantial matters for when I do write a proposal -- having your opinions on these matters now would save me revisions in the days to come. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 13:45:56 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: digest announcement As of today, a daily digest of all messages sent to the Berserker list (nomic@iastate.edu) will be available. The digest will be sent everyday at 10:00 CDT to those subscribed to nomic-digest@iastate.edu. My scheduler program does not allow any resolution between hourly and daily, but the digest may be produced twice dialy if I can find a better program and demand warrants it. At this point, you may be asking yourself, "Why would I want to subscribe to the digest?" If you would rather have messages from the list in a condensed format, the digest could be for you. Keep in mind, however, the digest format makes it more work to respond to individual messages, and at present, the messages you get from the digest could be as much as 24 hours old. If you want to receive the digest, send a message to "nomic-digest-request@iastate.edu" with the body "subscribe". Also, you will probably want to remove yourself from the normal mailing list (unless you want both the individual messages AND the digest) by sending a message to "nomic-request@iastate.edu" with the body "unsubscribe". NB: PLEASE DO NOT SEND MESSAGES TO THE DIGEST ADDRESS!!!! Continue sending messages to the list address -- everything sent there goes to the digest as well. Also, don't unwittingly quote an entire digest when responding to a single message. Well, you could, but then I'd have to kill you. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 15:18:56 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: digest update The digest will now be produced twice daily, at 10:00 and 22:00. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:09:14 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Nomic: voting I can say that I don't have a problem with the current system, or possibly the first suggestion that uckelman suggested. I think the game would be more fun with the more laid back atmosphere that is currently existing. Having a queue with say 5 players in it would also keep the game play playable, I think. The main concern I have with the third possibility is the extremely fast proposal rate and the sheer quantity of proposals that we'd have to deal with. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:38:19 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: voting Jeff N Schroeder writes: >I can say that I don't have a problem with the current system, or >possibly the first suggestion that uckelman suggested. I think the game >would be more fun with the more laid back atmosphere that is currently >existing. Having a queue with say 5 players in it would also keep the >game play playable, I think. The main concern I have with the third >possibility is the extremely fast proposal rate and the sheer quantity of >proposals that we'd have to deal with. Done the right way, I'm not sure that the third option WOULD result in an overflow of proposals. I'd like to see some estimates from people that think so - we could compare these to the numbers so far from this game, possibly including the last game's info. Josh -- "When I have a little money I buy music; if any is left I buy food and clothing." - Erasmus, slightly paraphrased ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:31:32 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: brief statement I would prefer a more fast-paced game. How much does our current scrutiny really do for us? Maybe more than I think, but I certainly think the game would be more exciting if it moved more quickly. The sheer quantity of ideas would lend itself to making the game cooler. We could sit here and pick away at each proposal carefully and have a very controlled, thought-out game; but I see myself enjoying the weird-assed, crazy aspect of the game which we haven't gotten to yet. Hell, I don't know. Maybe that aspect of the game doesn't exist, but I really think that allowing the simultaneous consideration of proposals would make the game not only faster, but more interesting. One other effect I think systems 2 and 3 (in Joel's message) would have, that I don't think has been mentioned (maybe it has) is the forethought put into each proposal would be greater so that not so much time would be spent amending and editing proposals. This would also serve to concentrate more work on the proposer than we currently have instead of distributing the work over everyone. (E.G. "Hey, I've got an idea about this; what does everyone want me to say so I can get it passed?) If the author of the proposal wants to get it passed, s/he MUST put much thought into it. I support system 3. The hands-off style. Damon __________ Get down and pray to the oven She thinks that God is there - in there. -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:15:32 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal estimates All of this is said in the context of the unlimted time-based option (3): If I were given the opportunity to make an unlimited number of proposals, I doubt that it would be in my best interests to have more than 1-3 active ones at any one time. While I could sit here and churn our 50 proposals in a night, I can categorically say that I wouldn't, for one simple reason: every single one of them would be ignored. In fact, if I did that, no one would probably ever again read any mail I send that didn't have "judge selection" or "voting results" in the subject. To put it simply, if I were allowed the right to make unlimited proposals, it would be bad strategy for me to use it to its full extent. I think I speak for Josh in this as well (please correct me if I do not). Additionally, if players are allowed to designate some sort of activity state to their proposals (e.g. active, inactive), proposals could be out there without being under consideration during the next voting period. To sum up: no, I do not think that option 3 would subject us to proposal overload. (NB: even if it did ocassionally cause us to be swamped, we do have some analgous experiece with this: look at the spate of RFJ's that ended about 1.5 weeks ago -- it seemed to be self-correcting in that it just served to piss people off). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:21:44 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal estimates Joel D Uckelman writes: >selection" or "voting results" in the subject. To put it simply, if I were >allowed the right to make unlimited proposals, it would be bad strategy for >me to use it to its full extent. I think I speak for Josh in this as well >(please correct me if I do not). You are correct. Josh -- What I tell you three times is true. - Lewis Carroll ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:25:27 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal estimates Joel D Uckelman writes: >All of this is said in the context of the unlimted time-based option (3): > >If I were given the opportunity to make an unlimited number of proposals, I >doubt that it would be in my best interests to have more than 1-3 active >ones at any one time. While I could sit here and churn our 50 proposals in >a night, I can categorically say that I wouldn't, for one simple reason: >every single one of them would be ignored. In fact, if I did that, no one >would probably ever again read any mail I send that didn't have "judge >selection" or "voting results" in the subject. To put it simply, if I were >allowed the right to make unlimited proposals, it would be bad strategy for >me to use it to its full extent. I think I speak for Josh in this as well >(please correct me if I do not). Oh, and to be explicit: Ignored proposals = not enough votes to pass = points lost for proposee. Roughly speaking, of course. Josh -- Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities. - Lord Dunsany ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:03:07 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal estimates Kortbein wrote: > >Oh, and to be explicit: > >Ignored proposals = not enough votes to pass = points lost for proposee. > >Roughly speaking, of course. After some consideration, though, I like the idea of some control over how long a proposal can sit there being ignored. For this reason, and since I know you've all been holding your breath, I officially endorse option 2. I think having an alotted time to argue 5 (or 3, or whatever) proposals and then voting on all of them at once would keep the game from degenerating into chaos, but would increase the pace significantly. The game would be a lot cooler, as Damon noted, if we could actually DO something other than beat each proposal to death. Also, this option makes it impossible to flood the 'table' with proposals. Joel mentioned to me earlier the possibility of giving a player the option of passing their turn when it came up and using it later in the rotation. Seems this would be sensible, especially if you end up with a hell week or with a lack of good ideas. *grin* -tp ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:55:19 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: option 2 I'm also going to come out of the closet in favor of Option 2. I like the structure of a time-based system. Congress operates on a time-based system, and--though there may be some doubt as to whether it works--they've stuck with it a wee bit longer than we can sneeze at. Also, I like the idea of turns being randomly assigned. Every player wuld get a turn in a round, but the order would be different every round. We could use the same system presently in use for selecting judges. Players could be informed of whose turn it would be one turn in advance. Just an idea. This one is way out there... We would have an Executive, limited to two terms, elected by all players. The Executive can veto proposals and appoint the Judiciary. The Judiciary serves all judgements. The Legislature has the power, in addition to its present legislative duties, the power of impeachment over the Executive and Judiciary. The Executive and Judiciary would receive a small stipend for their efforts. Politics, anyone? (needs more work) >After some consideration, though, I like the idea of some control over how >long a >proposal can sit there being ignored. For this reason, and since I know >you've all >been holding your breath, I officially endorse option 2. I think having an >alotted >time to argue 5 (or 3, or whatever) proposals and then voting on all of >them at once >would keep the game from degenerating into chaos, but would increase the pace >significantly. The game would be a lot cooler, as Damon noted, if we could >actually >DO something other than beat each proposal to death. Also, this option >makes it >impossible to flood the 'table' with proposals. Joel mentioned to me >earlier the >possibility of giving a player the option of passing their turn when it >came up and >using it later in the rotation. Seems this would be sensible, especially >if you end >up with a hell week or with a lack of good ideas. *grin* -tp ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:07:12 -0500 From: Adam E Haar Subject: Nomic: Parallel Proposal Systems After much thought and discussion with fellow Berserkers I believe a system of time limited and staggered multiple propositions would be best. First, x number of "slots" would be created and scheduled on a staggered system whereby no two slots begin or end at the same time. Players would be assigned to slots in the same rotation as used currently. Each slot would last y days, determined in conjunction with the number of slots. The proposee would have only y time to propose, debate, and CFV. I feel this would allow sufficient time to debate and amend proposals while at the same time allowing many more proposals to be considered. Adam Haar "I have not yet begun to hold this court in contempt" -Susan MacDougal, prior to her first 18 month term of incarceration for Contempt of Court. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:57:38 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Berserker voting It looks like the comments are slowing down, so I'll just put in my last plug. I support "option 3" as last mentioned by Joel Uckelman and Jeff N Schroeder. I'd much less prefer option 2 though I would probably vote for it, with the increase in proposals, it wcould be changed that much more easily. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:11:36 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Nomic: discuss amongst yourselves I know I mentioned this to Joel a long time in the past, but what about a committe to review proposals and present the most worthy for judgement. I know this would present some corruption problems, especially in lieu of the last proposal, but that might be kind of interesting. Anyway, an "overide" vote could be put in to push rejected proposals through with penalties for either the committe or proposer depending on the results of the vote. Also, where would the commitee come from? Elected positions? Random Assignments? Not only would this (hopefully) provide some check against frivolous proposals, but it would introduce a political aspect to the game that would make for some wickedly devious play. And we all know the subcomandante likes anything wicked and devious. Mike "Subcomandante Marcos" Jensen ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:40:26 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Just Say No This is a surprise... Mike Jensen has suddenly decided to participate in the game once again. Unfortunately, his suggestion is purely appalling. As one who has experienced the full horror of a committee structure and its absolute inability to accomplish anything, I am fundamentally opposed to the abomination which is the committee. I believe Joel's third proposal, with some minimun/maximum rules on proposal volume as I discussed with him earlier, would best further the evolution of our game. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:08:44 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: option decision I have decided, upon refelection, that a conflation of options 2 and 3 would best serve our game. Unfortunately, I will be forced to leave you wondering as to what this means until Thursday afternoon, after which my analysis of Parmenides will be finished and I will once again have large, uncomitted blocks of free time. (I might add that the situation I'm experiencing at present is a compelling argument for option 3, as you wouldn't have to wait for me if other proposals were currently active.) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:53:59 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player voting To date, Josh Kortbein, Damon Luloff, Ed Proescholdt, Tom Mueller, Matt Kuhns, Nick Osborn, and I have voted on whether to allow Dakota Bailey into our game. If you are not one of these people, the 2-day break until I make my formal proposal could be a good time to do so. Keep in mind that voting does not imply that you approve -- if you are opposed, please vote as well. It will be impossible to put the matter to rest if I don't receive enough votes to either confirm or deny his entry to the game. Thanks. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 18:28:46 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 315 The due date for my paper was unexpectedly pushed back to next Tuesday, so I've now had time to compose a formal proposal, delimited by $'s below. $ This rule will do the following immediately, and in the order so specified: 1. Amend Rule 108 to read the following: "Each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall be given a number for reference. The number assigned to a proposal shall be the least integer greater than 300 that has never before been assigned, whether in this game or its antecedents, to another Proposal or Rule, whether active or inactive." 2. Amend Rule 202 to read the following: "One turn consists of four parts in this order: (1) a proposal and debate period, (2) a voting period, (3) voting-related scoring, and (4) dead time. Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. Additionally, the Player currently taking a turn is required to make a Proposal during this period. The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be the longer of 204 hours (8.5 days) or until the current Player makes a Proposal. Should the current player forfeit during this period, its duration shall be 204 hours. Immediately upon the expiration of the proposal and debate period, a call for votes is automatically made on all active Proposals only, thus beginning the voting period. Voting-related scoring occurs instantaneously upon the expiration of the voting period. Dead time occurs immediately following voting-related scoring. Dead time shall expire upon the completion of any additional actions that the Rules specify must be completed before a turn may end. If no such actions exist, the duration of dead time shall be instantaneous. The next turn shall begin immediately following the completion of the previous turn. All time periods specified herein are to be considered "reasonable" for the purposes of Judgments." 3. Amend Rule 205 to read the following: "Proposals adopted as a result of the same voting period are considered to have passed in numerical order from least to greatest. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it." 4. Amend Rule 307 to read the following: "For any given Proposal, the voting period ends 36 hours after the call for votes is made. If at least a simple majority of the total number vote-casting entities fail to submit a ballot during the voting period, the voting period shall be extended until such time as sufficient ballots to accept or reject each of the Proposals on the ballot have been cast. Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the voting period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions." 5. Amend the second restriction in Rule 309 to read the following: "2. New Players may not propose or serve as Judges until they have been players for the entirety of one turn." 6. Create Rule 222: "Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-291)/(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer." 7. Create Rule 223: "Players may change the states of their proposals from inactive to active and vice versa by sending a message to that effect to the mailing list. New Proposals are active by default." 8. Create Rule 224: "Players may, with no penalty, withdraw proposals from consideration at any time except during voting on the proposals. Proposals become dead their upon being withdrawn, and must be resubmitted if they are to be reconsidered. New Proposals are live by default." 9. Create Rule 225: "No player may, at any time, have more than ten live proposals." 10. Create Rule 226: "If a Player forfeits, that Player's active proposals remain active and inactive proposals are automatically withdrawn. Points owed to a former Player are not to be awarded." 11. Repeal this rule. $ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:14:05 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 315 and You What all this means: Anyone can propose anything they want during the 8.5 days of debate in each turn; however, the person whose turn it is MUST propose, just like it is now. All active proposals are voted on at once at the end of debate. You can have up to 10 proposals under consideration at once. You can set your proposals that you don't want to be voted on just yet to inactive. The rest of the provisions of the proposal are threre to ensure that it all works correctly, and are just the details. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:10:11 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: bad math mistake Please note that the first division sign in part 6 of my proposal should not be threre. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:43:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "Santos L. Halper" Subject: Nomic: c-ya Hey everyone, sorry to say this but I'm resigning. beN byrNe --------- "Why am I so fond of inactivity?" -Evan Wyse Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:56:35 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: the sound of silence were in something of a conundrum over here in the pleasure matrix. joel has posted a proposal that could be one of the most significant actions in berserker nomic history, and no one has let the on how the feel about it. not reading it isnt an excuse. i havent read it, but i know i like it. (joel used me as a sounding board, so i guess if you havent read it, you should. then let us know how you feel.) the point is, someone post something! im beginning to feel that all i have left in life is this illusion called reality. i need some email to remind me that there is more out there. n ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:55:15 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Further changes. Sections 11-13 of my proposal now read thusly: "11. Award the next turn to the Player whose surname falls first in alphabetical order. This Rule takes precedence over all rules dealing with skipping turns or parts thereof. 12. Award all current Players full Player status. 13. Repeal this rule." If you want to see the whole thing, look at it on the web page. I'm not going to send the enitre proposal out again until I call for a vote unless someone really wants me to. Why these two new changes? Eleven allows us to skip Jill Wittrock's turn for now to avoid the same trouble we had with Mr. Peters. If Jill is indeed still playing, she'll speak up and I'll gladly remove this provision. Twelve lets all of our more recent additions fully take part in the game -- it seems to me that they've waited long enough, and they've already been in the game longer than the new waiting period in my proposal. If no one has comments on the proposal, I plan to call for a vote in the next few days. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:09:24 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: the sound of silence n wrote: > i havent read it, but i know i like it. >(joel used me as a sounding board, so i guess if you havent read it, you >should. then let us know how you feel.) the point is, someone post >something! im beginning to feel that all i have left in life is this >illusion called reality. i need some email to remind me that there is more >out there. I've read it and am just waiting for the vote to be called so I can vote for Yes on the Proposal. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:38:10 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player Dakota Bailey is now a Player in our game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:08:13 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: One relevant question Why MUST the player whose turn it is, or however the wording goes, have one proposal? Maybe the answer lies in a quick rereading of the proposal, so I'll try again; but in the meantime anyone who is bored can tell me. Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:09:25 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: the sound of silence Nicholas C Osborn writes: >were in something of a conundrum over here in the pleasure matrix. joel has >posted a proposal that could be one of the most significant actions in >berserker nomic history, and no one has let the on how the feel about it. >not reading it isnt an excuse. i havent read it, but i know i like it. >(joel used me as a sounding board, so i guess if you havent read it, you >should. then let us know how you feel.) the point is, someone post >something! im beginning to feel that all i have left in life is this >illusion called reality. i need some email to remind me that there is more >out there. n Been busy, but I have heard Joel's ideas in person and they seem solid. I planned to give the monstrous thing a read in the next day or two. Would you like me to write a program that will send you copious amounts of email? Reminders aplenty... Josh -- How happy the lot of the mathematician. He is judged solely by his peers, and the standard is so high that no colleague or rival can ever win a reputation he does not deserve. - W.H. Auden ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:14:00 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: One relevant question "Abyss of ..." writes: > >Why MUST the player whose turn it is, or however the wording goes, have >one proposal? > >Maybe the answer lies in a quick rereading of the proposal, so I'll try >again; but in the meantime anyone who is bored can tell me. Joel sez: People wanted there to be some sort of proposal requirement. There still is. Also, he claims it is problematic to determine who wins for the winning conditions not involving points, if there is no player whose turn it is. Josh -- Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. - David Hilbert ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:19:54 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: another thought Quote: "Additionally, the Player currently taking a turn is required to make a Proposal during this period." With the new setup, why even have any players take turns? Need there be a certain person taking a turn if we now have an alternative method of proposing which is all-inclusive? I don't see what purpose this serves. If we did this then Joel won't have to put in the section about skipping Jill, which seems to me to be an abuse of the position of proposer as implied in rule 111/0: "If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, **** or if it arguably consists of two or more **** rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." (asterisks mine) Thoughts? or has this already been discussed and I missed it? Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:24:00 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Winning Conditions If winning conditions is why we are keeping individual players with turns, then why not instead change the rule about the requirements of winning to something like the person with the most points or something else just as arbitrary but not dependent upon it being a specific player's turn? Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:23:32 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: One relevant question If I understand Mr. Abyss Of...'s question, the requirement that every player make a proposal on their turn was a response to a concern I raised. I feared that if making proposals were totally up to players' discretion, even if there were no problem with some players offering too many proposals, some of the less motivated players might never get around to proposing and could effectively end up left behind. This being a game, I wanted to keep everyone involved and competetive, at least to some minimum level. Thus, Joel's compromise: the turn-based system motivates everyone to make at least one proposal now and then, while more active players need not wait forever to propose rule-changes. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:32:35 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Winning Conditions "Abyss of ..." writes: > >If winning conditions is why we are keeping individual players with >turns, then why not instead change the rule about the requirements of >winning to something like the person with the most points or something >else just as arbitrary but not dependent upon it being a specific >player's turn? Joel claims that determining whose turn it is would be the main problem. I see no problem with just throwing out that part of the winnage rule, if need be. Or enacting something which expects the players to rely on common sense: if Joe Player fucks the game up on purpose, it's pretty clear that he "won," even if it isn't his turn. IMO. Josh -- We are servants rather than masters in mathematics. - Charles Hermite ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:38:56 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: another thought At 07:19 PM 9/23/98 -0500, Damon wrote: >With the new setup, why even have any players take turns? Need there be a >certain person taking a turn if we now have an alternative method of >proposing which is all-inclusive? I believe that Mr. Kuhns sums this up rather well in his most recent post. >I don't see what purpose this serves. >If we did this then Joel won't have to put in the section about skipping >Jill, which seems to me to be an abuse of the position of proposer as >implied in rule 111/0: > >"If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or >destructive of play, > >**** or if it arguably consists of two or more >**** rule-changes compounded > >or is an amendment that makes no difference, or >if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may >suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." > >(asterisks mine) I fail to see how I am abusing Rule 111: my proposal makes one rule change only -- it would create Rule 315. Rule 315, on the other hand, will cause multiple changes, but that is another matter entirely, and one not addressed anywhere in the rules. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:42:19 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Kuhns' point I understand that, which is why I think it's very contradictory to include that in the proposal and then INTENTIONALLY skip a player, namely Jill. Is this not contradictory? I think we should stick to one or the other. Either we must sufficiently motivate Jill to play, a concern Kuhns raised; or we must abolish the notion of turn ownership. _____ Another issue I wanted to raise. Where has all the scrutiny gone? On all of the proposals I have ever seen there has been almost endless talk, and now we get the most grandiose to date and just accept it? I think we are relying too much on the good intentions of Joel AS A PLAYER. Remember, folks, that this is the corruptible Joel the player, not the perfectly honest Joel the administrator. Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:42:44 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: One relevant question Josh wrote: > >"Abyss of ..." writes: >> >>Why MUST the player whose turn it is, or however the wording goes, have >>one proposal? > >People wanted there to be some sort of proposal requirement. There >still is. > >Also, he claims it is problematic to determine who wins for the winning >conditions not involving points, if there is no player whose turn it is. Keeping in mind that I'd like to see this nomic maintain its uniqueness: I know that Ackanomic solved this particular problem by making every win dependent on a successful RFJ (or CFJ as they call them). Paradox wins go to whoever notices something and points it out for example. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:56:01 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? Joel says: >I fail to see how I am abusing Rule 111: my proposal makes one rule change >only -- it would create Rule 315. Rule 315, on the other hand, will cause >multiple changes, but that is another matter entirely, and one not >addressed anywhere in the rules. Of course Joel will "fail to see how" he is abusing anything if it serves his purposes. I assure you all that he is being slightly devious. He knows it is not as obvious as he would make it to be that his proposal does only one thing. Sure, the proposal is merely making a rule, which in turn does about a gillion (not a real number) differnt things, but just because it is once removed from does not mean it is somehow unrelated. Would it not be correct to say that his proposal causes the myriad changes made by the rule it will create? If it were not for the proposal, the rule would not exist and the changes would not exist. Initial attribution must be placed on the proposal. I hope all the logic there is correct; I'd like someone besides Joel to point out where I might have flawed as I am thouroughly convinced that Joel will reply with a swift rebuttal stating that "Damon can't possibly be right." I know what he will say - not necessarily how he will say it though. Knowing him like I do, I am not interested in his "logic" which is simply a contortion of his motives presented in an organized, seemingly logical fasion. (Poor Joel. I'm being really harsh, but I love it! :) hehe) You just watch everyone! What I have said here will soon come to pass. Damon who wishes he could see the expression on Joel's face when he reads this. __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:29:40 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? Abyss wrote: > >Joel says: > >>I fail to see how I am abusing Rule 111: my proposal makes one rule change >>only -- it would create Rule 315. Rule 315, on the other hand, will cause >>multiple changes, but that is another matter entirely, and one not >>addressed anywhere in the rules. > > >Of course Joel will "fail to see how" he is abusing anything if it serves >his purposes. I assure you all that he is being slightly devious. He >knows it is not as obvious as he would make it to be that his proposal >does only one thing. Sure, the proposal is merely making a rule, which in >turn does about a gillion (not a real number) differnt things, but just >because it is once removed from does not mean it is somehow unrelated. >Would it not be correct to say that his proposal causes the myriad >changes made by the rule it will create? If it were not for the proposal, >the rule would not exist and the changes would not exist. Initial >attribution must be placed on the proposal. As I see it: (1) causation is an almost useless concept when you think really hard about it. (2) Luckily in this case, that doesn't matter, because even if his proposal directly produced multiple effects it would be OK. Rule 111 (Debate and Alteration of Proposals) says: "If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." The permissability or desirabililty of this state of affairs is not commented upon except by a vague, implicit, unhappiness with it (because the rules even bothered to bring up the topic). This I think represents Suber's initial prejudices and has no ultimately binding effect on the game. In fact, perhaps this statement regulates debate itself and absent one of these criteria being met, no debate is permitted. Ultimately, that's the only impact I see this text having on the game. More directly, as we're now limited to single proposals, I apreciate Joel's thoroughness at dealing with potentially game breaking issues while we can. >I hope all the logic there is correct; I'd like someone besides Joel to >point out where I might have flawed as I am thouroughly convinced that >Joel will reply with a swift rebuttal stating that "Damon can't possibly >be right." I know what he will say - not necessarily how he will say it >though. Knowing him like I do, I am not interested in his "logic" which >is simply a contortion of his motives presented in an organized, >seemingly logical fasion. I suspect that this is all anyone every has, but hopefully this defense of Joel has some "objectivity" especially seeing as how I never have (and probably never will) see anyone, including Joel, F2F. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:30:51 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Kuhns' point At 07:42 PM 9/23/98 -0500, you wrote: > >I understand that, which is why I think it's very contradictory to >include that in the proposal and then INTENTIONALLY skip a player, namely >Jill. Is this not contradictory? I think we should stick to one or the >other. Either we must sufficiently motivate Jill to play, a concern Kuhns >raised; or we must abolish the notion of turn ownership. There is a very compelling reason to skip Jill for now unless she speaks up: under the provisions of my proposal, if we do not skip Jill and (1) she really isn't playing and (2) I can't contact her (which I have not be able to do), HER TURN WILL NEVER END. Now, I could just add something to the proposal to deal with that problem rather than postpone it, but I'd rather not for this reason: I don't want every single game problem sucked into my proposal. It's germane to address problems created by the new system (like I am), but I don't want to change things that generally have nothing to do with the proposal system. If my proposal passes, we can easily deal with phantom players and anything else that would have been a problem even without my proposal. That I don't want to fix everything wrong with the game in one swoop shouldn't be an indict of my decision to maintain parts of the turn system. The same applies to the points made about winning. Finally, you haven't pointed out any negatives about turns, while there seem to be several positives (keeps players more involved, for one). If you don't want any turns, convince those who supported them to abandon the idea, and I'll change it. > >Another issue I wanted to raise. Where has all the scrutiny gone? On all >of the proposals I have ever seen there has been almost endless talk, and >now we get the most grandiose to date and just accept it? I think we are >relying too much on the good intentions of Joel AS A PLAYER. Remember, >folks, that this is the corruptible Joel the player, not the perfectly >honest Joel the administrator. > >Damon J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:06:48 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Jill forfeits We now don't have to deal with skipping Jill Wittrock's turn, as she just sent me a message saying she forfeits. So in response to this, my proposal changes slightly: delete 11, renumber 12 and 13 accordingly. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:22:24 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? mueller wrote: >I suspect that this is all anyone every has, but hopefully this defense of >Joel has some "objectivity" especially seeing as how I never have (and ------------------------------------------ >probably never will) see anyone, including Joel, F2F. ------------------------------------------------------ i must admit, tom, weve already seen you. in fact, im watching you now. dont look over your shoulder, ther just might be something there. n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:47:43 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? Mueller: >I suspect that this is all anyone every has, but hopefully this defense of >Joel has some "objectivity" especially seeing as how I never have (and >probably never will) see anyone, including Joel, F2F. >------------------------------------------------------ You may not be able to see Joel face-to-face, but you can see the next best thing: the World-Wide Web gateway to the Pleasure Matrix. Visit http://www.public.iastate.edu/~tplagge/pleasurematrix.html for a quick glimse into the life of the man, the mystery, the legend....Joel. heh. -plagge ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:41:48 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? Damon sez: > >Joel says: > >>I fail to see how I am abusing Rule 111: my proposal makes one rule change >>only -- it would create Rule 315. Rule 315, on the other hand, will cause >>multiple changes, but that is another matter entirely, and one not >>addressed anywhere in the rules. > > >Of course Joel will "fail to see how" he is abusing anything if it serves >his purposes. I assure you all that he is being slightly devious. He >[Further Damon-rant deleted] But Damon, isn't arguing all about using logic to support your point? If Joel is in fact being devious, he's being rather unusually clever about it. And as Mike can attest to, Joel's past experience with developing evil schemes has been limited and rather unsuccessful. *grin* I don't think we have anything to worry about. As far as Joel's proposal doing several things at once, I don't see it as a problem anymore. Now that the Jill-related provision has been removed, I see Joel's rule as really doing only one thing: modifying the turn-based system. It does change several rules in the process, but it's still well within the loose guideline specified in the rules. Plus I rather like it. Peace out -plagge ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:57:07 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Kuhns' point "Abyss of ..." writes: > >I understand that, which is why I think it's very contradictory to >include that in the proposal and then INTENTIONALLY skip a player, namely >Jill. Is this not contradictory? I think we should stick to one or the >other. Either we must sufficiently motivate Jill to play, a concern Kuhns >raised; or we must abolish the notion of turn ownership. This point is now moot, but regardless, I sprach (insert proper conjugation, whatever, here): I don't know if it's contradictory, but such an inclusion would have been strong support for the claim that this proposal consists of more than one rules change, since skipping a single player doesn't seem to have much to do directly with the other things the rule is concerned with changing. Josh -- The computer should be doing the hard work. That's what it's paid to do, after all. - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:58:02 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: One relevant question Mueller writes: >Josh wrote: >> >>"Abyss of ..." writes: >>> >>>Why MUST the player whose turn it is, or however the wording goes, have >>>one proposal? >> >>People wanted there to be some sort of proposal requirement. There >>still is. >> >>Also, he claims it is problematic to determine who wins for the winning >>conditions not involving points, if there is no player whose turn it is. > >Keeping in mind that I'd like to see this nomic maintain its uniqueness: > >I know that Ackanomic solved this particular problem by making every win >dependent on a successful RFJ (or CFJ as they call them). Paradox wins go >to whoever notices something and points it out for example. I don't see our adopting similar rules detracting from our uniqueness. Rules like this are basically what I would want anyway, and what I would prefer. Josh -- Any false value is gonna be fairly boring in Perl, mathematicians notwithstanding. - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:09:37 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Kuhns' point Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 07:42 PM 9/23/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >>I understand that, which is why I think it's very contradictory to >>include that in the proposal and then INTENTIONALLY skip a player, namely >>Jill. Is this not contradictory? I think we should stick to one or the >>other. Either we must sufficiently motivate Jill to play, a concern Kuhns >>raised; or we must abolish the notion of turn ownership. > >There is a very compelling reason to skip Jill for now unless she speaks >up: under the provisions of my proposal, if we do not skip Jill and (1) she >really isn't playing and (2) I can't contact her (which I have not be able >to do), HER TURN WILL NEVER END. Now, I could just add something to the >proposal to deal with that problem rather than postpone it, but I'd rather >not for this reason: I don't want every single game problem sucked into my >proposal. It's germane to address problems created by the new system (like >I am), but I don't want to change things that generally have nothing to do >with the proposal system. If my proposal passes, we can easily deal with >phantom players and anything else that would have been a problem even >without my proposal. That I don't want to fix everything wrong with the >game in one swoop shouldn't be an indict of my decision to maintain parts >of the turn system. The same applies to the points made about winning. >Finally, you haven't pointed out any negatives about turns, while there >seem to be several positives (keeps players more involved, for one). If you >don't want any turns, convince those who supported them to abandon the >idea, and I'll change it. Perhaps I missed this in the earlier discussion: Why is the proposed Frankenstein's-monster combination of turns WITH free proposal preferable to free proposal with the requirement that everyone make a proposal, say, during time interval N? Josh -- "Whereas the truth is that fullness of soul can sometimes overflow in utter vapidity of language, for none of us can ever express the exact measure of his needs or his thoughts or his sorrows; and human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars." - G. Flaubert ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:06:01 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? Mueller writes: >Abyss wrote: >> >>Joel says: >> >>>I fail to see how I am abusing Rule 111: my proposal makes one rule change >>>only -- it would create Rule 315. Rule 315, on the other hand, will cause >>>multiple changes, but that is another matter entirely, and one not >>>addressed anywhere in the rules. >> >> >>Of course Joel will "fail to see how" he is abusing anything if it serves >>his purposes. I assure you all that he is being slightly devious. He >>knows it is not as obvious as he would make it to be that his proposal >>does only one thing. Sure, the proposal is merely making a rule, which in >>turn does about a gillion (not a real number) differnt things, but just >>because it is once removed from does not mean it is somehow unrelated. >>Would it not be correct to say that his proposal causes the myriad >>changes made by the rule it will create? If it were not for the proposal, >>the rule would not exist and the changes would not exist. Initial >>attribution must be placed on the proposal. > >As I see it: (1) causation is an almost useless concept when you think >really hard about it. (2) Luckily in this case, that doesn't matter, Funny, I (and many others) find causation to be a pretty useful concept. Perhaps maybe you could vocalize your hard thinking? >because even if his proposal directly produced multiple effects it would be >OK. > >Rule 111 (Debate and Alteration of Proposals) says: > >"If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or >destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes >compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is >otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest >amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." > >The permissability or desirabililty of this state of affairs is not >commented upon except by a vague, implicit, unhappiness with it (because >the rules even bothered to bring up the topic). This I think represents >Suber's initial prejudices and has no ultimately binding effect on the game. > >In fact, perhaps this statement regulates debate itself and absent one of >these criteria being met, no debate is permitted. Ultimately, that's the >only impact I see this text having on the game. "Unclear... of questionable value" seem to be criteria of such pliability that there should never really be any question about whether or not debate is allowed - it can ALWAYS be made to occur, if any player claims that they find the proposal unclear or of questionable value. The rule is phrased so as to not refer to the entity which determines the clarity, etc. of a proposal, but it has to be either (a) the nomic, or (b) 1+ players. > >More directly, as we're now limited to single proposals, I apreciate Joel's >thoroughness at dealing with potentially game breaking issues while we can. Joel's thoroughness may be expedient, but his intentions are apparently counter to some very strong opinions regarding mega-proposals which he held in the past. Cf. the end of the last game (IIRC). Thus, caution should be taken. Josh -- Prosecutors will be violated. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:16:30 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? Thomas J Plagge writes: >Mueller: >>I suspect that this is all anyone every has, but hopefully this defense of >>Joel has some "objectivity" especially seeing as how I never have (and >>probably never will) see anyone, including Joel, F2F. >>------------------------------------------------------ >You may not be able to see Joel face-to-face, but you can see the next >best thing: the World-Wide Web gateway to the Pleasure Matrix. Visit >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~tplagge/pleasurematrix.html for a quick >glimse into the life of the man, the mystery, the legend....Joel. heh. >-plagge Breathtaking and awe-inspiring. You have truly captured the nature of Joel. Joel, just wondering: does your mom know you're a sex machine? Josh -- If it sounds GOOD to YOU, it's bitchen; and if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 01:15:34 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? Thomas J Plagge writes: >As far as Joel's proposal doing several things at once, I don't see it as a >problem >anymore. Now that the Jill-related provision has been removed, I see >Joel's rule >as really doing only one thing: modifying the turn-based system. It does >change >several rules in the process, but it's still well within the loose >guideline specified >in the rules. In which ways can the phrase "rule changes" be interpreted? The proof is left as an exercise for the reader. Josh -- Like Radiohead. That's a great fucking album. It hits on every fucking level. So you read some review of Radiohead and it gets four stars. Then you read some other review and you know that the fucking shit ain't nothing like Radiohead, and it's four stars. What does that tell the person on the street, you know? It's a really diluted picture. - Billy Corgan ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 02:41:46 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>Abyss wrote: >>>Would it not be correct to say that his proposal causes the myriad >>>changes made by the rule it will create? If it were not for the proposal, >>>the rule would not exist and the changes would not exist. Initial >>>attribution must be placed on the proposal. >> >>As I see it: (1) causation is an almost useless concept when you think >>really hard about it. (2) Luckily in this case, that doesn't matter, > >Funny, I (and many others) find causation to be a pretty useful >concept. Perhaps maybe you could vocalize your hard thinking? Well, I meant that whenever I try to operationally define what I mean when I say something caused something else I find it very difficult. Sometimes I try to define it by saying that some occurence which precedes another (that, if absent would prevent the second from occuring) causes it. This leads to the infinite regress that Abyss mentions. It also makes everything that even tangetially supported something a "cause" of it. Whenever I try to clean up the situation by adding more criteria I'm struck by the arbitrariness of it: Only things that _immeadiately_ preceding the thing that was caused.... well, how do you distinguish between a complex of occurences and one? Is my decision to vote the cause, or my decision to decide to decide to vote the cause, or is it the question that prompted this thought? Or say we don't want the food that Joel ate's production to be considered a cause of the game? Are we to say that only things which can't be replaced are causes? How on earth do we determine what those are, much less how they would be replaced? Whenever I try to totally and concretely specify what causation is I can't. So, as useful as the idea of causation is for avoiding burning myself, I try to avoid the term in abstract discussions (like nomic rule interpretations). Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net PS sorry for the mini-rant but it was requested and the big reason I like nomic is the philosophy it brings up. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:38:55 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? At 01:16 AM 9/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >Thomas J Plagge writes: >>Mueller: >>>I suspect that this is all anyone every has, but hopefully this defense of >>>Joel has some "objectivity" especially seeing as how I never have (and >>>probably never will) see anyone, including Joel, F2F. >>>------------------------------------------------------ >>You may not be able to see Joel face-to-face, but you can see the next >>best thing: the World-Wide Web gateway to the Pleasure Matrix. Visit >>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~tplagge/pleasurematrix.html for a quick >>glimse into the life of the man, the mystery, the legend....Joel. heh. >>-plagge > >Breathtaking and awe-inspiring. You have truly captured the >nature of Joel. > >Joel, just wondering: does your mom know you're a sex machine? > > > >Josh I'm not sure whether I should be amused or appalled that my friends have made a shrine to me on the net. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:45:53 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Kuhns' point At 01:09 AM 9/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >Perhaps I missed this in the earlier discussion: > >Why is the proposed Frankenstein's-monster combination of turns WITH >free proposal preferable to free proposal with the requirement that >everyone make a proposal, say, during time interval N? > > >Josh Excellent question. The other compelling reason for maintaining a turn-based system stems from a deficiency in requiring everyone to propose during interval N -- it's likely that we would have an unusual glut of proposals near the end of N, as players who had not yet proposed would be compelled to do so. The turn-based system evens this out. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:41:59 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? At 02:41 AM 9/24/98 -0400, you wrote: >Josh wrote: >> >>Mueller writes: >>>Abyss wrote: >>>>Would it not be correct to say that his proposal causes the myriad >>>>changes made by the rule it will create? If it were not for the proposal, >>>>the rule would not exist and the changes would not exist. Initial >>>>attribution must be placed on the proposal. >>> >>>As I see it: (1) causation is an almost useless concept when you think >>>really hard about it. (2) Luckily in this case, that doesn't matter, >> >>Funny, I (and many others) find causation to be a pretty useful >>concept. Perhaps maybe you could vocalize your hard thinking? > >Well, I meant that whenever I try to operationally define what I mean when >I say something caused something else I find it very difficult. Sometimes >I try to define it by saying that some occurence which precedes another >(that, if absent would prevent the second from occuring) causes it. This >leads to the infinite regress that Abyss mentions. It also makes >everything that even tangetially supported something a "cause" of it. > >Whenever I try to clean up the situation by adding more criteria I'm struck >by the arbitrariness of it: Only things that _immeadiately_ preceding the >thing that was caused.... well, how do you distinguish between a complex of >occurences and one? Is my decision to vote the cause, or my decision to >decide to decide to vote the cause, or is it the question that prompted >this thought? > >Or say we don't want the food that Joel ate's production to be considered a >cause of the game? Are we to say that only things which can't be replaced >are causes? How on earth do we determine what those are, much less how >they would be replaced? > >Whenever I try to totally and concretely specify what causation is I can't. > So, as useful as the idea of causation is for avoiding burning myself, I >try to avoid the term in abstract discussions (like nomic rule >interpretations). > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net > >PS sorry for the mini-rant but it was requested and the big reason I like >nomic is the philosophy it brings up. Just an aside: the philosopher David Hume (if I'm not confusing myself) would support your line of thinking as well. Of course, Hume's contemporaries thought him an idiot... :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:39:56 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Kuhns' point Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 01:09 AM 9/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Perhaps I missed this in the earlier discussion: >> >>Why is the proposed Frankenstein's-monster combination of turns WITH >>free proposal preferable to free proposal with the requirement that >>everyone make a proposal, say, during time interval N? >> >> >>Josh > >Excellent question. The other compelling reason for maintaining a >turn-based system stems from a deficiency in requiring everyone to propose >during interval N -- it's likely that we would have an unusual glut of >proposals near the end of N, as players who had not yet proposed would be >compelled to do so. The turn-based system evens this out. I don't see this glut as a problem. Either it would even out over time, or people would deserve the extra work/problems it would cause, as they would be doing it to themselves. Josh -- Like Radiohead. That's a great fucking album. It hits on every fucking level. So you read some review of Radiohead and it gets four stars. Then you read some other review and you know that the fucking shit ain't nothing like Radiohead, and it's four stars. What does that tell the person on the street, you know? It's a really diluted picture. - Billy Corgan ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:39:14 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Isn't that convenient? Mueller writes: >Josh wrote: >> >>Mueller writes: >>>Abyss wrote: >>>>Would it not be correct to say that his proposal causes the myriad >>>>changes made by the rule it will create? If it were not for the proposal, >>>>the rule would not exist and the changes would not exist. Initial >>>>attribution must be placed on the proposal. >>> >>>As I see it: (1) causation is an almost useless concept when you think >>>really hard about it. (2) Luckily in this case, that doesn't matter, >> >>Funny, I (and many others) find causation to be a pretty useful >>concept. Perhaps maybe you could vocalize your hard thinking? > >Well, I meant that whenever I try to operationally define what I mean when >I say something caused something else I find it very difficult. Sometimes >I try to define it by saying that some occurence which precedes another >(that, if absent would prevent the second from occuring) causes it. This >leads to the infinite regress that Abyss mentions. It also makes >everything that even tangetially supported something a "cause" of it. > >Whenever I try to clean up the situation by adding more criteria I'm struck >by the arbitrariness of it: Only things that _immeadiately_ preceding the >thing that was caused.... well, how do you distinguish between a complex of >occurences and one? Is my decision to vote the cause, or my decision to >decide to decide to vote the cause, or is it the question that prompted >this thought? > >Or say we don't want the food that Joel ate's production to be considered a >cause of the game? Are we to say that only things which can't be replaced >are causes? How on earth do we determine what those are, much less how >they would be replaced? > >Whenever I try to totally and concretely specify what causation is I can't. > So, as useful as the idea of causation is for avoiding burning myself, I >try to avoid the term in abstract discussions (like nomic rule >interpretations). I agree that when you get down to the details, causation is sticky, but that doesn't mean we should throw away the pragmatic solution: if Joel passes a rule that ends the game, we would most commonly name Joel as the cause, or name Joel's act as the cause, and thus would choose Joel the winner, as he was the actor. Not that I'm necessarily one to espouse pragmatism, but other folks around here seem to like it... > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net > >PS sorry for the mini-rant but it was requested and the big reason I like >nomic is the philosophy it brings up. We are all philosophers here. Or at least, we should be. Josh -- Mathematics is a language. - Josiah Gibbs ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:14:22 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Kuhns' point At 11:39 AM 9/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 01:09 AM 9/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >>>Perhaps I missed this in the earlier discussion: >>> >>>Why is the proposed Frankenstein's-monster combination of turns WITH >>>free proposal preferable to free proposal with the requirement that >>>everyone make a proposal, say, during time interval N? >>> >>> >>>Josh >> >>Excellent question. The other compelling reason for maintaining a >>turn-based system stems from a deficiency in requiring everyone to propose >>during interval N -- it's likely that we would have an unusual glut of >>proposals near the end of N, as players who had not yet proposed would be >>compelled to do so. The turn-based system evens this out. > >I don't see this glut as a problem. Either it would even out over time, >or people would deserve the extra work/problems it would cause, as >they would be doing it to themselves. > >Josh Ack. I'd prefer to prevent us from "doing it to ourselves." I know that thie restriction won't pose a problem for either of us -- we won't be part of the glut. However, your argument is like saying if the people around us repealed all of the laws against robbery, and we (you and I ) got robbed, that we (still you and I) did it to ourselves. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:19:51 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Kuhns' point At 02:14 PM 9/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >At 11:39 AM 9/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>At 01:09 AM 9/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >>>>Perhaps I missed this in the earlier discussion: >>>> >>>>Why is the proposed Frankenstein's-monster combination of turns WITH >>>>free proposal preferable to free proposal with the requirement that >>>>everyone make a proposal, say, during time interval N? >>>> >>>> >>>>Josh >>> >>>Excellent question. The other compelling reason for maintaining a >>>turn-based system stems from a deficiency in requiring everyone to propose >>>during interval N -- it's likely that we would have an unusual glut of >>>proposals near the end of N, as players who had not yet proposed would be >>>compelled to do so. The turn-based system evens this out. >> >>I don't see this glut as a problem. Either it would even out over time, >>or people would deserve the extra work/problems it would cause, as >>they would be doing it to themselves. >> >>Josh > >Ack. I'd prefer to prevent us from "doing it to ourselves." I know that >thie restriction won't pose a problem for either of us -- we won't be part >of the glut. However, your argument is like saying if the people around us >repealed all of the laws against robbery, and we (you and I ) got robbed, >that we (still you and I) did it to ourselves. > >J. Uckelman Nice metaphor, Joel. Whether people would "deserve" the problems or not, we would kill off countless Berserkers if the traffic suddenly increased to fifty messages for the last few days of N. This little hybrid system seems like a good preventive measure. And if it doesn't work, we'll be able to revise it relatively quickly. A bit of free advice: for the good of the game, it might not be a wonderful idea to vote against the proposal just to get the five points like some people (me, for instance) did last time. Peace out -plagge ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:08:15 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: calling for a vote soon Unless anyone has anything else to say on the matter, I will be calling for a vote before I retire for the evening (likely sometime around 02:00). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 01:19:35 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: CFV on Proposal 315 I call for a vote on Proposal 315, as follows: This rule will do the following immediately, and in the order so specified: 1. Amend Rule 108 to read the following: "Each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall be given a number for reference. The number assigned to a proposal shall be the least integer greater than 300 that has never before been assigned, whether in this game or its antecedents, to another Proposal or Rule, whether active or inactive." 2. Amend Rule 202 to read the following: "One turn consists of four parts in this order: (1) a proposal and debate period, (2) a voting period, (3) voting-related scoring, and (4) dead time. Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. Additionally, the Player currently taking a turn is required to make a Proposal during this period. The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be the longer of 204 hours (8.5 days) or until the current Player makes a Proposal. Should the current player forfeit during this period, its duration shall be 204 hours. Immediately upon the expiration of the proposal and debate period, a call for votes is automatically made on all active Proposals only, thus beginning the voting period. Voting-related scoring occurs instantaneously upon the expiration of the voting period. Dead time occurs immediately following voting-related scoring. Dead time shall expire upon the completion of any additional actions that the Rules specify must be completed before a turn may end. If no such actions exist, the duration of dead time shall be instantaneous. The next turn shall begin immediately following the completion of the previous turn. All time periods specified herein are to be considered "reasonable" for the purposes of Judgments." 3. Amend Rule 205 to read the following: "Proposals adopted as a result of the same voting period are considered to have passed in numerical order from least to greatest. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it." 4. Amend Rule 307 to read the following: "For any given Proposal, the voting period ends 36 hours after the call for votes is made. If at least a simple majority of the total number vote-casting entities fail to submit a ballot during the voting period, the voting period shall be extended until such time as sufficient ballots to accept or reject each of the Proposals on the ballot have been cast. Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the voting period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions." 5. Amend the second restriction in Rule 309 to read the following: "2. New Players may not propose or serve as Judges until they have been players for the entirety of one turn." 6. Create Rule 222: "Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer." 7. Create Rule 223: "Players may change the states of their proposals from inactive to active and vice versa by sending a message to that effect to the mailing list. New Proposals are active by default." 8. Create Rule 224: "Players may, with no penalty, withdraw proposals from consideration at any time except during voting on the proposals. Proposals become dead upon their being withdrawn, and must be resubmitted if they are to be reconsidered. New Proposals are live by default." 9. Create Rule 225: "No player may, at any time, have more than ten live proposals." 10. Create Rule 226: "If a Player forfeits, that Player's active proposals remain active, while the Player's inacive proposals are automatically withdrawn. Points owed to a former Player are not to be awarded." 11. Award all current Players full Player status. 12. Repeal this rule. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 01:23:03 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal text Pasting my proposal into Eudora screwed up the whitespace -- if you want to see it correctly formatted, look at the web page. In any case, nothing changed (save 2 word misplacements) from the last revision I sent out to the current version. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 00:06:09 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Bererker: Just making noise Is the mailing list down? Why is Berserker so quiet? I'm working on my first proposal and I'm wondering how much effort to put into it. Is 315 going to pass? I presume so, but maybe there's a lurking resentment against a quick paced game.... If there is, just look! See how boring today's messages are. There aren't any, THAT'S how boring it is. Oh well, I guess that's enough noise for today. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 00:55:27 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Bererker: Just making noise At 12:06 AM 9/26/98 -0400, you wrote: >Is the mailing list down? Why is Berserker so quiet? The list is fine; it just seems that there's nothing to do during this voting period. >I'm working on my first proposal and I'm wondering how much effort to put >into it. Is 315 going to pass? I presume so, but maybe there's a lurking >resentment against a quick paced game.... I have this information, but am unfortunately not at liberty to divulge it yet. >If there is, just look! See how boring today's messages are. There aren't >any, THAT'S how boring it is. Yeah, but what is there to discuss when we don't know how the game will be during the next turn? It's hard to plan for the next turn with a proposal like mine. >Oh well, I guess that's enough noise for today. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 01:17:01 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Bererker: Just making noise Joel D Uckelman writes: >>If there is, just look! See how boring today's messages are. There aren't >>any, THAT'S how boring it is. > >Yeah, but what is there to discuss when we don't know how the game will be >during the next turn? It's hard to plan for the next turn with a proposal >like mine. It is of course possible and permissible for anyone who wishes simply to discuss possible proposal ideas to do so, assuming they're not greedy and worried someone might steal their ideas. Josh -- I have no lid / Upon my head But if I did / You could look inside and see what's on my mind - DMB ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 03:04:06 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Bererker: Just making noise Josh wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>If there is, just look! See how boring today's messages are. There aren't >>>any, THAT'S how boring it is. >> >>Yeah, but what is there to discuss when we don't know how the game will be >>during the next turn? It's hard to plan for the next turn with a proposal >>like mine. > >It is of course possible and permissible for anyone who wishes simply >to discuss possible proposal ideas to do so, assuming they're not greedy >and worried someone might steal their ideas. That was a problem I hadn't even considered. What do people think about "stealing" proposal ideas? If that is a problem, individuals might avoid it by simply posting completed proposals with no discussion for voting. Perhaps a custom should be developed against such a thing so that conversation isn't hurt by proposal theft. I'd be for it. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:51:04 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results, scoring, next turn Proposal 315 passed (7-3-0-5). It is now Dakota Bailey's turn. All current Players now have the status of full players, so everyone can propose and be selected as Judges now. Additionally, Rule 315 repealed itself after making all of its various changes. Finally, I scored 17 points for my proposal, while Ellefson, Schroeder, and Luloff scored 7 points each for voting against it. The first debate period begins now, so everyone may now propose at their discretion. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 15:33:54 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Berserker: Go Proposal - Please Comment I've been working on something to add to the game that doesn't involve voting and law... More fun. Here (delimited by FIRSTDRAFT) is the proposed text of a new rule. Summary: Any number of people can play in a game of Go which permits multiple players and alliances. At the end of the proposal is two possible consequence schemes, one which gives the top players, extra voting power, and one which gives them extra points for successful proposals. I have no real preference between these consequence schemes, but I'd like some form of game/go interactoin. FIRSTDRAFT Rule XXX, Go Vote! Tom Mueller is the first Go Consul. This paragraph deletes itself immediately after taking effect. Section 1 Definitions A) There exists in Berserker Nomic a game called Political Go. It is played by any player of Berserker Nomic who publicly indicates such a desire. B) The board of Political Go is a 19x19 grid, lettered horizontally from a-s and numbered vertically from 1-19. C) Each spot on the grid is either empty of has a stone on it. Each player must use a distinct character to represent their stones. Friendly stones are all stones a player owns on the board and any stones on the board owned by a player officially allied with the first. D) An island is defined as any set of friendly stones where any stone in the island is directly next to another in a vertical of horizontal direction. E) The Go Consul is in charge of keeping Political Go organized. He may be a player. His job is to ensure all players follow the rules, maintain a record of the game and its current state and make such records publicly available. Decisions of the Go Consul must be in accordance with the rules and may only be overturned by RFJ. Players are encouraged to remove bad Go Consuls from the position by proposal. Section 2 Turns A) The play list shall consist of players's names listed top to bottom. When players start playing Political Go, their name is added to the bottom of the list. The player whose name is at the top of the list takes their turn, has the results of their turn determined, and then has their name is moved to the bottom of the list. B) The player whose turn it is has three days to make a move. If no move is made in this time, that player automatically makes the move "Pass". C) A move may be any of the following: (i) A declaration of alliance with another player. (ii) A declaration of war on an ally. (iii) Placing a stone. (iiii) Pass. (iv) Surrender. (v) Sleep. D) If a player makes a move to Surrender then their name is removed from the play list and all the stones on the board they own are destroyed. If a player passes three times in a row, then the third time is considered to be a Surrender. E) If a player makes a move to Sleep, their name is removed from the play list, but their stones are not removed from the board. In the same way that players join the game, they may stop sleeping and have their name added to the play list. F) The game ends when one of the following conditions is met: (i) Every player on the play list in sequence has had a chance to make a move and failed to place a stone. (ii) Every player with stones on the board is asleep. G) The player with the most stones on the board at the end of the time becomes the new Go Consul unless they decline (ties broken randomly). In this case the next highest scorer shall be Go Consul, and so on, until a Go Consul is found. Whoever accepts this honor is given 10 points. Section 3 Alliances A) If a player makes their move and it is to declare an alliance, then until the three days of their turn end, that alliance is considered offered. An offer can be resolved by time, in which case the player's move is considered to be a pass, or by the offered player accepting the alliance, in which case the turn ends and the two players are considered to be allies. Accepting an alliance does not count as a turn. B) If a player makes their move and it is to declare war on an ally then the player who mad e the declaration is removed from the alliance they are in. C) No player may be in more than one alliance. D) More than two players may be in a single alliance, this occurs when a player makes a move to join an alliance and names a player already in one and all members of the alliance publicly accept. Section 4 Game Mechanics A) If a player makes a move to place a stone, the any spot on the board is valid except: (i) Spots where stones already are. (ii) Spots where the placed stone would immediately be removed from the board. (iii) Spots occupied by stones the player owned the last time they could make a move. B) After any stone is placed or any alliance is created of destroyed the Go Consul shall check the board to determine if there are any islands which cannot be increased in size by placing another stone such that it would become a member of the island. If this is determined to be the case for any islands, those islands are removed from the board. Determination for islands is made player by player moving from the bottom to the top of the play list. Section 5 Scoring A) The Go Score of a player is the number of spots on the board which they (alone or with their allies) are uniquely responsible for making impermissible as valid places for non friendly stones to go. B) If a player is in an alliance, they receive no Go Score but their Go Score is added to the alliance's Go Score. Spots made impermissible by more than one member of an alliance's score only add to the alliances score once, not once for each member of the alliance involved. ***Two proposed schemes:*** ***Scheme #1**** C) Pseudo-players are players who do not take turns or accumulate scores or participate in Berserker Nomic in any way that is not explicitly outlined in the rules. For the purposes of voting on proposals, there are three pseudo-players named Thing One, Thing Two, and The Cat In The Hat. D) The player or Alliance with the highest score at the time voting was called for on a proposal, in the opinion of the Go Consul, shall tell Thing One and Thing Two how they will vote on that proposal, by adding such an indication in the same message they vote with normally. E) The player or Alliance with the second highest score at the time voting was called for on a proposal, in the opinion of the Go Consul, shall tell The Cat In The Hat how he will vote on that proposal, by adding such an indication in the same message they vote with normally. F) Any alliance which controls any of these pseudo-players will successfully tell their pseudo-player how to vote only if all the members of the alliance tell the pseudo-players to vote the same way. ***Scheme #2**** C) Whenever proposal results are announced, a temporary Go Score List shall be compiled of all players of Political Go in order of highest Go Score, players in alliances shall equally share the alliance's score in this case (rounding down). Ties on the Go Score List are permitted, with multiple names permissible on any given line. D) For each proposal which passes, authored by a player of Political Go, that player shall receive an extra point for each player lower than them on the Go Score List. FIRSTDRAFT ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:55:58 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Berserker: Go Proposal - Please Comment First of all, your Proposal is 316. Secondly, I've been waiting for something like this since the game began in March. However, I have a suggestion to throw out: This is a game within our game. If this proves interesting (which I believe it will), we may want more games. If we do, then it might be better to make some rules dealing with a general Game-Within-Berserker structure before we start adding GWIB's, i.e. Political Go could be an instance of a GWIB rather than a thing all its own. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:08:17 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Berserker: Go Proposal - Please Comment Joel wrote: >This is a game within our game. If this proves interesting (which I believe >it will), we may want more games. If we do, then it might be better to make >some rules dealing with a general Game-Within-Berserker structure before we >start adding GWIB's, i.e. Political Go could be an instance of a GWIB >rather than a thing all its own. I'll probably tack that status on in such a way that the status can be defined later in the rules, in a way that permits PolGo to be subsumed within it.... I playtested this by taking the role of six-players and it starts kinda slow (or at least mine did when I left out the alliance factor). You mentioned the GWIB system first Joel, you want a crack at it. If not, (and nobody else wants to go for some points), maybe I will. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 15:44:40 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 317 Here's a proposal to prevent the game from shutting down when someone wins: $ Upon a Player being declared the Winner other than through the impossiblity of further play, that Player is credited with a Win, all Player attributes including scores are reset to their initial state as appropriate, and play continues. $ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:01:30 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 317 Proposal fix: "their" and "state" must agree in number.... $ Upon a Player being declared the Winner other than through the impossiblity of further play, that Player is credited with a Win, all Player attributes including scores are reset to their initial states as appropriate, and play continues. $ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:11:03 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Yet another new player I propose that Aaron Woell be added to Berserker Nomic. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:21:35 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Yet another new player Plagge wrote: >I propose that Aaron Woell be added to Berserker Nomic. Yes Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:34:02 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: New Players Does anyone else foresee our game becoming unwieldy if we continue adding new players? The current number seems to be working, but when will this get too large? 20? 30? I'm considering a proposal that would place an upper limit on BN players. I was considering 16, though with Woell that would leave zero expansion room... but is that good or bad? If anyone has thoughts on this, let them be heard. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:30:53 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: GWIBs! (Joel kindly agreed to have me write and propose this) Proposal-First Draft Game-Within-Berserker Structure I. Definition of a GWIB A. A Game-Within-Berserker (hereafter, GWIB) shall be defined as a structure within the game of Berserker Nomic which any player may participate in by publicly indicating their desire to do so. B. Each GWIB shall be defined by a GWIB Specification. C. Each GWIB instance shall be administered by a Game Master. II. GWIB Specifications A. Any player may create a GWIB Specification by publicly setting forth the information required by the rules. B. Specifications carry the force of rules for the participating players. C. Each Specification must include a procedure for play, which players implicitly agree to follow when they join the GWIB. D. Each Specification must include conditions for winning. III. Limits on GWIB Specifications A. A GWIB cannot create, destroy, or modify rules. B. A GWIB cannot create or destroy points-merely redistribute them in accordance with the rules. IV. Game Masters A. An instance of a GWIB begins when a player publicly indicates a desire to be a Game Master of a GWIB. This GWIB must be defined by an existing GWIB Specification. Other Berserker players may join the GWIB by publicly declaring their desire to do so. B. At the time a player indicates desire to be a Game Master, e must also specify the value for x in V.A below. C. At the time a player indicates desire to be a Game Master, e may specify a maximum number of players allowed, and may explicitly include or exclude specific players. D. An instance of a GWIB ends when the conditions for winning are met by one or more players. E. Scoring and logistics are handled by the Game Master. Players implicitly agree to allow the GWIB to be administered by the Game Master when they join the GWIB. V. Winning a GWIB A. The winner(s) of a GWIB, as defined by the conditions set forth in the GWIB Specification, receive(s) x points from each of the other player(s), where x is a nonnegative integer between 0 and 5 specified by the Game Master. If more than one player is declared a winner, they shall split equally the points lost by the other player(s), if any. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:56:38 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: GWIBs! (Joel kindly agreed to have me write and Thomas wrote: >Proposal-First Draft >Game-Within-Berserker Structure > >I. Definition of a GWIB > A. A Game-Within-Berserker (hereafter, GWIB) shall be defined > as a structure within the game of Berserker Nomic which any player > may participate in by publicly indicating their desire to do so. > B. Each GWIB shall be defined by a GWIB Specification. > C. Each GWIB instance shall be administered by a Game Master. > >II. GWIB Specifications > A. Any player may create a GWIB Specification by publicly setting > forth the information required by the rules. > B. Specifications carry the force of rules for the participating players. > C. Each Specification must include a procedure for play, which players > implicitly agree to follow when they join the GWIB. > D. Each Specification must include conditions for winning. I think I would prefer to create some games by proposal. I see a lot of restrictions that I agree would be useful if games could be created by annoucement, but I also think the restrictions limit the scope of games somewhat. Poll question: If there were games created by GWIB specifications, how would you feel about games that wanted to go beyond the GWIB system in order to have more dramatic effects? If these limits stay, I'd like to keep Political Go as a proposal for this freedom. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net PS I think section III needs to be beefed up. What if I made a game, specifying that only I could play, the game ended on Jan 1 2010, and that the player with the best prospects of winning (determined on a weekly basis) got to tell 37 pseudo-players how to vote on propsals? ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:48:14 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: GWIBs! (Joel kindly agreed to have me write and At 05:56 PM 9/26/98 -0400, you wrote: >Thomas wrote: >>Proposal-First Draft >>Game-Within-Berserker Structure >> >> ... >I think I would prefer to create some games by proposal. I see a lot of >restrictions that I agree would be useful if games could be created by >annoucement, but I also think the restrictions limit the scope of games >somewhat. > >Poll question: If there were games created by GWIB specifications, how >would you feel about games that wanted to go beyond the GWIB system in >order to have more dramatic effects? > >If these limits stay, I'd like to keep Political Go as a proposal for this >freedom. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net > >PS I think section III needs to be beefed up. What if I made a game, >specifying that only I could play, the game ended on Jan 1 2010, and that >the player with the best prospects of winning (determined on a weekly >basis) got to tell 37 pseudo-players how to vote on propsals? > First of all, my proposal doesn't in any way prohibit non-GWIB games. However, I personally would not like to see Games (GWIB, Go, etc.) playing a dramatic role in voting, the creation of rules, and other accepted Nomic stuff. I see dramatic effects of games as being detrimental to a good ruleset, but I also see games as being one of the most important and potentially fun developments to date. By the way, the GWIB certainly doesn't provide provisions for pseudo-players. And because points can't be created or destroyed, having nobody else in your game would be silly. However, I'm very open to changing this proposal if opinion so warrents. More comments, anyone? thanks -plagge ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 17:51:46 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: New Players I believe we can support quite a few more players under our current rules. If we were to add more than we currently have a capacity to support, I believe the game would adapt. I'd rather subject the game to these stresses to see what happens than prevent something that may not even cause a difficulty. n >Does anyone else foresee our game becoming unwieldy if we continue adding >new players? The current number seems to be working, but when will this get >too large? 20? 30? > >I'm considering a proposal that would place an upper limit on BN players. I >was considering 16, though with Woell that would leave zero expansion >room... but is that good or bad? If anyone has thoughts on this, let them >be heard. > > >Matt Kuhns >mjkuhns@iastate.edu >* * * * * * * * >"C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics >he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" > -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:12:47 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Proposal--Limbo Another proposal--Beta version--delimited by $ $ Limbo A. There exists a state called Limbo. When a player is in Limbo, s/he is neither able nor required to perform any Berserker Nomic-related actions except the following: a. Publicly declaring him/herself out of Limbo or b. Quitting Berserker Nomic. B. A player may go into Limbo only by a. Publicly declaring him/herself in Limbo or b. Taking no Nomic-related action (voting, proposing, commenting) for a period of fifteen days. C. If a player is in Limbo when it is his/her turn, or if a player goes into Limbo during his/her turn, then that player forfeits his/her turn to the next player in the rotation. This provision takes precedence over all previous rules relating to turn lengths and rotations. $ The period of time in B is up for debate, as far as I'm concerned. But this would let players bow out of a turn gracefully should they choose to go on vacation or something similar. Also, it keeps players exhibiting Rich Peters-like behavior from stopping game play indefinitely. And it's easy to get out of Limbo: you just post a message, basically. Let me know what you think. -plagge ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 18:53:56 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Re: Nomic: voting Remember this? >The voting period for Prop. 313 expired without a majority of players >casting votes. Consequently, the voting period has been extended as per >Rule 307 until such time as the proposal will necessarily pass or fail. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > This happened a few other times too. I think we all need to look at Rule 305: Rule 305/1, mutable, active Abstentions When the votes cast are considered, only votes equivalent to "yes" or "no" are counted toward the passage or failure of a proposal. Abstention and automatic abstention votes are considered neutral. If a simple majority of the votes for a proposal are abstentions, including automatic abstentions, then the proposal fails. Such proposals are not explicitly "defeated" in the normal sense, and bookkeepers may wish to note this. 0. Created by Proposal 305, 21 April 1998 1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998 Please note the phrase "including automatic abstentions" Ahh, you say, but what about rule 307? Well, first of all, even if there were a conflict, rule 305 would take precedence, but there is no conflict. Joel has just misinterpreted the rule, and as such, has fucked up our game. Lets look at rule 307: Rule 307/2, mutable, active Voting Time Limit For any given Proposal, the voting period ends 36 hours after the call for votes is made. If at least a simple majority of the total number vote-casting entities fail to submit a ballot during the voting period, the voting period shall be extended until such time as sufficient ballots to accept or reject each of the Proposals on the ballot have been cast. Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the voting period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions. 0. Created by Proposal 307, 27 April 1998 1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998 2. Amended by Rule 315/0, 26 September 1998 The second paragraph is the important one here. All votes not cast by eligible entities in the voting period (in this case, initially 36 hrs) are recorded as auto-abstentions. Ahhh, you say, but the voting period is extended as per the first paragraph. It doesn't matter. The votes have already been "recorded" as auto-abstentions. You cannot change a vote once it has been recorded. We have no procedures for doing so (and indeed, to allow such a thing in principle is ridiculous. We might have people changing other's votes and all manner of un pleasantries) I realize this wasn't the intent of the proposal, but that's the way it is written. It's not my fault that the proposer (I don't remember who it was) worded it so poorly. I must look at the proposal as it is, and not as it was intended. (The real problem is the poor use of the phrase "voting period." What really happens is that the voting period ends after 36 hrs, votes are counted, and the "voting period" is reopened and extended as necessary. The problem is that once the voting period ends, no-votes are "recorded" as auto-abstentions, and as such determine the fate of the proposal. This particular proposal should have allowed either for the changing of recorded votes or should have thrown away all votes and made everyone vote again, with no time limit, until the necessary votes were cast. Or, the proposal should have just repealed 305. But, alas, none of these things happened.) As rule 307 is written, (assuming the existence of 305) I can see only one possible scenario for extending the voting period, and that is if some how a majority of un-eligible (whatever the hell that means. Again, poorly worded) vote-casting entities decided not to cast a ballot. I don't have any clue how that could happen or even what it means. 307 is just a poor proposal. Anyway, Tom just walked in and claims my initial assumption that the voting period "ends" is false, because he says, the voting period does not have to end in order to tally the votes. Joel just counts them as they come in. That may be, but it doesn't matter, unless you assume both that Joel is omnipotent and time is continuous (i.e. not discrete). I assume neither. Unless Joel has a continuous knowledge of the status of the vote throughout the entire 36 hr period (especially those last few infinitesimal moments) He cannot possibly continuously and smoothly "extend" the voting period. There must be some small amount of time after 36 hrs are up during which Joel checks his email (ahh, I've already rejected outright the supposition that Joel is omnipotent) and process the information he encounters (i.e, votes present, votes not present) to determine the number of votes cast. Then he decides if the voting period needs to be "extended." Now, granted, the amount of time we are dealing with here, may, in principle be incredibly small (although it might not be), but it is some finite amount during which the 36 hrs are up, and the voting period has not been extended. It is during this time that uncast votes achieve auto-abstention status. This status cannot later be changed. Ahhh, you say (and I can hear you saying this), but that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter when joel actually gets around to checking how many votes came in during the 36-hr period. The votes have already been cast and the information is there, regardless of whether we know it or not. Wrong! This is analogous to Schrodinger's (spelling?) famous cat, which is in a dead-not dead state. We cannot know what is going on unless we check. And checking requires time. And proposal 307 does not allow for that time. If you're still with me, let me end with this. Sure, you say, things are technically wrong. But what about the spirit of the thing. Surely we must consider that. Alright, fine, if you want to be that way (I personally don't consider that point of view particularity appealing, but I respect you if you do.) I think it is obvious that the spirit of rule 305 and the spirit of rule 307 are in conflict. (rule 305 wants to ensure a majority of players are actively in favor of a proposal before it passes, rule 307 wants to ensure a majority of players are actively against a proposal before it fails. The two outline conflicting priorities). If they are in conflict, rule 305 wins out because of our precedence rules. that's all for now. I'm not actively calling for judgement yet. I want to see how far reaching this little fuck-up will be before I make any decisions. (however, I would appreciate the right to call for judgement when I want to. This means please don't beat me to the punch!) I'm sorry that I can't think of anything to say involving revolutionaries and rusty sheds Viva la revolucion! Mike "subcomandante Marcos" Jensen ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:05:27 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Nomic: Call of Judgement A little preamble: -Trust me on this: it's important. If I were just sitting at my computer and read what I'm about to call for judgement on, I'd think this was the most cretin call for judgement thus far, except, of course, for the CFJs that Damon initiated earlier. But trust me, it's important. Statement to be judged: There can not be any sound distinction made between a given "player" in Berserker Nomic and the physical entity that controls the "player". Now, Mike Jensen, Joel Uckelman, Tom Plagge and I have already discussed this matter at length, so neither Mike, Joel, nor Tom P. will be included in the judging pool. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:58:19 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignment for RFJ 29 Jeff Schroeder has been selected to Judge the following: There can not be any sound distinction made between a given "player" in Berserker Nomic and the physical entity that controls the "player". J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:31:16 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New Players Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I believe we can support quite a few more players under our current rules. >If we were to add more than we currently have a capacity to support, I >believe the game would adapt. I'd rather subject the game to these stresses >to see what happens than prevent something that may not even cause a >difficulty. > >n Hear, hear. Josh -- With a Pair of heavy-duty Zircon-encrusted tweezers in my hand Every other wrangler would say I was mighty grand ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:37:43 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal--Limbo Thomas J Plagge writes: >The period of time in B is up for debate, as far as I'm concerned. But >this would let >players bow out of a turn gracefully should they choose to go on vacation >or something >similar. Also, it keeps players exhibiting Rich Peters-like behavior from >stopping game >play indefinitely. And it's easy to get out of Limbo: you just post a >message, basically. >Let me know what you think. -plagge I find nothing wrong with the proposal, and nothing wrong with the time limit. Josh -- All great theorems were discovered after midnight. - Adrian Mathesis ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:38:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: GWIBs! (Joel kindly agreed to have me write and propose this) Thomas J Plagge writes: >First of all, my proposal doesn't in any way prohibit non-GWIB games. >However, I personally would not like to see Games (GWIB, Go, etc.) >playing a dramatic role in voting, the creation of rules, and other accepted >Nomic stuff. I see dramatic effects of games as being detrimental to >a good ruleset, but I also see games as being one of the most important >and potentially fun developments to date. > >By the way, the GWIB certainly doesn't provide provisions for >pseudo-players. And because points can't be created or destroyed, >having nobody else in your game would be silly. What if you just like to play solitaire? Josh -- I might be movin' to Montana soon Just to raise me up a crop of Dental Floss ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:35:59 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Call of Judgement Nathan D Ellefson writes: >A little preamble: >-Trust me on this: it's important. If I were just sitting at my computer >and read what I'm about to call for judgement on, I'd think this was the >most cretin call for judgement thus far, except, of course, for the CFJs >that Damon initiated earlier. But trust me, it's important. > >Statement to be judged: > >There can not be any sound distinction made between a given "player" in >Berserker Nomic and the physical entity that controls the "player". > >Now, Mike Jensen, Joel Uckelman, Tom Plagge and I have already discussed >this matter at length, so neither Mike, Joel, nor Tom P. will be included >in the judging pool. Mind discussing this a little for those of us not in on the joke? Are you meaning "sound" as in "phonemic" or something else? If so then what's the problem? If not then what's the problem? Josh -- "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ­ neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master ­ that`s all." ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:40:34 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 317 Joel D Uckelman writes: >Here's a proposal to prevent the game from shutting down when someone wins: > >$ >Upon a Player being declared the Winner other than through the impossiblity >of further play, that Player is credited with a Win, all Player attributes >including scores are reset to their initial state as appropriate, and play >continues. >$ May want to be specific here or elsewhere what "player attributes" are. Otherwise it's righteous. I suggest titling it the "history eraser button" rule. Josh -- A true Zen saying, nothing is what I want. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:55:31 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 317 At 09:40 PM 9/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Here's a proposal to prevent the game from shutting down when someone wins: >> >>$ >>Upon a Player being declared the Winner other than through the impossiblity >>of further play, that Player is credited with a Win, all Player attributes >>including scores are reset to their initial state as appropriate, and play >>continues. >>$ > >May want to be specific here or elsewhere what "player attributes" >are. > >Otherwise it's righteous. I suggest titling it the "history eraser >button" rule. > > >Josh I would be more specific, but the scores are the only player attribute right now, and I want this rule to apply to attributes created in the future. How would you suggest it be done? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:52:01 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Proposal [number this motherfucker, Joel] --CUT HERE-- Naming of Rules A. Any rule may, in addition to its rule number, be optionally known by a name. B. Any rule adoped after the adoption of this rule shall be named by its author, and this name shall be included in the text of the rule. Said naming must take place before the rule is adopted. C. Any rule adopted before the adoption of this rule shall be given the name thus far commonly used to refer to it. Rules which have not had commonly accepted names shall not have the opportunity to be named according to this rule. D. After the adoption of this rule, this rule shall be known as "Naming of Rules". E. After the adoption of this rule, this rule shall delete sections D and E of itself. --END HERE-- Let me know what you think. Ultimately this is meant to encourage meaningful naming of future rules, so that people are more likely to refer to rule names, so that people are less-often required to look up rule numbers. Plus it would possibly allow Joel to name his rule the "history eraser button rule," which I think is just cool. Josh -- Now I will have less distraction. - Leonhard Euler, upon losing the use of his right eye ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:06:02 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal [number this motherfucker, Joel] At 09:52 PM 9/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >Let me know what you think. Ultimately this is meant to encourage >meaningful naming of future rules, so that people are more likely >to refer to rule names, so that people are less-often required to >look up rule numbers. So you don't think the names I gave the rules are meaningful or descriptive? The rules have appeared with titles almost since the beginning, but they have very rarely been refered to by their titles. I'd like a little more explanation as to how this would be better than the existing (although, admittedly, unofficial) names. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:01:52 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Call of Judgement At 09:35 PM 9/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >Nathan D Ellefson writes: >>A little preamble: >>-Trust me on this: it's important. If I were just sitting at my computer >>and read what I'm about to call for judgement on, I'd think this was the >>most cretin call for judgement thus far, except, of course, for the CFJs >>that Damon initiated earlier. But trust me, it's important. >> >>Statement to be judged: >> >>There can not be any sound distinction made between a given "player" in >>Berserker Nomic and the physical entity that controls the "player". >> >>Now, Mike Jensen, Joel Uckelman, Tom Plagge and I have already discussed >>this matter at length, so neither Mike, Joel, nor Tom P. will be included >>in the judging pool. > >Mind discussing this a little for those of us not in on the joke? Actually, this is not a joke, and does bear some explanation for anyone to realize that. >Are you meaning "sound" as in "phonemic" or something else? Sound, in this case, was meant in a logical sense. The arguments Mike and I were using both seemed valid -- we just had different assumptions. My distinction between the two would be valid so long as I reasoned correctly, so the statement would be false; however, that's not the matter at stake here. Sound draws in veracity of our assumptions as well, so seemed more proper for the question. >If so then what's the problem? If not then what's the problem? > > >Josh The problem is stated in Mike's manifesto sent to the list earlier. I disagree. Strongly. On many levels. Nate wanted this resolved. Thus, we arrive at the current situation. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:10:49 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: prop 321? I would like to extend or at least change the winning criterion. I either want in to be higher, or completely different. I think it is important to do now, especially with people possibly gaining huge amounts of points due to the passing of the last proposal. There are a few forms this could take, but I'd like to know what you all want. Here's what I'm proposing as of now. _______ This rule will do the two following things: 1. Amend rule 208 to read: The winner is the first Player to achieve 1000 (positive) points. 2. Repeal itself upon passage. ________ Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:19:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal [number this motherfucker, Joel] Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 09:52 PM 9/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Let me know what you think. Ultimately this is meant to encourage >>meaningful naming of future rules, so that people are more likely >>to refer to rule names, so that people are less-often required to >>look up rule numbers. > >So you don't think the names I gave the rules are meaningful or >descriptive? The rules have appeared with titles almost since the >beginning, but they have very rarely been refered to by their titles. I'd >like a little more explanation as to how this would be better than the >existing (although, admittedly, unofficial) names. They are meaningful, and descriptive. They are, however, bland. This rule is meant to entice players into naming their rules memorably. I think that names of that sort would make people more likely to use the names. Besides, nothing wrong with making it official. Josh -- What I tell you three times is true. - Lewis Carroll ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:17:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 317 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 09:40 PM 9/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Here's a proposal to prevent the game from shutting down when someone wins: >>> >>>$ >>>Upon a Player being declared the Winner other than through the impossiblity >>>of further play, that Player is credited with a Win, all Player attributes >>>including scores are reset to their initial state as appropriate, and play >>>continues. >>>$ >> >>May want to be specific here or elsewhere what "player attributes" >>are. >> >>Otherwise it's righteous. I suggest titling it the "history eraser >>button" rule. >> >> >>Josh > >I would be more specific, but the scores are the only player attribute >right now, and I want this rule to apply to attributes created in the >future. How would you suggest it be done? Propose a rule defining player attributes, to be modified in the future when we have more of them. Then finagle it so that one works before this one. Josh -- If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:16:59 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: voting Michael S Jensen writes: > >Remember this? > >>The voting period for Prop. 313 expired without a majority of players >>casting votes. Consequently, the voting period has been extended as per >>Rule 307 until such time as the proposal will necessarily pass or fail. >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu >> > >This happened a few other times too. I think we all need to look at Rule 305: > >Rule 305/1, mutable, active >Abstentions > > When the votes cast are considered, only votes equivalent to "yes" or >"no" are counted toward the passage or failure of a proposal. Abstention >and automatic abstention votes are considered neutral. > > If a simple majority of the votes for a proposal are abstentions, >including automatic abstentions, then the proposal fails. Such proposals >are not explicitly "defeated" in the normal sense, and bookkeepers may wish >to note this. > >0. Created by Proposal 305, 21 April 1998 >1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998 > >Please note the phrase "including automatic abstentions" NB: I don't remember whose idea it was, but that phrase was added in to the original rule text, during this summer's administrative review. The original 305 said: When the votes cast are considered, only votes equivalent to "yes" or "no" are counted toward the passage or nonĐpassage of a proposal. Thus, "abstain" votes do not go toward the total actual "votes cast." If a simple majority of the votes cast are "abstain" votes, then a proposal cannot pass. Such proposals are not explicitly "defeated" in the normal sense, and bookkeepers may wish to denote this. The original rule was Haar's, ghost-written by me. >Ahh, you say, but what about rule 307? Well, first of all, even if there >were a conflict, rule 305 would take precedence, but there is no conflict. >Joel has just misinterpreted the rule, and as such, has fucked up our game. > Lets look at rule 307: > >Rule 307/2, mutable, active >Voting Time Limit > > For any given Proposal, the voting period ends 36 hours after the call >for votes is made. > > If at least a simple majority of the total number vote-casting >entities fail to submit a ballot during the voting period, the voting >period shall be extended until such time as sufficient ballots to accept or >reject each of the Proposals on the ballot have been cast. > > Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the >voting period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions. > >0. Created by Proposal 307, 27 April 1998 >1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998 >2. Amended by Rule 315/0, 26 September 1998 > >The second paragraph is the important one here. All votes not cast by >eligible entities in the voting period (in this case, initially 36 hrs) are >recorded as auto-abstentions. Ahhh, you say, but the voting period is >extended as per the first paragraph. It doesn't matter. The votes have >already been "recorded" as auto-abstentions. You cannot change a vote once >it has been recorded. We have no procedures for doing so (and indeed, to >allow such a thing in principle is ridiculous. We might have people >changing other's votes and all manner of un pleasantries) I realize this >wasn't the intent of the proposal, but that's the way it is written. It's >not my fault that the proposer (I don't remember who it was) worded it so >poorly. I must look at the proposal as it is, and not as it was intended. Slanderous! Slanderous, I say. Something like that. I was the original proposer. However, note the historical ruleset's entry for 307. Again, during the administrative review, the rule was changed negatively. The portion of my original rule, stating that automatic abstentions would not be cast in certain situations, was removed, to negative effect. Josh -- If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:21:29 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Call of Judgement Joel D Uckelman writes: >The problem is stated in Mike's manifesto sent to the list earlier. I >disagree. Strongly. On many levels. Nate wanted this resolved. Thus, we >arrive at the current situation. Eh? Maybe I missed part of Mike's manifesto. Near the end there it made me all sleepy. Mike's manifesto didn't mention "player" at all, really, did it? Josh -- "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ­ neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master ­ that`s all." ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:26:41 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 321? At 10:10 PM 9/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >I would like to extend or at least change the winning criterion. I either >want in to be higher, or completely different. I think it is important to >do now, especially with people possibly gaining huge amounts of points >due to the passing of the last proposal. > >There are a few forms this could take, but I'd like to know what you all >want. Here's what I'm proposing as of now. > >_______ > >This rule will do the two following things: > >1. Amend rule 208 to read: > > The winner is the first Player to achieve 1000 (positive) points. > >2. Repeal itself upon passage. > >________ > >Damon Um, why don't you just change Rule 208 directly? Like this: Change the text of Rule 208 to: "The winner is the first Player to achieve 1000 (positive) points." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:23:14 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 321? "Abyss of ..." writes: > >I would like to extend or at least change the winning criterion. I either >want in to be higher, or completely different. I think it is important to >do now, especially with people possibly gaining huge amounts of points >due to the passing of the last proposal. > >There are a few forms this could take, but I'd like to know what you all >want. Here's what I'm proposing as of now. > >_______ > >This rule will do the two following things: > >1. Amend rule 208 to read: > > The winner is the first Player to achieve 1000 (positive) points. > >2. Repeal itself upon passage. > >________ The positive is IMO superfluous. Otherwise no problems. Josh -- The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a convenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. - St. Augustine ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 22:41:24 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 321? Joel D Uckelman writes: >Um, why don't you just change Rule 208 directly? > >Like this: > >Change the text of Rule 208 to: "The winner is the first Player to achieve >1000 (positive) points." Self-repealing rules are so cool though. -- Playing guitar is like fucking -- you never forget it. Unless you're really, really stupid. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:06:29 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Prop. 322 A proposal to concretize something dealt with earlier, plus rule 201 for your convenience of reading. Rule 201/1, mutable, active Order of Play Players shall alternate alphabetical order by surname, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All Players begin with zero points. 0. Initial Mutable Rule, 11 March 1998 1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998 1. Clarified by Judgment 26, 12 September 1998 _____________________ A player's turn is defined to begin in the following way: A. The turn may not begin until the preceding player's turn has ended. B. The turn shall not begin until the player has publicly issued some proposal for discussion. Upon such issuance, the player's turn begins. _______________________ Think anything about precedence is necessary? Josh -- Any false value is gonna be fairly boring in Perl, mathematicians notwithstanding. - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:24:01 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Proposals and points Joel and I have noticed that the current requirement of unanimity to transmute immutable rules is something of a deterrent to such propositions, in that players may be reluctant to risk a proposal with such high odds against passage. So I am working on a proposal which would allow for what Joel has called "disinterested proposals." These would work exactly like standard proposals except that there would be no point transactions. Thus, no risk involved in proposing a transmutation. Thoughts on this? Should disinterested proposals only be allowed in the case of transmutation, or for any subject? Should there be any provision for changing a proposal to disinterested or vice versa? And, I am in support of Damon's proposal to raise the points required for victory, having considered such an idea myself, but I believe something like 350 or 500 would be better than 1000. I don't see scores shooting up that quickly. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 00:04:12 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Prop323 Currently, voting by proxy and absentee voting are not allowed. If it were, I would have voted on the last proposal. Instead, when I woke up, the voting period was over. I would like to remedy this. Proposal 3223/0 (active, mutable) Absentee voting and voting by proxy A Player may submit a ballot in advance of the voting period in absentee. The Player must take reasonable measures to notify the rest of the Players that The Player is voting in absentee. The Player shall submit a current ballot to the auditor, which will be considered to be submitted during the voting period. On each proposal under consideration, the Player may explicitly state whether the Player's vote shall remain the same or change to the opposite opinion. If this is not explicitly stated under the circumstances of a changed proposal, it shall by default be changed to an abstention . A Player may submit a ballot by proxy. The Player must appoint a proxy and take reasonalbe measures to notify the rest of the Players of said proxy. Ballots submitted by proxy are considered votes cast during the voting period. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:23:32 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Call of Judgement At 10:21 PM 9/26/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>The problem is stated in Mike's manifesto sent to the list earlier. I >>disagree. Strongly. On many levels. Nate wanted this resolved. Thus, we >>arrive at the current situation. > >Eh? Maybe I missed part of Mike's manifesto. Near the end there >it made me all sleepy. Mike's manifesto didn't mention "player" >at all, really, did it? > > >Josh ---Warning--- The Surgeon General has determined that blatant philosophical babbling may be hazardous to your sanity. ------------------ The conclusions drawn by our resident revolutionary in his most recent manifesto hinge on the inability of the voting period to extend itself instantaneously, without ever giving the auto-abstentions time to register. If there is a distinction between the theoretical player and the physical player, then it's a small leap of judgement to say that the game itself is a theoretical construct, and therefore, events can occur instantaneously. We as physical players merely provide input for and read output from the acts of our corresponding "players" in the Berserker Nomic theoretical construct. If such a theoretical construct doesn't exist, then a Berserker Nomic action must occur in time. Then, the voting period does have a definite end before it is extended and begins again, and votes do register themselves as auto-abstentions. And we're hosed. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:23:44 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Call of Judgement At 08:05 PM 9/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >A little preamble: >-Trust me on this: it's important. If I were just sitting at my computer >and read what I'm about to call for judgement on, I'd think this was the >most cretin call for judgement thus far, except, of course, for the CFJs >that Damon initiated earlier. But trust me, it's important. > >Statement to be judged: > >There can not be any sound distinction made between a given "player" in >Berserker Nomic and the physical entity that controls the "player". > Rule 002 (Definition of Player) says: "A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human surname." I would say that that the statment is false by a very simple reading of rule 2 which makes exactly this distinction. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:38:12 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: If anyone objects, please say so. Here (delimited by FIRSTDRAFT) is my finalized (unless major controversy erupts) proposal. Summary: Any number of people can play in a game of Go which permits multiple players and alliances. Upon consideration I've kept the less powerful of the two schemes. I wanted Political Go to matter, so it still creates a some number of points. This number is limited by the number of participants, hopefully self-limiting abuse that might occur. FIRSTDRAFT Tom Mueller is the first Go Consul. This paragraph deletes itself immediately after taking effect. Section 1 Definitions A) There exists in Berserker Nomic a game called Political Go. It is played by any player of Berserker Nomic who publicly indicates such a desire. B) The board of Political Go is a 19x19 grid, lettered horizontally from a-s and numbered vertically from 1-19. C) Each spot on the grid is either empty of has a stone on it. Each player must use a distinct character to represent their stones. Friendly stones are all stones a player owns on the board and any stones on the board owned by a player officially allied with the first. D) An island is defined as any set of friendly stones where any stone in the island is directly next to another in a vertical of horizontal direction. E) The Go Consul is in charge of keeping Political Go organized. He may be a player. His job is to ensure all players follow the rules, maintain a record of the game and its current state and make such records publicly available. Decisions of the Go Consul must be in accordance with the rules and may only be overturned by RFJ. Players are encouraged to remove bad Go Consuls from the position by proposal. Section 2 Turns A) The play list shall consist of players's names listed top to bottom. When players start playing Political Go, their name is added to the bottom of the list. The player whose name is at the top of the list takes their turn, has the results of their turn determined, and then has their name is moved to the bottom of the list. B) The player whose turn it is has three days to make a move. If no move is made in this time, that player automatically makes the move "Pass". C) A move may be any of the following: (i) A declaration of alliance with another player. (ii) A declaration of war on an ally. (iii) Placing a stone. (iiii) Pass. (iv) Surrender. (v) Sleep. D) If a player makes a move to Surrender then their name is removed from the play list and all the stones on the board they own are destroyed. If a player passes three times in a row, then the third time is considered to be a Surrender. E) If a player makes a move to Sleep, their name is removed from the play list, but their stones are not removed from the board. In the same way that players join the game, they may stop sleeping and have their name added to the play list. F) The game ends when one of the following conditions is met: (i) Every player on the play list in sequence has had a chance to make a move and failed to place a stone. (ii) Every player with stones on the board is asleep. G) The player with the most stones on the board at the end of the time becomes the new Go Consul unless they decline (ties broken randomly). In this case the next highest scorer shall be Go Consul, and so on, until a Go Consul is found. Whoever accepts this honor is given 10 points. Section 3 Alliances A) If a player makes their move and it is to declare an alliance, then until the three days of their turn end, that alliance is considered offered. An offer can be resolved by time, in which case the player's move is considered to be a pass, or by the offered player accepting the alliance, in which case the turn ends and the two players are considered to be allies. Accepting an alliance does not count as a turn. B) If a player makes their move and it is to declare war on an ally then the player who mad e the declaration is removed from the alliance they are in. C) No player may be in more than one alliance. D) More than two players may be in a single alliance, this occurs when a player makes a move to join an alliance and names a player already in one and all members of the alliance publicly accept. Section 4 Game Mechanics A) If a player makes a move to place a stone, the any spot on the board is valid except: (i) Spots where stones already are. (ii) Spots where the placed stone would immediately be removed from the board. (iii) Spots occupied by stones the player owned the last time they could make a move. B) After any stone is placed or any alliance is created of destroyed the Go Consul shall check the board to determine if there are any islands which cannot be increased in size by placing another stone such that it would become a member of the island. If this is determined to be the case for any islands, those islands are removed from the board. Determination for islands is made player by player moving from the bottom to the top of the play list. Section 5 Scoring A) The Go Score of a player is the number of spots on the board which they (alone or with their allies) are uniquely responsible for making impermissible as valid places for non friendly stones to go. B) If a player is in an alliance, they receive no Go Score but their Go Score is added to the alliance's Go Score. Spots made impermissible by more than one member of an alliance's score only add to the alliances score once, not once for each member of the alliance involved. C) Whenever proposal results are announced, a temporary Go Score List shall be compiled of all players of Political Go in order of highest Go Score, players in alliances shall equally share the alliance's score in this case (rounding down). Ties on the Go Score List are permitted, with multiple names permissible on any given line. D) For each proposal which passes, authored by a player of Political Go, that player shall receive an extra point for each player lower than them on the Go Score List. FIRSTDRAFT ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:46:44 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: PoliGo objections I do have some objections to the proposal as it stands, and rest assured that I will give them, but I don't really have time right at the moment to scrutinize the proposal. However, that's what the rest of the debate time is for, so... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:39:24 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: My bad >From that "finalized form", delete the line with "scheme" in it. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 15:59:12 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: More dangerous philosophy... Rule 307 (Voting Time Limit) says (in part): "Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the voting period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions." >From my reading of this, I get that rule-defined entities do a certain thing whether or not it is there to be seen. Then this to be recorded by a person. Records, by their nature, do not cause something to exist, they document things which already existed so that the things are more clearly and explicitly known. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net there's my two bits - I'll be quiet for a while now and watch the sparks fly :) ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:01:25 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: More dangerous philosophy... Mueller writes: >Rule 307 (Voting Time Limit) says (in part): > >"Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the voting >period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions." > >From my reading of this, I get that rule-defined entities do a certain >thing whether or not it is there to be seen. Then this to be recorded by a >person. I agree, as that was my intent in the original proposal. I also think that this is a reasonable interpretation without relying on the author's (my) intentions. > >Records, by their nature, do not cause something to exist, they document >things which already existed so that the things are more clearly and >explicitly known. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net > >there's my two bits - I'll be quiet for a while now and watch the sparks fly : >) -- Music is the pleasure the human soul experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting. - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:07:56 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop323 Nicholas C Osborn writes: >Currently, voting by proxy and absentee voting are not allowed. If it were, >I would have voted on the last proposal. Instead, when I woke up, the >voting period was over. I would like to remedy this. > >Proposal 3223/0 (active, mutable) > >Absentee voting and voting by proxy > >A Player may submit a ballot in advance of the voting period in absentee. >The Player must take reasonable measures to notify the rest of the Players >that The Player is voting in absentee. The Player shall submit a current >ballot to the auditor, which will be considered to be submitted during the >voting period. On each proposal under consideration, the Player may >explicitly state whether the Player's vote shall remain the same or change >to the opposite opinion. If this is not explicitly stated under the >circumstances of a changed proposal, it shall by default be changed to an >abstention . > >A Player may submit a ballot by proxy. The Player must appoint a proxy and >take reasonalbe measures to notify the rest of the Players of said proxy. >Ballots submitted by proxy are considered votes cast during the voting >period. I would appreciate it greatly if this proposal were named "Proxocological Voting" How does this work for voting done, say, by voice to a person who mails in the vote? Would that be allowed, or would the voter HAVE to have a way of notifying the rest of the game first? What's "reasonable"? :) Josh -- How happy the lot of the mathematician. He is judged solely by his peers, and the standard is so high that no colleague or rival can ever win a reputation he does not deserve. - W.H. Auden ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:05:28 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Call of Judgement Thomas J Plagge writes: >At 10:21 PM 9/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>The problem is stated in Mike's manifesto sent to the list earlier. I >>>disagree. Strongly. On many levels. Nate wanted this resolved. Thus, we >>>arrive at the current situation. >> >>Eh? Maybe I missed part of Mike's manifesto. Near the end there >>it made me all sleepy. Mike's manifesto didn't mention "player" >>at all, really, did it? >> >> >>Josh > >---Warning--- >The Surgeon General has determined that blatant philosophical babbling >may be hazardous to your sanity. >------------------ >The conclusions drawn by our resident revolutionary in his most recent >manifesto hinge on the inability of the voting period to extend itself >instantaneously, without ever giving the auto-abstentions time to >register. > >If there is a distinction between the theoretical player and >the physical player, then it's a small leap of judgement to say that >the game itself is a theoretical construct, and therefore, events can >occur instantaneously. We as physical players merely provide input >for and read output from the acts of our corresponding "players" in >the Berserker Nomic theoretical construct. > >If such a theoretical construct doesn't exist, then a Berserker Nomic >action must occur in time. Then, the voting period does have a >definite end before it is extended and begins again, and votes do >register themselves as auto-abstentions. And we're hosed. Has our revolutionary provided any justification for either of these? While it's true they're hard to justify, he must have reasons besides those of the theological sort... Josh -- "I've just had seventeen straight whiskeys, I think that's a record." -Dylan Thomas ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:07:37 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop323 >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>Currently, voting by proxy and absentee voting are not allowed. If it were, >>I would have voted on the last proposal. Instead, when I woke up, the >>voting period was over. I would like to remedy this. >> >>Proposal 3223/0 (active, mutable) >> >>Absentee voting and voting by proxy >> >>A Player may submit a ballot in advance of the voting period in absentee. >>The Player must take reasonable measures to notify the rest of the Players >>that The Player is voting in absentee. The Player shall submit a current >>ballot to the auditor, which will be considered to be submitted during the >>voting period. On each proposal under consideration, the Player may >>explicitly state whether the Player's vote shall remain the same or change >>to the opposite opinion. If this is not explicitly stated under the >>circumstances of a changed proposal, it shall by default be changed to an >>abstention . >> >>A Player may submit a ballot by proxy. The Player must appoint a proxy and >>take reasonalbe measures to notify the rest of the Players of said proxy. >>Ballots submitted by proxy are considered votes cast during the voting >>period. > >I would appreciate it greatly if this proposal were named > >"Proxocological Voting" I don't usually pull my votes out of my ass. -------------------------------------------- > >How does this work for voting done, say, by voice to a person who mails >in the vote? Would that be allowed, or would the voter HAVE to have a way >of notifying the rest of the game first? What's "reasonable"? As you may remember, we already have one case of voting by proxy. You, Josh, voted for Haar when he did not have e-mail access. By "reasonable," I mean by e-mail from their own account, if possible. If not possible, I mean through someone else's account. If done in advance, this would give someone the opportunity to expose a false claim of proxy. > >:) > >Josh > >-- >How happy the lot of the mathematician. He is judged solely by his peers, >and the standard is so high that no colleague or rival can ever win a >reputation he does not deserve. > - W.H. Auden ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:15:07 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 321problems Consider: if we raise the winning condition to 1000 points, it would take about the next 25 proposals passed unanimously and all belonging to one person to accumulate that many points. Do we want it to be that diffucult to win? Addtionally, if Proposal 317 passes, we won't have a problem if someone wins by points -- scores will be reset, and the game will continue. So, finally, why do we then need to set the victory condition at such an unattainably high level? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:47:59 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: 321 First of all, I would hardly call 1000 points "unattainably high." Sure it is very high, but hardly unattainable. Second, it was just a number I threw out that was bigger than 200. Third, a person could possibly win in just 3 turns, which, again, I would hardly call unattainable. Actually, I was thinking of proposing a winning criterion with a variable in it such as: Win => 100 + (total points/players) This would make it necessary for there to be a clear-cut winner. I was alos thinking about adding in partial wins for second, third, and fourth. Does anyone like any of these ideas? Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:45:20 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 321 At 05:47 PM 9/27/98 -0500, you wrote: > >First of all, I would hardly call 1000 points "unattainably high." Sure >it is very high, but hardly unattainable. Second, it was just a number I >threw out that was bigger than 200. Third, a person could possibly win in >just 3 turns, which, again, I would hardly call unattainable. > >Actually, I was thinking of proposing a winning criterion with a variable >in it such as: > >Win => 100 + (total points/players) With that, you're actually moving the finish line closer -- it would take 108 points to win with the current number of players. >This would make it necessary for there to be a clear-cut winner. I was >alos thinking about adding in partial wins for second, third, and fourth. > >Does anyone like any of these ideas? > >Damon Why give partial wins for not winning? Coming in second any number of times should never constitute a win. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:17:15 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Political Go questions: Here is the proposed size of the Political Go Board: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s I've play tested a game with six Go Players, and there was plenty of room, but I'm wondering if it will become crowded if lots of people play. Would you be more or less inclined to vote for Political GO if: 1. There were a limit on the number of players? 2. The board were made larger? 3. Things were left alone? Also, how many people would want to play? (If you want to cut down on mail traffic just send stuff to me and I'll post all the results in one fell swoop [so that the digest still records what happened]) Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:30:48 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: 321 In response to Joel's poor criticisms: The formula wouldn't necessarily be moving the winning point closer, it depends upon who scores the points. If everyone maintains the average, no one will ever win; in this case you could hardly say, Joel, that the winning point is being moved closer. Also, the 100 in the equation is purely arbitrary for now. It was not as important as the concept, which you evidently missed. The likelihood that one person will score 108 points before anyone else scores any is low. Therefore, it is unlikely that you are correct in your analysis. As for the awarding partial wins to second, third, and fourth places. Your criticism is very close-minded. It would be very consistent to do what I proposed. As with any game, competition, event, or tournament our Nomic game is composed up of (or will be eventually) many smaller games. I can name many of these types of events where they award points to not only the winner, but also runners-up. Examples are: decathalons, omniums, various types of tounaments, and race car series (I think). This makes sense because you could theoretically play consistently well, say by getting second every time, and under the current system it would look like you were just as shitty as the guy who got last every time. This way of scoring would be more true to who is playing well and who isn't, unless you don't want that; but in that case, you'll have to give me a good reason why you would want a less meaningful system as opposed to a more meaningful one. Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:20:02 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 321 At 07:30 PM 9/27/98 -0500, you wrote: >In response to Joel's poor criticisms: > >The formula wouldn't necessarily be moving the winning point closer, it >depends upon who scores the points. If everyone maintains the average, no >one will ever win; in this case you could hardly say, Joel, that the >winning point is being moved closer. In that case, I'm still opposed to it. I think more frequent wins would be desirable. >Also, the 100 in the equation is purely arbitrary for now. It was not as >important as the concept, which you evidently missed. The likelihood that >one person will score 108 points before anyone else scores any is low. >Therefore, it is unlikely that you are correct in your analysis. I only stated that this is possible. >As for the awarding partial wins to second, third, and fourth places. >Your criticism is very close-minded. It would be very consistent to do >what I proposed. As with any game, competition, event, or tournament our >Nomic game is composed up of (or will be eventually) many smaller games. >I can name many of these types of events where they award points to not >only the winner, but also runners-up. Examples are: decathalons, omniums, >various types of tounaments, and race car series (I think). Yes, but even in the types of events you're refering to, the runner-up isn't considered the half-winner or something like that. The winner _wins_ -- no one else does. You could conceiveably win a decathalon without winning any of the constituent events, but if you did, people would say you won the decathalon, not the high jump or whatever. >This makes sense because you could theoretically play consistently well, >say by getting second every time, and under the current system it would >look like you were just as shitty as the guy who got last every time. >This way of scoring would be more true to who is playing well and who >isn't, unless you don't want that; but in that case, you'll have to give >me a good reason why you would want a less meaningful system as opposed to >a more meaningful one. > >Damon I think I object more to your terminology here than anything -- you're talking about having some sort of all-time point standings rather than awarding partial wins. But if you want some sort of over-arching ranking, wouldn't more frequent wins make it more meaningful? Otherwise, most players would be tied with zero points and the ranking wouldn't yield much information. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:09:21 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Proposal 318 Revision In an effort to integrate Political Go into the GWIB structure, here's a revised 318. $ Proposal 318-Second Draft Game-Within-Berserker Structure I. Definition of a GWIB A. A Game-Within-Berserker (hereafter, GWIB) shall be defined as a structure within the game of Berserker Nomic in which any Berserker player may participate by publicly indicating a desire to do so. B. Each GWIB shall be defined by a GWIB Specification. C. Specifications carry the force of rules for the participating players. Players implicitly agree to follow the Specification when they join the GWIB. D. Each GWIB instance shall be administered by a Game Master. II. GWIB Specifications, Announcement method A. Any player may create a GWIB Specification by publicly announcing the GWIB's name, procedures for play, and conditions for winning in accordance with the rules. B. The winner(s) of a GWIB created by Announcement receive(s) x points from each of the other player(s), where x is a nonnegative integer between 0 and 5 specified by the Game Master. If more than one player is declared a winner, they shall split equally the points lost by the other player(s), if any. C. The Game Master of a GWIB created by Announcement must specify the value for x in section B above at the time the GWIB instance begins. III. GWIB Specifications, Approval method A. Any player may also create a GWIB Specification by offering the name, procedure for play, conditions for winning, and other details as an informal proposal. B. A GWIB Specification is considered approved if it receives a 2/3 majority of favorable votes. C. GWIBs created by Approval may leave variables open to be specified by the Game Master of each particular instance. These variables must by given a value by the Game Master at the time the GWIB instance begins, and must conform to the limits approved in the Specification. IV. Limits on GWIB Specifications A. A GWIB cannot create, destroy, or modify rules. B. A GWIB cannot in any way interfere with or modify the voting process; explicitly, a player may not be awarded votes, denied votes, or forced to vote in a certain manner based on a GWIB. C. A GWIB created by Announcement cannot create or destroy points- merely redistribute them in accordance with the rules. A GWIB created by Approval may create or destroy points in the manner approved in its Specification. V. Game Masters A. An instance of a GWIB begins when a player publicly indicates a desire to be a Game Master of a GWIB. This GWIB must be defined by an existing GWIB Specification. Other Berserker players may join the GWIB by publicly declaring their desire to do so. C. At the time a player indicates desire to be a Game Master, s/he may specify a maximum number of players allowed, and may explicitly include or exclude specific players. D. An instance of a GWIB ends when the conditions for winning are met by one or more players. E. Scoring and logistics are handled by the Game Master. Players implicitly agree to allow the GWIB to be administered by the Game Master when they join the GWIB. $ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:14:08 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 321problems Joel D Uckelman writes: >Consider: if we raise the winning condition to 1000 points, it would take >about the next 25 proposals passed unanimously and all belonging to one >person to accumulate that many points. Do we want it to be that diffucult >to win? Why would we not? People have stated, again and again, that they would prefer to see the game become complicated, that winning is secondary, tertiary, etc. etc. etc. So why not make it difficult to win? Why even have winning conditions? Josh -- Professional music critics rarely possess any aptitude for mathematics. Hence, they like to compare musical processes unintelligible to them with the equally darksome methods of mathematical thinking. - Nicholas Slonimsky ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:12:50 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop323 Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>"Proxocological Voting" > >I don't usually pull my votes out of my ass. >-------------------------------------------- >> >>How does this work for voting done, say, by voice to a person who mails >>in the vote? Would that be allowed, or would the voter HAVE to have a way >>of notifying the rest of the game first? What's "reasonable"? > >As you may remember, we already have one case of voting by proxy. You, >Josh, voted for Haar when he did not have e-mail access. By "reasonable," I >mean by e-mail from their own account, if possible. If not possible, I mean >through someone else's account. If done in advance, this would give someone >the opportunity to expose a false claim of proxy. I know all about your examples; I just wanted to hear you sketch out what would be reasonable, for the purposes of this rule. Josh -- ... it seems to me that teaching critical thinking via popular-art examples holds the potential for making people both capable of critical thought and inclined toward it, whereas teaching it through _The Scarlet Letter_ just makes people associate the process with unpleasantness. - Glenn McDonald ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:15:55 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: 321 "Abyss of ..." writes: > >First of all, I would hardly call 1000 points "unattainably high." Sure >it is very high, but hardly unattainable. Second, it was just a number I >threw out that was bigger than 200. Third, a person could possibly win in >just 3 turns, which, again, I would hardly call unattainable. > >Actually, I was thinking of proposing a winning criterion with a variable >in it such as: > >Win => 100 + (total points/players) This is common in many Nomics, and though of course your 100 is a hypothetical figure (as any idiot could see :)), I think it would provide an answer to Joel's problem, in that difficulty of winning would scale, somehow, with the size of the nomic. Something along those lines might be to scale the winning score based on how old the nomic is - i.e., how many turns or rounds, or something. Make it interesting. >This would make it necessary for there to be a clear-cut winner. I was >alos thinking about adding in partial wins for second, third, and fourth. > >Does anyone like any of these ideas? Me. Josh -- Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house. - R.A. Heinlein ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:28:33 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 321problems At 09:14 PM 9/27/98 -0500, you wrote: >People have stated, again and again, that they would prefer to >see the game become complicated, that winning is secondary, tertiary, >etc. etc. etc. So why not make it difficult to win? > >Why even have winning conditions? Because there are some overly-competitive bastards like me who would have a hard time playing a game that could not be won. :) ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:21:41 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: 321 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 07:30 PM 9/27/98 -0500, you wrote: >>In response to Joel's poor criticisms: >> >>The formula wouldn't necessarily be moving the winning point closer, it >>depends upon who scores the points. If everyone maintains the average, no >>one will ever win; in this case you could hardly say, Joel, that the >>winning point is being moved closer. > >In that case, I'm still opposed to it. I think more frequent wins would be >desirable. > >>Also, the 100 in the equation is purely arbitrary for now. It was not as >>important as the concept, which you evidently missed. The likelihood that >>one person will score 108 points before anyone else scores any is low. >>Therefore, it is unlikely that you are correct in your analysis. > >I only stated that this is possible. > >>As for the awarding partial wins to second, third, and fourth places. >>Your criticism is very close-minded. It would be very consistent to do >>what I proposed. As with any game, competition, event, or tournament our >>Nomic game is composed up of (or will be eventually) many smaller games. >>I can name many of these types of events where they award points to not >>only the winner, but also runners-up. Examples are: decathalons, omniums, >>various types of tounaments, and race car series (I think). > >Yes, but even in the types of events you're refering to, the runner-up >isn't considered the half-winner or something like that. The winner _wins_ >-- no one else does. You could conceiveably win a decathalon without >winning any of the constituent events, but if you did, people would say you >won the decathalon, not the high jump or whatever. Pedantism! If points are awarded based on wins, and Damon wants to introduce the awarding of fractional, etc. points for those who aren't in first place at the time of a "win", then it is sensible to call those fractional points "fractional win" points, as they are fractions of the win points. It's clear that they aren't "real" wins. If there's some sort of glory you'd like to notate for future generations to be in awe of, then you could always keep a separate tally for pure wins. >>This makes sense because you could theoretically play consistently well, >>say by getting second every time, and under the current system it would >>look like you were just as shitty as the guy who got last every time. >>This way of scoring would be more true to who is playing well and who >>isn't, unless you don't want that; but in that case, you'll have to give >>me a good reason why you would want a less meaningful system as opposed to >>a more meaningful one. >> >>Damon > >I think I object more to your terminology here than anything -- you're >talking about having some sort of all-time point standings rather than >awarding partial wins. But if you want some sort of over-arching ranking, >wouldn't more frequent wins make it more meaningful? Otherwise, most >players would be tied with zero points and the ranking wouldn't yield much >information. Why would frequent wins make a game-to-game ranking system more meaningful? If we use Damon's ranking system, then most players WON'T be tied with 0 points, as most players wil probably have accrued some points before one player reaches the "winning" number of points in a game, so most players will receive some "fractional win" score. So there WILL be useful information about how people have done, score-wise. 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 ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:31:34 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 321problems Thomas J Plagge writes: >At 09:14 PM 9/27/98 -0500, you wrote: >>People have stated, again and again, that they would prefer to >>see the game become complicated, that winning is secondary, tertiary, >>etc. etc. etc. So why not make it difficult to win? >> >>Why even have winning conditions? > >Because there are some overly-competitive bastards like me who would >have a hard time playing a game that could not be won. :) Nomic should be like life. Even if you could win, how would you know what the winning conditions were? Josh -- I advise my students to listen carefully the moment they decide to take no more mathematics courses. They might be able to hear the sound of closing doors. - James Caballero ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:33:27 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: 321 Josh wrote: > >"Abyss of ..." writes: >> >>First of all, I would hardly call 1000 points "unattainably high." Sure >>it is very high, but hardly unattainable. Second, it was just a number I >>threw out that was bigger than 200. Third, a person could possibly win in >>just 3 turns, which, again, I would hardly call unattainable. >> >>Actually, I was thinking of proposing a winning criterion with a variable >>in it such as: >> >>Win => 100 + (total points/players) > >This is common in many Nomics, and though of course your 100 is >a hypothetical figure (as any idiot could see :)), I think it would >provide an answer to Joel's problem, in that difficulty of winning >would scale, somehow, with the size of the nomic. > >Something along those lines might be to scale the winning score based >on how old the nomic is - i.e., how many turns or rounds, or something. >Make it interesting. > >>This would make it necessary for there to be a clear-cut winner. I was >>alos thinking about adding in partial wins for second, third, and fourth. >> >>Does anyone like any of these ideas? > >Me. I don't like the idea of "partial wins". It seems that you should get something totally or not at all. Maybe trophes? When a win gets passed, trophes with the names of the top couple people could be created and given to them. Their name would always be on it (recording the victories) and various trophes would have tricks associated with them. Off the top of my head: Gold Trophe (vote power)- Auction for points and when its sold a you get two extra votes on one current proposal. Silver (rotating loan)- Give to someone (even against their will) to take 10 points from them if no one has used this particular trophe that way in the past two weeks Bronze (GWIB advantage)- give to victim in a game, by a game defined mechanism that gets you a leg up. (For example, PolGo could be amended so that someone could use a bronze to step in and place two stones in one turn as long as this resulted in a stone being taken so the victim could be determined and given the Bronze Plus, this adds all kinds of cross-fertilization and complication (which I think people have expressed an interest in). Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:43:08 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: 321 Mueller writes: >I don't like the idea of "partial wins". It seems that you should get >something totally or not at all. Maybe trophes? If you are THE winner, you get a win point. Totally. 1. Uno. Adin. If you are not THE winner, you get a fractional win point, which is possible 0. Thus, you do not get a total win point at all. Now isn't that just what you want? Josh -- I have always hated machinery, and the only machine I ever understood was a wheelbarrow, and that but imperfectly. - E.T. Bell ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:45:09 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 321problems At 09:31 PM 9/27/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Thomas J Plagge writes: >>At 09:14 PM 9/27/98 -0500, you wrote: >>>People have stated, again and again, that they would prefer to >>>see the game become complicated, that winning is secondary, tertiary, >>>etc. etc. etc. So why not make it difficult to win? >>> >>>Why even have winning conditions? >> >>Because there are some overly-competitive bastards like me who would >>have a hard time playing a game that could not be won. :) > >Nomic should be like life. > >Even if you could win, how would you know what the winning conditions >were? Nomic should be like sex. I should end up on top. Errr....sorry about that. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:03:26 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Revised Prop323 I wasn't quite clear on what happens to absentee votes for changed proposals, so I have revised my proposal. Proposal 3223/0 (active, mutable) Absentee voting and voting by proxy A Player may submit a ballot in advance of the voting period in absentee. The Player must take reasonable measures to notify the rest of the Players that The Player is voting in absentee. The Player shall submit a current ballot to the auditor, which will be considered to be submitted during the voting period. On each proposal under consideration, the Player may explicitly state whether the Player's vote shall remain the same or change to the opposite opinion if the proposal is changed after submission of the ballot. If this is not explicitly stated under the circumstances of a changed proposal, it shall by default be changed to an abstention. A Player may submit a ballot by proxy. The Player must appoint a proxy and take reasonalbe measures to notify the rest of the Players of said proxy. Ballots submitted by proxy are considered votes cast during the voting period. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:04:24 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: 321 Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>I don't like the idea of "partial wins". It seems that you should get >>something totally or not at all. Maybe trophes? > >If you are THE winner, you get a win point. Totally. 1. Uno. Adin. >If you are not THE winner, you get a fractional win point, which is >possible 0. Thus, you do not get a total win point at all. > >Now isn't that just what you want? No, I don't like the idea of wins just being another level of points. (And not even integers at that). If we just want a "points all the way up" system, why compliate things with conversions and resets. The MOST info transmitted would reflect everything that occured ever, in your point total. I like winning, I also like the "more than one level of winning" idea, but not as a simple extensions of the point concept. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:11:09 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 318 Revision Plagge wrote: >In an effort to integrate Political Go into the GWIB structure, here's a >revised 318. > >V. Game Masters > C. At the time a player indicates desire to be a Game Master, s/he may > specify a maximum number of players allowed, and may explicitly include > or exclude specific players. I'd rather see the announcement create specifications like this. If people are going to be left out, they should be left out up front by a system they can read about (only permissible to players who declare themselves to be dueling, for example). Also, I'm modding the PoliGo system to make it a GWIB. Other than the obvious changes to the Go Consul is there anything that would make it more palatable? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:22:14 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: prop =?iso-8859-1?Q?2332=8Adoh=21?= 323 not 3223. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:51:05 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: OK here it is again, hopefully right this time. I really don't care about the points, I just want to play. Fixed: Messy use of game and player (now always referred to as Go Player and Political Nomic where I mean it, and not where not), GWIB incompatibility, Go Consul title changed to Go Moderator, Self appointment. First, I retract Proposal 317 (I don't want it to go off before 318, as its actions are based on 318's). Then I submit the following proposal which should be numbered 324 if I did this right): If Proposal 318 is not accepted, then this proposal creates a rule with the following SNARK delimited text. If Proposal 318 is accepted, then this proposal creates a rule with the following LETSSTARTPLAYING delimited text. LETSSTARTPLAYING This rule takes the following steps then deletes itself: 1. Uses Proposal 324's SNARK delimited text to create a GWIB's informal proposal that is considered to be accepted pursuant to the rule created by proposal 318. 2. Destroys any points given to Tom Mueller based on the acceptance of Proposal 324. LETSSTARTPLAYING SNARK Section 1 Definitions A) There exists a Game Within Bererker Nomic (GWIB) called Political Go. It is played by any player of Berserker Nomic who publicly indicates a desire to become a Go Player. B) The board of Political Go is a 19x19 grid, lettered horizontally from a-s and numbered vertically from 1-19. C) Each spot on the grid is either empty of has a stone on it. Each Go Player must use a distinct character to represent their stones. Friendly stones are all stones a Go Player owns on the board and any stones on the board owned by a Go Player officially allied with the first. D) An island is defined as any set of friendly stones where any stone in the island is directly next to another in a vertical of horizontal direction. E) The Game Master of Political Go is called the Go Moderator, and is in charge of keeping Political Go organized. He may be a Go Player. His job is to ensure all Go Players follow the rules of Political Go, maintain a record of Political Go and its current state, and make such records publicly available. Decisions of the Go Moderator must be in accordance with the rules and may only be overturned by RFJ (or the rules of course). If, for any reason, there is no Go Moderator then the first player who publicly indicates such a desire is made Go Moderator. Players are encouraged to remove bad Go Moderators from the position by proposal. Section 2 Turns A) The play list shall consist of Go Players' names listed top to bottom. When players start playing Political Go, their name is added to the bottom of the list. The Go Player whose name is at the top of the list takes their turn, has the results of their turn determined, and then has their name is moved to the bottom of the list. B) A Go Player's turn ends when their move is resolved or they have had three days to make a move normally and failed to do so. If no move is made in this time, that Go Player automatically makes the move "Pass". C) A move may be any of the following: (i) A declaration of alliance with another Go Player. (ii) A declaration of war on an ally. (iii) Placing a stone. (iiii) Pass. (iv) Surrender. (v) Sleep. D) If a Go Player makes a move to Surrender then their name is removed from the play list, all the stones they own on the board are destroyed, and they are no longer considered a Go Player. If a Go Player passes three times in a row, then the third time is considered to be a Surrender. E) If a Go Player makes a move to Sleep, their name is removed from the play list, but their stones are not removed from the board. In the same way that players join the Political Go, they may stop sleeping and have their name added to the play list. Section 3 Alliances A) If a Go Player makes their move and it is to declare an alliance, then, until the three days of their turn ends, that alliance is considered offered to another Go Player. An offer can be resolved by time, in which case the Go Player's move is considered to be a pass, or by the offered Go Player accepting the alliance, in which case the turn ends and the two Go Players are considered to be allies. Accepting an alliance does not count as a move or use a turn. B) If a Go Player makes their move and it is to declare war on an ally then the Go Player who made the declaration is removed from the alliance they are in. C) No Go Player may be in more than one alliance. D) More than two Go Players may be in a single alliance, this occurs when a Go Player makes a move to join an alliance and names a Go Player already in one and all members of the alliance publicly accept. Section 4 Game Mechanics A) If a Go Player makes a move to place a stone, the any spot on the board is valid except: (i) Spots where stones already are. (ii) Spots where the placed stone would immediately be removed from the board. (iii) Spots which, the last time the Go Player could make a move, were occupied by stones that Go Player owned. B) After any stone is placed, any alliance is created, or any war is declared, the Go Moderator shall check the board to determine if there are any islands which cannot be increased in size by placing another stone such that it would become a member of the island. If this is determined to be the case for any islands, those islands are removed from the board. Determination for islands is made the Go Player by the Go Player moving from the bottom to the top of the play list. C) Political Go ends when one of the following conditions is met: (i) Every Go Player on the play list, in sequence, has had a chance to make a move and failed to place a stone. (ii) Every Go Player with stones on the board is asleep. D) The Go Player with the highest Go Score when Political Go ends becomes the new Go Moderator unless they decline (ties broken randomly). In this case the next highest scorer shall be Go Moderator, and so on, until a Go Moderator is found. Whoever accepts this honor is given 10 points. The newly determined Go Moderator shall then start a new instance of Political Go. Section 5 Scoring A) The Go Score of a the Go Player is the number of spots on the board which they (alone or with their allies) are uniquely responsible for making impermissible as valid places for non friendly stones to go. B) If a the Go Player is in an alliance, they do not directly receive a Go Score but their Go Score is added to the alliance's Go Score. Spots made impermissible by more than one member of an alliance's score only add to the alliance's score once, not once for each member of the alliance involved. Then the alliance's Go Score is evenly distributed (rounding down) among its members. C) Immediately after proposal results are announced, a temporary Go Score List shall be compiled of all the Go Players in order of highest Go Score. Ties on the Go Score List are permitted, with multiple names permissible on any given line. D) For each proposal which passes, authored by a Go Player , that Go Player shall receive an extra point for each Go Player lower than them on the Go Score List. SNARK ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:11:28 CDT From: Andrew D Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 318 Revision >> C. At the time a player indicates desire to be a Game Master, s/he may >> specify the maximum number of players allowed, and may explicitly inclued >> or exclude specific players. The GWIB specification allows Game Masters to include specific players, but does it say anywhere that they must be willing to play? As I understand it, I could announce a GWIB in which every player must give 5 points to the winner, and the only rule of the game is the game master is the winner. If I then declared myself the Game Master of an instance of this GWIB, and explicitly include everyone in Berserker Nomic, everyone in Berserker nomic would be required to give me 5 points. Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem right. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 01:44:10 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 318 Revision At 11:11 PM 9/27/98 -0400, you wrote: >Plagge wrote: >>In an effort to integrate Political Go into the GWIB structure, here's a >>revised 318. >> >>V. Game Masters >> C. At the time a player indicates desire to be a Game Master, s/he may >> specify a maximum number of players allowed, and may explicitly include >> or exclude specific players. > >I'd rather see the announcement create specifications like this. If people >are going to be left out, they should be left out up front by a system they >can read about (only permissible to players who declare themselves to be >dueling, for example). > What I'm thinking here is that specifications can be used more than once. For example, if I created by announcement a specification allowing Action Quake to be played for points, then Joel could use the same specification to do it again some other time. All he'd have to do was send an email saying, "I'm a game master for the Quake GWIB, x=4, and I'm playing with Mike, Nate, and Tom." This keeps you from having to make the same damn announcement over and over. By the way, I neglected to fix the letters in section V, so C=B, D=C, and so forth. Oops... ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 01:48:50 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 318 Revision At 11:11 PM 9/27/98 -0500, you wrote: >>> C. At the time a player indicates desire to be a Game Master, s/he may >>> specify the maximum number of players allowed, and may explicitly inclued >>> or exclude specific players. > >The GWIB specification allows Game Masters to include specific players, >but does it say anywhere that they must be willing to play? As I >understand it, I could announce a GWIB in which every player must give 5 >points to the winner, and the only rule of the game is the game master is >the winner. If I then declared myself the Game Master of an instance of >this GWIB, and explicitly include everyone in Berserker Nomic, everyone >in Berserker nomic would be required to give me 5 points. Maybe I'm >missing something, but this doesn't seem right. > >Ed > Well, if I wanted to be greasy about it, I would say that the rule requires other players to publicly declare their intention to play. But really, I just hadn't thought of that. Thanks...-plagge p.s.--I would like to be the first tp congratulate Mueller for being the only player in Berserker Nomic history to successfully use the word SNARK in a proposal. Great job, Tom!! *grin* ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 02:02:34 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Still another freaking draft of 318 This is hopefully the final draft of 318. The following things have been changed: 1. Some poor wording was fixed up a little bit. 2. Ed's objection was hopefully addressed. 3. A "safety net" was added allowing GWIBs to be declared invalid. $ Proposal 318-Third Draft Game-Within-Berserker Structure I. Definition of a GWIB A. A Game-Within-Berserker (hereafter, GWIB) shall be defined as a structure within the game of Berserker Nomic in which any Berserker player may participate by publicly indicating a desire to do so. B. Each GWIB shall be defined by a GWIB Specification. C. Specifications carry the force of rules for the participating players. Players implicitly agree to follow the Specification when they join the GWIB. D. Each GWIB instance shall be administered by a Game Master. II. GWIB Specifications, Announcement method A. Any player may create a GWIB Specification by publicly announcing the GWIB's name, procedures for play, and conditions for winning in accordance with the rules. B. The winner(s) of a GWIB created by Announcement receive(s) x points from each of the other participants, where x is a nonnegative integer between 1 and 5 inclusive specified by the Game Master. If more than one player is declared a winner, they shall split equally the points lost by the other player(s), if any. C. The Game Master of a GWIB created by Announcement must specify the value for x in section B above at the time the GWIB instance begins. III. GWIB Specifications, Approval method A. Any player may also create a GWIB Specification by offering the name, procedure for play, conditions for winning, and other details as an informal proposal. B. A GWIB Specification is considered approved if it receives a 2/3 majority of favorable votes. C. GWIBs created by Approval may leave variables open to be specified by the Game Master of each particular instance. These variables must by given a value by the Game Master at the time the GWIB instance begins, and must conform to the guidelines approved in the Specification. IV. Limits on GWIB Specifications A. A GWIB cannot create, destroy, or modify rules. B. A GWIB cannot in any way interfere with or modify the voting process; explicitly, a player may not be awarded votes, denied votes, or forced to vote in a certain manner based on a GWIB. C. A GWIB created by Announcement cannot create or destroy points- merely redistribute them in accordance with the rules. A GWIB created by Approval may create or destroy points only in the manner approved in its Specification. D. At any time, an existing GWIB specification may be declared invalid if: a. It is not in accordance with the rules of Berserker Nomic. b. It is rendered invalid by an informal proposal passed by a 2/3 majority. If an instance of the invalid GWIB is in progress, the GWIB stops and no points are awarded, exchanged, or destroyed. V. Game Masters A. An instance of a GWIB begins when a player publicly indicates a desire to be a Game Master of a GWIB. This GWIB must be defined by an existing GWIB Specification. Other Berserker players may join the GWIB by publicly declaring their desire to do so. B. At the time a player indicates desire to be a Game Master, s/he may specify a maximum number of players allowed, and may explicitly include or exclude specific players. Each explicitly of the included players, if any, must still publicly declare their desire to play. C. An instance of a GWIB ends when the conditions for winning are met by one or more players. D. Scoring and logistics are handled by the Game Master. Players implicitly agree to allow the GWIB to be administered by the Game Master when they join the GWIB. $ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 03:23:45 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Quick fix I change the part of my proposal which reads: "Section 1 Definitions A) There exists a Game Within Bererker Nomic (GWIB) called Political Go. It is played by any player of Berserker Nomic who publicly indicates a desire to become a Go Player." to read: "Section 1 Definitions A) There exists a Game Within Berserker Nomic (GWIB) called Political Go. It is played by any player of Berserker Nomic who publicly indicates a desire to become a Go Player. Only one instance of Political Go may exist in Berserker Nomic at a time." Just wanted to tighten up the point scammyness becasuse this game actually creates points. (Imagine if two people, just before a proposal's results came in, really quick create 1999 instances of Political Go, and one gets a point win and the other has 999 points for a close second.) ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:07:05 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: OK here it is again, hopefully right this time. At 11:51 PM 9/27/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >First, I retract Proposal 317 (I don't want it to go off before 318, as its >actions are based on 318's). Then I submit the following proposal which >should be numbered 324 if I did this right): I'd prefer you not try to retract my proposal. Yours is 316. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:36:00 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Call of Judgement Sorry it took me so long to judge this, been busy... >There can not be any sound distinction made between a given "player" in >Berserker Nomic and the physical entity that controls the "player". This statement is FALSE. The reading of Rule 2 (which defines a Player) states the following: "A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. ..." The definition of represented in Webster's New World Dictionary states: " 1. to present or picture to the mind ... 6. a) to present, produce, or perform (a play, etc.) b) to act the part of (a charactor), as in a play 7. to act or stand in place of; be an agent, proxy or substitute for..." This clearly defines that a Player is a represented by and separated from one real, living human being. An example of this is the pieces of a chess game with each piece representing a player. When a piece is removed, the corresponding player doesn't disappear or die. This concludes my judgement. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 13:37:05 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Prop. 320 and rule-naming Josh writes, in regard to Proposal 320 and rule-naming: >Let me know what you think. Ultimately this is meant to encourage >meaningful naming of future rules, so that people are more likely >to refer to rule names, so that people are less-often required to >look up rule numbers. Josh claims that making rule names official will do the following: 1. Allow you to avoid having to look up rule numbers. 2. Make the rule names more meaningful. 3. Cause you to use them. Responses: 1. You can already refer to rules without having to look up rule numbers. All of the rules have unofficial titles displayed with them -- it's just that no one uses them. 2. How would "Proxocological Voting" be more meaningful than "Absentee and Proxy Voting"? The latter tells me far more about the rule's content than the prior. People will give their rules humorous rather than descriptive names, which won't help us in the least if meaningful names is our goal. 3. People could use the names now, but they don't. Why would names having nothing to do with the rules' content cause people to use them? In any case, since the current names are unofficial, I could change them to something more suitable, but no one has ever suggested anything to me on the matter. Finally, I am of the opinion that rule names should be descriptive, if nothing else but for ease of finding things in our ruleset. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:37:09 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Naming Rules I think it would be a lot of fun to name rules for ourselves. It also gives the creator a certain sense of pride in choosing a name for the rule to go by. Also, it is possible to get meaningful AND humorous names as I think was Josh's point. It's less of a neccessity and more of a perk for taking the time to propose something and have it pass. Plus, everyone knows from the Bible that the power of naming has a power all its own, and frankly, I think this might be a little too overwhelming for Joel. (We don't want him thinking he is God or anything. :) ) Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:46:10 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Proposal 318 Append the following sentence to V.C: The Game Master must publicly announce the results of the GWIB instance within 24 hours of the game's end. Also, I would like to request that, should both Josh's naming proposal and Prop 318 pass, Rule 318 be named "Jeane Kirkpatrick." ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:03:53 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Prop320 and Jean Kirkpatrick Thanks, Plagge, for the ammunition. Tom's recent update to Prop 318 clearly illustrates a great flaw of Prop 320. Some people may find a rule named Jean Kirkpatrick humorous; however, that doesn't mean they will have any idea what it deals with. I think Joel would be willing to allow people to name their own proposals, given that they actually refered to the content of the rule. On the other hand, if a rule's name has nothing to do with the rule, Joel is compelled to title it himself. I think this is something we can handle on a gentlemanly basis, considering rule names currently have no legal standing. A proposer should have the ability to name his own proposal, but only if done so responsibly. I know of no way to legislatively force people to behave responsibly. Josh, please withdraw your proposal. It would be more fitting to adjust game custom. n ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:30:53 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Reply to Nick What was that I read? >Thanks, Plagge, for the ammunition. > >Tom's recent update to Prop 318 clearly illustrates a great flaw of Prop >320. Some people may find a rule named Jean Kirkpatrick humorous; however, >that doesn't mean they will have any idea what it deals with. > >I think Joel would be willing to allow people to name their own proposals, >given that they actually refered to the content of the rule. On the other >hand, if a rule's name has nothing to do with the rule, Joel is compelled >to title it himself. > >I think this is something we can handle on a gentlemanly basis, considering >rule names currently have no legal standing. A proposer should have the >ability to name his own proposal, but only if done so responsibly. I know >of no way to legislatively force people to behave responsibly. > >Josh, please withdraw your proposal. It would be more fitting to adjust >game custom. Personally, this disgusts me. I found it necessary to drop everything I was doing just to reply to this. I will commence to break Nick's gun. (I assume he has one since he first needed ammunition.) I think, if Tom wants to name a rule proposed by him Jean Kirkpatrick, he should be able to. Who says the names have to be meaningful? That's up to the voters, or Players, to decide. "I think Joel would be willing to allow" ?????????????????????? No offense to Joel, but Joel has no more say than any other Player in what can or can't be allowed. If it is Joel the administrator you are referring to, I believe he should and does have the minimal amount of power required to make the game proceed in an orderly fashion. (And for this, I thank him.) My point is that we can do whatever the fuck we want without necessarily having Joel's approval, as long as it is strictly inside the game. If Josh's rule passes, which I certainly hope it does, and I want to name my rule Fuck You, I should be able to. This is no fucking monarchy! And who the fuck here is gentle-fucking-manly? Not me, not in this game. There is no rule that says "All Players must be gentlemanly." If there is, please correct me. We, as Berserker Nomic Players have the right to do whatever we want. "A proposer should have the ability to name his own proposal, but only if done so responsibly." ?????????????????????? Did God fucking tell you this in your sleep in a dream? If so, are you sure this was in reference to our game? I think the only people who have any say in this matter are the Players. (If God wants to have his say, tell him to join the game and he'll have just as much say as me.) And to ask Josh to withdraw his proposal, which I'm confident he won't do, just because of your (or God's) one opinion is very self-centered. Did it ever occur to you that other people might have different views than you? This is all I have to say in reference to your statement. Also, I would like to say that none of the bitterness in all of that is directed at Nick. I'm just working on my pissed-off sound in written compositions. :) I still love everyone in the game, except for Nate Ellefson. I retain a loathing hatred for that man. Muhehehahahaha. Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:49:08 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: OK here it is again, hopefully right this time. Joel wrote: >At 11:51 PM 9/27/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >>First, I retract Proposal 317 (I don't want it to go off before 318, as its >>actions are based on 318's). Then I submit the following proposal which >>should be numbered 324 if I did this right): > >I'd prefer you not try to retract my proposal. Yours is 316. Sorry about that, I retract 316. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:44:49 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Props 317, 321, and 325, All Time Berserker Standings I fully support what might be termed an "All Time Berserker Standings." However, no proposal addresses that issue. We can deal with that next turn. I have a better idea: ------ Proposal 325 inactive There exists All Time Berserker Standings. ------ Does that stake this out as my proposal? Can someone else make a similar proposal? Judges may decide. In addition, if All Time Berserker Standings are to have any meaning, we must have enough individual Berserker Nomic games that they can form a representative sample of all Berserker Nomic games. This leads me to believe that short games would be best. First-to-1000 would be a long game. First-to-100-more-than-is-their-share would also be a long game. have nothing against changing the winning conditions. I just want to keep a short game. Concerning Prop317 If we are to have All Time Berserker Standings, Prop317 might possibly be adjusted to allow this. It is also possible that 317 could be amended by 325. Not my call. n ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:47:39 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: prop 325 Reads as follows: ________ The Berserker Nomic Administrator shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. The Administrator shall be identified by the word "Administrator" followed by his or her corresponding real human surname. The duties of the Berserker Nomic Administrator are vote collection, dispatching official Berserker Nomic notices, updating the Berserker Nomic web page, and all other miscellaneous administrative duties. Due to these duties, the Berserker Nomic Administrator shall possess privelaged information. He or she may not share this information with any Player, direcly or indirectly, until the information becomes officially public. The first Berserker Administrator shall be Administrator Uckelman, represented by the person Joel Uckelman of Harwood 309 Lyon Hall in Ames, IA. (Also the location of the Pleasure Matrix.) The last two paragraphs of this proposal shall delete themselves (huh, huh - cool) upon the passage of this proposal. ____ It is the rough draft. Any comments? Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:56:35 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Reply to Nick Damon babbled: > ... >Also, I would like to say that none of the bitterness in all of that is >directed at Nick. I'm just working on my pissed-off sound in written >compositions. :) I still love everyone in the game, except for Nate >Ellefson. I retain a loathing hatred for that man. Muhehehahahaha. > >Damon Someone should make a proposal declaring Nate Ellefson the official social leper of Berserker Nomic. Something just ain't right about that boy. Damon, you're getting more intimidating by the day. Keep up the good work! You're still wrong, though. :) In my humble opinion, creativity is better expended in the text of the rule itself than in its title. The title's just there for the convenience of all concerned, and refering to Title III Section C of Fuck You is hardly convenient in my book. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:51:57 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop320 and Jean Kirkpatrick At 06:03 PM 9/28/98 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks, Plagge, for the ammunition. I find it best to illustrate my points in a smart-assed fashion. Any time, Nick! >Tom's recent update to Prop 318 clearly illustrates a great flaw of Prop >320. Some people may find a rule named Jean Kirkpatrick humorous; however, >that doesn't mean they will have any idea what it deals with. > >I think Joel would be willing to allow people to name their own proposals, >given that they actually refered to the content of the rule. On the other >hand, if a rule's name has nothing to do with the rule, Joel is compelled >to title it himself. > >I think this is something we can handle on a gentlemanly basis, considering >rule names currently have no legal standing. A proposer should have the >ability to name his own proposal, but only if done so responsibly. I know >of no way to legislatively force people to behave responsibly. > >Josh, please withdraw your proposal. It would be more fitting to adjust >game custom. I agree wholeheartedly. While it would be nice to see the game become more amusing with time, that shouldn't be through blatant silliness in our ruleset. This is not, after all, Ackanomic. No offense, Mueller. :) ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 19:56:06 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 325 Damon wrote: >The Berserker Nomic Administrator shall be defined as a game entity who is >represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to >said representation. The Administrator shall be identified by the word >"Administrator" followed by his or her corresponding real human surname. > >The duties of the Berserker Nomic Administrator are vote collection, >dispatching official Berserker Nomic notices, updating the Berserker Nomic >web page, and all other miscellaneous administrative duties. > >Due to these duties, the Berserker Nomic Administrator shall possess >privelaged information. He or she may not share this information with >any Player, direcly or indirectly, until the information becomes >officially public. > >The first Berserker Administrator shall be Administrator Uckelman, >represented by the person Joel Uckelman of Harwood 309 Lyon Hall in Ames, >IA. (Also the location of the Pleasure Matrix.) > >The last two paragraphs of this proposal shall delete themselves (huh, >huh - cool) upon the passage of this proposal. I like the idea. Havn't given any thought to the game impacts or technicalities. One thing: Berserker Nomic Administrator is too long. Take out the Berserker Nomic part at least. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:15:25 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop320 and Jean Kirkpatrick At 06:51 PM 9/28/98 -0500, you wrote: Plagge wrote: >>Thanks, Plagge, for the ammunition. >I find it best to illustrate my points in a smart-assed fashion. Any time, >Nick! > >>Josh, please withdraw your proposal. It would be more fitting to adjust >>game custom. > >I agree wholeheartedly. While it would be nice to see the game become more >amusing with time, that shouldn't be through blatant silliness in our >ruleset. This >is not, after all, Ackanomic. No offense, Mueller. :) None taken :) If I wanted to play in Ackanomic (and only Acka) then I wouldn't have joined. Studge, member of the Worker Caste, Member of the Grey Council, Senator, Daring Adventurer, Priest of The Justified Ancients of Mummuu, Founder of the political party: Giant Objectionable Potato, Party Swinger, Enlightened AKA Tom Mueller [And most of those titles have little or no game impact :) We can do better here in Berserker, can't we?] ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:14:30 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Reply to Damon, New Player I still love you, too, Damon. Under the current rules, there is nothing preventing a player from stating the name of the rule within the proposal. Anyone could start off their proposal with a short descriptive phrase. Such a convention could be useful for locating rules. So useful, in fact, that Administrator Joel has been doing that from the beginning of the game. Tom can place "Jean Kirkpatrick" at the top of his proposal. Tom can stipulate that its name is "Jean Kirkpatrick" within the text of the rule. Administrator Joel will still label the rule appropriately on the website. These labels aren't official. Anything in Tom's proposal is official. Administrator Joel's labels don't actually exist as part of the Berserker Nomic rule set. He puts them on the page to make it more useful. If Tom suggested an appropriate label for his proposal, it would be on the website. If through his rule, Tom names his rule in a way that does not make it easier to browse the rules, Administrator Joel will place a meaningful label on the page. I hope I've made myself clear. The only benefit of passing Proposal 320 will be to increase Josh's score. By the way, I would like to sponsor God as a new player. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:34:57 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: God I feel that it is only fair to inform my fellow Berserkers that they must now pass the voting by proxy rule. I, as God's prophet, will need to do His voting and proposing for Him, as his LAN has had some problems with evil spirits of late and His email account is down. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:35:19 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Vote I vote no for letting God into the game. He'd probably want to take advantage of being a trinity or something underhanded like that. I don't need that kind of attitude in the game. I everyone else votes no also. Can't you all see him becoming power-hungry like that? Who wants to play with a poor sport, especially is He is the three in one? Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:39:20 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: What's up here? In regards to this weirdness: > >By the way, I would like to sponsor God as a new player. In normal circumstances, I would just dismiss this as a joke. But this is Nomic we're dealing with here, and what is technically proper but realistically silly must still be taken seriously. But is this technically a legal move? Or is sponsoring of God clearly prohibited by some rule? If not, I will call for judgment on the subject of whether or not entities with unproven existence may be admitted as players. (And if this is judged true, I will sponsor the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy as new players.) -sigh- This wacky game... Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:45:20 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: Reply to Nick >Also, I would like to say that none of the bitterness in all of that is >directed at Nick. I'm just working on my pissed-off sound in written >compositions. :) I still love everyone in the game, except for Nate >Ellefson. I retain a loathing hatred for that man. Muhehehahahaha. Well I feel nothing but love for Damon. Ever second we are apart is an eternity. I dream at night of nothing but Damon and his gorgeous ass. Seperately. I yearn for him tragically. A.T. Tappman, Chaplin, 27th Air Force ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:23:56 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Reply to Damon, New Player Nicholas C Osborn wrote: > >By the way, I would like to sponsor God as a new player. > Just in case: No. :) ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:48:40 CDT From: Andrew D Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: nomic: God I don't think we should should let God play in our game. People would probably try to kiss His ass by voting for His proposals. We don't need that sort of thing going on in this nomic. Besides, can we prove that God exists? And even if we can, would God be human, as the rules state all players must be? And would he be willing to tell His real human surname, for identity purposes in this nomic? Ed ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 23:03:55 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: nomic: God At 10:48 PM 9/28/98 -0500, you wrote: >I don't think we should should let God play in our game. People would >probably try to kiss His ass by voting for His proposals. We don't need >that sort of thing going on in this nomic. Besides, can we prove that >God exists? And even if we can, would God be human, as the rules state >all players must be? Well, since He is anything he wants to be, then, if He wants to join our Nomic game, then it's a pretty good assumption that he will seek to follow the rules. Therefore, I think we can assume that when God is playing Nomic he has probably made himself human. Oh, and there's already so much kissing to the Divine Ass through the billions of Christians in the world, I don't think He would mind so much if the 15 of us didn't kiss his ass all the time. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 23:12:23 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 30 Statement: God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one. I exclude Nick Osborn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 23:35:59 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 30 analysis Comments on RFJ 30: Rule 002 places several restrictions on what a Player can be: 1. Must be one and only one being. 2. Must be real. 3. Must be human. 4. Must consent. 5. Must have a surname. We must be able to verify all of these, and I posit that none of them can be known with any reasonable degree of certitude. 1. There has been considerable debate as to the nature of the Christian God. Multiple heresies in the Church dealt with this, for instance, the Arians. Ultimately, they were all excommunicated and violence ensued. This type of heresy keeps coming back, and is still not settled. 2. What incontrovertable evidence do we have that God is real? If anyone has some, I'd like them to produce it now. 3. Again, see 1. The Arian Heresy addresses this as well. If Jesus of Nazareth was the only human part of God, and Jesus is dead, then God cannot be said to have any human component. 4. If you can talk to God to get His consent, I'd like to have a word with Him. 5. What is God's surname? God? Damn? So is he God God? Bob God (or Robert God, as Nate says)? The easiest way to resolve this would be to ask him. For that, see 4. Rule 309 mandates that to be admitted as Players, entities meet these requirements. God appears to meet none of them. Therefore, this statement shold be judged false. Additionally, I (nor Josh, if I'm not mistaken) would find it a problem to have a player in which I don't believe. As an Administrator, I'm not sure how I would handle that situation. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:51:24 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 30 analysis Joel wrote: >2. What incontrovertable evidence do we have that God is real? If anyone >has some, I'd like them to produce it now. What proof do I have that YOU exist! Doubt everything... including the totality of your doubt... rant, rant, etc... >5. What is God's surname? God? Damn? So is he God God? Bob God (or Robert >God, as Nate says)? The easiest way to resolve this would be to ask him. Also, does this mean that Cher, presuming she wanted to play couldn't? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:46:36 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Nomic: Proposals Hi everybody! Well since we have so much happening, tons o' proposals and a call for judgment on weather God can be a player in our game I'll try to keep this short. Proposals have bee talking of player attributes, but there is no formal definition of player attributes so I propose -------------------------------------- PROPOSAL Create an appropiately numbered rule which states. Rule 3XX Player Attribute Rule The set of player attributes is defined as {score}, anything not listed in this rule as a player attribute is not a player attribute. If proposal 317 passes this would read as ....{score, wins}... Ammend Rule 310 to read Players' attributes may not be altered except in accordance with the rules. This rule takes precedence over all other rules dealing with attributes, or the permissibility of actions. ---------------------------------------- And now with our new definition of player attributes I propose ________________________________________________ PROPOSAL + 1 Amend Rule 3XX Player Attribute Rule to read The set of player attributes is defined as {score, money}#if317{score, wins, money}#endif, anything not listed in this rule as a player attribute is not a player attribute. Create rule 3XX+1 The Money Rule 1)The units associated with the money player attribute is the gold doubloon. Therefore a rule which refers to the mechanics of points, the unit associated with score, does not relate to money. 2)The money attribute of all current players at the time of passage of this rule shall be set equal to 1000 gold doubloons. 3)One must always have a positive integer value of money. 4)A positive integer amount of money can be transfered between players by both parties notifying Joel. ----------------------------------------------- I have some ideas on what to do with money in our game, but I wanted to get opinions before I spent hours typing them up. Well I'm new to this game, so be gentle when you critique my proposals. -Dak Your mail reader does not support this tag. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:17:07 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop320 and Jean Kirkpatrick Nicholas C Osborn writes: >Thanks, Plagge, for the ammunition. > >Tom's recent update to Prop 318 clearly illustrates a great flaw of Prop >320. Some people may find a rule named Jean Kirkpatrick humorous; however, >that doesn't mean they will have any idea what it deals with. Perhaps not directly, but the fact that the name is humorous will lend to the proposal's content being remembered. >I think Joel would be willing to allow people to name their own proposals, Allow? Wrong word, buckeroo. The only way in which Joel is authorized to "allow" naming of rules is that his copy of the ruleset is merely a reasonable facsimile of the real, platonic ruleset, and as such he has the perogative to do anything he wants with his copy. Since, by convention, Joel is maintaining the ONLY non-platonic copy of the ruleset, though, I think it would be only proper of him to do whatever we tell him to do with the ruleset, should it not be in violation of the rules, etc. >given that they actually refered to the content of the rule. On the other >hand, if a rule's name has nothing to do with the rule, Joel is compelled >to title it himself. Complelled? >I think this is something we can handle on a gentlemanly basis, considering >rule names currently have no legal standing. A proposer should have the >ability to name his own proposal, but only if done so responsibly. I know Why "only"? >of no way to legislatively force people to behave responsibly. > >Josh, please withdraw your proposal. It would be more fitting to adjust >game custom. I do not believe it would, as the primary force which might stand in the way of game custom would be Joel, who is probably opposed to any rule name he personally doesn't agree with. Josh -- The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a convenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. - St. Augustine ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:11:33 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop. 320 and rule-naming Joel D Uckelman writes: >Josh writes, in regard to Proposal 320 and rule-naming: >>Let me know what you think. Ultimately this is meant to encourage >>meaningful naming of future rules, so that people are more likely >>to refer to rule names, so that people are less-often required to >>look up rule numbers. > >Josh claims that making rule names official will do the following: >1. Allow you to avoid having to look up rule numbers. >2. Make the rule names more meaningful. >3. Cause you to use them. > >Responses: >1. You can already refer to rules without having to look up rule numbers. >All of the rules have unofficial titles displayed with them -- it's just >that no one uses them. Maybe that's because they haven't yet reached the appropriate level of appeal. >2. How would "Proxocological Voting" be more meaningful than "Absentee and >Proxy Voting"? The latter tells me far more about the rule's content than >the prior. People will give their rules humorous rather than descriptive >names, which won't help us in the least if meaningful names is our goal. I find "Proxocological Voting" meaningful. What's not meaningful about it? In addition, it sticks in the head better than "Absentee and Proxy Voting." >3. People could use the names now, but they don't. Why would names having >nothing to do with the rules' content cause people to use them? Do you remember any of the line/space notes in the treble or bass cleff? How do you do it? I bet you do it with a little phrase, like "All Cows Eat Gas," in which the words' meanings have nothing to do with the notes proper. Names which are humorous other otherwise somehow memorable would entice people into remembering and using them simply because that's what names of that sort tend to do. >In any case, since the current names are unofficial, I could change them to >something more suitable, but no one has ever suggested anything to me on >the matter. So. If they're unofficial, and Haar wanted to rename his rule (the one he passed on his turn), would "Abstention is the Only Sure Method" be "more suitable"? If so why not? Even if you didn't think it was suitable, would you make the change if Haar requested it? What if something similar was simply included in the text of a proposal, as some sort of header? Would you vote down a proposal because it wasn't frowny enough? >Finally, I am of the opinion that rule names should be descriptive, if >nothing else but for ease of finding things in our ruleset. Define descriptive. Josh -- The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a convenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. - St. Augustine ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:28:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop320 and Jean Kirkpatrick Thomas J Plagge writes: >I agree wholeheartedly. While it would be nice to see the game become more >amusing with time, that shouldn't be through blatant silliness in our >ruleset. This >is not, after all, Ackanomic. No offense, Mueller. :) There is a marked difference between harmless lightheartedness and blatant silliness. Josh -- The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a convenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. - St. Augustine ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:27:59 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Reply to Nick Thomas J Plagge writes: >Damon babbled: >> ... >>Also, I would like to say that none of the bitterness in all of that is >>directed at Nick. I'm just working on my pissed-off sound in written >>compositions. :) I still love everyone in the game, except for Nate >>Ellefson. I retain a loathing hatred for that man. Muhehehahahaha. >> >>Damon > >Someone should make a proposal declaring Nate Ellefson the official >social leper of Berserker Nomic. Something just ain't right about >that boy. >Damon, you're getting more intimidating by the day. Keep up the good >work! You're still wrong, though. :) In my humble opinion, creativity >is better expended in the text of the rule itself than in its title. The >title's >just there for the convenience of all concerned, and refering to Title III >Section C of Fuck You is hardly convenient in my book. It's sort of like the sacrament. Repeat it to yourself a few hundred times and it will sink in. Josh -- The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:26:37 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Props 317, 321, and 325, All Time Berserker Standings Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I fully support what might be termed an "All Time Berserker Standings." >However, no proposal addresses that issue. We can deal with that next turn. > >I have a better idea: >------ >Proposal 325 inactive > >There exists All Time Berserker Standings. "exist" >------ > >Does that stake this out as my proposal? Can someone else make a similar >proposal? Judges may decide. > >In addition, if All Time Berserker Standings are to have any meaning, we >must have enough individual Berserker Nomic games that they can form a >representative sample of all Berserker Nomic games. This leads me to >believe that short games would be best. First-to-1000 would be a long game. >First-to-100-more-than-is-their-share would also be a long game. This does not follow. What "meaning" could possibly be obtained from an all-time standing? Let us say, for example, that we compute standings as follows: once some player's score reaches a certain predetermined "winning" amount, "all time standings" points are distributed as follows: each player receives [score] / [winning score] "ats" points. Suppose we play 5 games. The scores might look like Winken 3.5 Blinken 2.9 Nod 1.3 now if the winning score stays constant across those 5 games, then we certainly know the following: the total number of points scored, across the games how players have done in relation to each other both of which seem to be meaningful statistics. Furthermore, if we (barely) complicate things some and keep track of partial wins (which are not "real" wins) separately, it would be easier to see the difference between players who won a few games, scored nil in others, and those who did MOR in many. Etc., etc., etc. Josh -- "All synthesizers are programmed white." - Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:35:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: nomic: God Nathan D Ellefson writes: >At 10:48 PM 9/28/98 -0500, you wrote: >>I don't think we should should let God play in our game. People would >>probably try to kiss His ass by voting for His proposals. We don't need >>that sort of thing going on in this nomic. Besides, can we prove that >>God exists? And even if we can, would God be human, as the rules state >>all players must be? > >Well, since He is anything he wants to be, then, if He wants to join our BZZZT. God, if he exists, is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. "All powerful" extends only so far as those acts which God could perform without engaging in some form of contradiction. If God could be anything he wanted to be, and became a human, literally (since our rules ask nothing more, nothing less), he would then NOT be all powerful, as clearly humans aren't. Then how would he become all powerful again? Contradiction. Doesn't work for you? Then I invite you to regale us with your personal conception of the divine. >Nomic game, then it's a pretty good assumption that he will seek to follow >the rules. Therefore, I think we can assume that when God is playing Nomic >he has probably made himself human. > >Oh, and there's already so much kissing to the Divine Ass through the >billions of Christians in the world, I don't think He would mind so much if >the 15 of us didn't kiss his ass all the time. Josh -- "Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." - Lautreamont ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:32:15 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Reply to Damon, New Player Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I still love you, too, Damon. > >Under the current rules, there is nothing preventing a player from stating >the name of the rule within the proposal. Anyone could start off their >proposal with a short descriptive phrase. Such a convention could be useful >for locating rules. So useful, in fact, that Administrator Joel has been >doing that from the beginning of the game. So useful? Then why is no one using them? Perhaps because they're somehow aversive, or otherwise do not lend themselves to usage? >Tom can place "Jean Kirkpatrick" at the top of his proposal. Tom can >stipulate that its name is "Jean Kirkpatrick" within the text of the rule. >Administrator Joel will still label the rule appropriately on the website. >These labels aren't official. Anything in Tom's proposal is official. > >Administrator Joel's labels don't actually exist as part of the Berserker >Nomic rule set. He puts them on the page to make it more useful. If Tom >suggested an appropriate label for his proposal, it would be on the If it's Tom's rule, shouldn't Tom be the arbiter of what's appropriate? Either Tom or the game. Not Joel. >website. If through his rule, Tom names his rule in a way that does not >make it easier to browse the rules, Administrator Joel will place a >meaningful label on the page. > >I hope I've made myself clear. The only benefit of passing Proposal 320 >will be to increase Josh's score. No, the major benefits of passing 320 will be: 1) Fostering a new atmosphere of FUN, in the naming of new proposals 2) Forcing Joel to play along with said FUN. Josh -- I am the author of all tucks & damask piping I am the Chrome Dinette I am the Chrome Dinette I am the eggs of all persuasion ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:38:54 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 30 analysis Joel D Uckelman writes: >Comments on RFJ 30: > >Rule 002 places several restrictions on what a Player can be: > >1. Must be one and only one being. >2. Must be real. >3. Must be human. >4. Must consent. >5. Must have a surname. > >We must be able to verify all of these, and I posit that none of them can >be known with any reasonable degree of certitude. > >1. There has been considerable debate as to the nature of the Christian >God. Multiple heresies in the Church dealt with this, for instance, the >Arians. Ultimately, they were all excommunicated and violence ensued. This >type of heresy keeps coming back, and is still not settled. > >2. What incontrovertable evidence do we have that God is real? If anyone >has some, I'd like them to produce it now. > >3. Again, see 1. The Arian Heresy addresses this as well. If Jesus of >Nazareth was the only human part of God, and Jesus is dead, then God cannot >be said to have any human component. > >4. If you can talk to God to get His consent, I'd like to have a word with >Him. > >5. What is God's surname? God? Damn? So is he God God? Bob God (or Robert >God, as Nate says)? The easiest way to resolve this would be to ask him. >For that, see 4. I posit either Christ or Ghost, since he's supposed to be a trinity and stuff, at least in some forms of Christianity. Oops, but that seems to violate (1). Darn... >Rule 309 mandates that to be admitted as Players, entities meet these >requirements. God appears to meet none of them. Therefore, this statement >shold be judged false. > >Additionally, I (nor Josh, if I'm not mistaken) would find it a problem to >have a player in which I don't believe. As an Administrator, I'm not sure >how I would handle that situation. If we're stuck there, I give to you the same advice I gave earlier: Just repeat "God is a player" to yourself 100 times, and then do 5 Hail Marys. Josh (Reverend in the Universal Life Church) -- Absence of proof is not proof of absence. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:41:47 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 30 analysis Mueller writes: >Joel wrote: >>2. What incontrovertable evidence do we have that God is real? If anyone >>has some, I'd like them to produce it now. > >What proof do I have that YOU exist! Doubt everything... including the >totality of your doubt... rant, rant, etc... Unless you are extremely devout (in which case I personally find you to be in error), or extremely messed up on psychoactive chemicals, I expect that you, like most people, find it FAR more likely that other people exist, than does God. If your worries are about Joel possibly simply being some computer program which passes the Turing test, etc., then he would still seem to be real, just not the sort of real you were expecting. >>5. What is God's surname? God? Damn? So is he God God? Bob God (or Robert >>God, as Nate says)? The easiest way to resolve this would be to ask him. > >Also, does this mean that Cher, presuming she wanted to play couldn't? Cher posesses a real name. She just often chooses to go without it. Josh -- Abstractness, sometimes hurled as a reproach at mathematics, is its chief glory and its surest title to practical usefulness. It is also the source of such beauty as may spring from mathematics - E.T. Bell ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:42:38 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals Dakota R Bailey writes: >Hi everybody! >Well since we have so much happening, tons o' proposals and a call for >judgment on weather God can be a player in our game I'll try to keep >this short. >Proposals have bee talking of player attributes, but there is no formal >definition of player attributes so I propose > >-------------------------------------- >PROPOSAL > >Create an appropiately numbered rule which states. > >Rule 3XX Player Attribute Rule >The set of player attributes is defined as {score}, anything not listed in >this rule as a player attribute is not a player attribute. > >If proposal 317 passes this would read as >....{score, wins}... > >Ammend Rule 310 to read > >Players' attributes may not be altered except in accordance with the rules. >This rule takes precedence over all other rules dealing with attributes, or >the permissibility of actions. >---------------------------------------- > > >And now with our new definition of player attributes I propose > > >________________________________________________ >PROPOSAL + 1 > >Amend Rule 3XX Player Attribute Rule to read >The set of player attributes is defined as {score, money}#if317{score, wins, >money}#endif, anything not listed in this rule as a player attribute is not >a player attribute. > >Create rule 3XX+1 The Money Rule > >1)The units associated with the money player attribute is the gold doubloon. > Therefore a rule which refers to the mechanics of points, the unit > associated with score, does not relate to money. >2)The money attribute of all current players at the time of passage of this > rule shall be set equal to 1000 gold doubloons. >3)One must always have a positive integer value of money. >4)A positive integer amount of money can be transfered between players by > both parties notifying Joel. Why not just feed off the point trading rule here? >----------------------------------------------- > >I have some ideas on what to do with money in our game, but I wanted to >get opinions before I spent hours typing them up. Well I'm new to this >game, so be gentle when you critique my proposals. > >-Dak > >Your mail reader does not support this tag. -- Hofstadter`s Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter`s Law. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:42:39 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Reply to Damon, New Player Josh wrote: >No, the major benefits of passing 320 will be: > >1) Fostering a new atmosphere of FUN, in the naming of new proposals >2) Forcing Joel to play along with said FUN. > >Josh > I cannot be forced to have FUN. I'll still use the rule numbers... :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:16:44 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: revised 323 The section on voting by proxy is open to abuse.I have revised the notification standards. Proposal 323 Absentee voting and voting by proxy A Player may submit a ballot in advance of the voting period in absentee. The Player must take reasonable measures to notify the rest of the Players that The Player is voting in absentee. The Player shall submit a current ballot to the auditor, which will be considered to be submitted during the voting period. On each proposal under consideration, the Player may explicitly state whether the Player's vote shall remain the same or change to the opposite opinion if the proposal is changed after submission of the ballot. If this is not explicitly stated under the circumstances of a changed proposal, it shall by default be changed to an abstention. A Player may submit a ballot by proxy. The Player must appoint a proxy and notify the rest of the Players of said proxy through the Players own e-mail account. Ballots submitted by proxy are considered votes cast during the voting period. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:12:31 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: RFJ 30, further analysis >Comments on RFJ 30: > >Rule 002 places several restrictions on what a Player can be: > >1. Must be one and only one being. >2. Must be real. >3. Must be human. >4. Must consent. >5. Must have a surname. > >We must be able to verify all of these, and I posit that none of them can >be known with any reasonable degree of certitude. On the contrary, doesn't the burden of proof lie upon those who would claim these statements false? I posit that none of the enumerated statements, no the statement of judgement, can be proven false. > >1. There has been considerable debate as to the nature of the Christian >God. Multiple heresies in the Church dealt with this, for instance, the >Arians. Ultimately, they were all excommunicated and violence ensued. This >type of heresy keeps coming back, and is still not settled. 1. "The only true God is the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three distinct Persons in one divine Being, or Essence." See also: Deut. 6:4 and 1 Cor. 8:4. > >2. What incontrovertable evidence do we have that God is real? If anyone >has some, I'd like them to produce it now. 2. There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence. Belief in God is as reasonable as belief in the reliablity of one's senses or reason. Senses are mistaken. Reason is faulty. If this is a philosopjical question, such diverse philosophers as Descartes, Anselm, and Kierkegaard have all published sound arguments in support of the authenticity of God. > >3. Again, see 1. The Arian Heresy addresses this as well. If Jesus of >Nazareth was the only human part of God, and Jesus is dead, then God cannot >be said to have any human component. 3. "Jesus Christ is true God, begotten of of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary." "I believe that Jesus Christ is also true man because the Scriptures expressly call Him man=8A" See also: 1 Tim. 2:5. > >4. If you can talk to God to get His consent, I'd like to have a word with >Him. 4. God is both omniscient (John 21:17) and omnipotent (Gen. 17:1, Luke 1:37, and Matt. 19:26). As an omniscient being, he knows he has been sponsored in the game. As an omnipotent being, he is in no way restricted from informing us that he does not want to play. Because he has not informed us that he doesn't wish to play through official channels, we must assume tacit consent, per game custom. God wants to be deeply involved with every part of every person's life (Psalms 139 13-16). Berserker Nomic is part of every player's life. ---- God wants to be deeply involved with Berserker Nomic. > >5. What is God's surname? God? Damn? So is he God God? Bob God (or Robert >God, as Nate says)? The easiest way to resolve this would be to ask him. >For that, see 4. 5. "Christ" is the eptithet added to Jesus's name, the very definition of "surname." > >Rule 309 mandates that to be admitted as Players, entities meet these >requirements. God appears to meet none of them. Therefore, this statement >shold be judged false. Again, the judgement statement cannot be proven false. It is simply not possible. In fact, there is quite a bit of agreement among the sector of the populaiton most familiar with Holy Scripture that all these statements are true.=20 > >Additionally, I (nor Josh, if I'm not mistaken) would find it a problem to >have a player in which I don't believe. As an Administrator, I'm not sure >how I would handle that situation. There is nothing in the rules that states all Players must believe all other Players exist.=20 > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu I vote in favor of allowing God to enter the game. n quotations, unless otherwise noted, from Luther's Small Catechism. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:06:00 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: As long as we're quoting Biblical passages - All found in Song of Solomon, and often understood as statements of love between God and God's people: 4:5 Your two breasts are like two fawns 7:3 Your two breasts are like two fawns 7:7 You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. 7:8 Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine 8:8 We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. 8:10 I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers Just thought I'd share some word of God. :) Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:11:25 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Nick's "proof" I'm not going into detail, because I know someone else will, but there was a lot of faulty logic in that, Nick. And since when does the burden of proof lie on the person who says something doesn't exist? This sounds wrong to me. Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:35:14 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Reply to Damon, New Player Joel D Uckelman writes: >Josh wrote: >>No, the major benefits of passing 320 will be: >> >>1) Fostering a new atmosphere of FUN, in the naming of new proposals >>2) Forcing Joel to play along with said FUN. >> >>Josh >> > >I cannot be forced to have FUN. I'll still use the rule numbers... :) That statement alone should be enough incitement for most people to vote YES on my proposal. Josh -- USER: the word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot" ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:34:33 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: As long as we're quoting Biblical passages - "Abyss of ..." writes: > >All found in Song of Solomon, and often understood as statements of love >between God and God's people: > >4:5 Your two breasts are like two fawns >7:3 Your two breasts are like two fawns >7:7 You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. >7:8 Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine >8:8 We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. >8:10 I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers > >Just thought I'd share some word of God. :) Quote me something about trumpets of blood! Whores! Pi = 3! Josh -- If you ask mathematicians what they do, you always get the same answer. They think. They think about difficult and unusual problems. They do not think about ordinary problems: they just write down the answers. - M. Egrafov ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:33:50 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 30, further analysis Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>Comments on RFJ 30: > >> > >>Rule 002 places several restrictions on what a Player can be: > >> > >>1. Must be one and only one being. > >>2. Must be real. > >>3. Must be human. > >>4. Must consent. > >>5. Must have a surname. > >> > >>We must be able to verify all of these, and I posit that none of them >can > >>be known with any reasonable degree of certitude. > > >On the contrary, doesn't the burden of proof lie upon those who would >claim these statements false? I posit that none of the enumerated >statements, no the statement of judgement, can be proven false. Perhaps in cases where it is otherwise obvious that the criteria hold. Here it is not, so _someone_ must prove _something_. As we have no rules governing burden of broof, I say we stick you with it since this was your wacky idea. >>1. There has been considerable debate as to the nature of the >Christian > >>God. Multiple heresies in the Church dealt with this, for instance, >the > >>Arians. Ultimately, they were all excommunicated and violence ensued. >This > >>type of heresy keeps coming back, and is still not settled. > > >1. "The only true God is the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, >three distinct Persons in one divine Being, or Essence." See also: >Deut. 6:4 and 1 Cor. 8:4. Hmmmm. For the purposes of this discussion, we can't consider the bible an appropriate source. It's far beyond a primary source, due to countless rewritings, revisions, retellings, etc. etc. etc. Besides, if it really is the Word of God, why should we believe God's word here, when it would clearly be to his and your advantage? _I_ could write a book claiming that I was the winner of this nomic, but that wouldn't lead you the believe that I was the winner of this nomic. Not even if my books was really old and confusing and written in funny languages. >>2. What incontrovertable evidence do we have that God is real? If >anyone > >>has some, I'd like them to produce it now. > > >2. There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence. Belief in God >is as reasonable as belief in the reliablity of one's senses or reason. >Senses are mistaken. Reason is faulty. If this is a philosopjical >question, such diverse philosophers as Descartes, Anselm, and Bzzzt. Descartes and Anselm's arguments are clearly bogus. You could even ask any frat boy who's taken good old Phil. 201. >Kierkegaard have all published sound arguments in support of the As for Kierkegaard, his argument was essentially "We can't believe in God using reason, so to believe in god, you have to make an _irrational_ leap of faith" (emphasis mine), right? Well then. Sounds like a great argument to apply here, eh? >authenticity of God. > >> > >>3. Again, see 1. The Arian Heresy addresses this as well. If Jesus of > >>Nazareth was the only human part of God, and Jesus is dead, then God >cannot > >>be said to have any human component. > > >3. "Jesus Christ is true God, begotten of of the Father from eternity, >and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary." "I believe that Jesus >Christ is also true man because the Scriptures expressly call Him man=8A" >See also: 1 Tim. 2:5. See above re bogus bible quotes. >>4. If you can talk to God to get His consent, I'd like to have a word >with > >>Him. > > >4. God is both omniscient (John 21:17) and omnipotent (Gen. 17:1, Luke >1:37, and Matt. 19:26). As an omniscient being, he knows he has been >sponsored in the game. As an omnipotent being, he is in no way >restricted from informing us that he does not want to play. Because he >has not informed us that he doesn't wish to play through official >channels, we must assume tacit consent, per game custom. Will God, if he exists and is added to our game, be exercising his omniscience, or will we have free will? I refuse to add such a player to the game until we resolve this question, for otherwise all our play may be worthless, when God foresees the entire outcome and manipulates it to his advantage. In a good way, of course. >God wants to be deeply involved with every part of every person's life >(Psalms 139 13-16). > >Berserker Nomic is part of every player's life. > >---- > >God wants to be deeply involved with Berserker Nomic. Define "deeply". >>5. What is God's surname? God? Damn? So is he God God? Bob God (or >Robert > >>God, as Nate says)? The easiest way to resolve this would be to ask >him. > >>For that, see 4. > > >5. "Christ" is the eptithet added to Jesus's name, the very definition >of "surname." > >> > >>Rule 309 mandates that to be admitted as Players, entities meet these > >>requirements. God appears to meet none of them. Therefore, this >statement > >>shold be judged false. > > >Again, the judgement statement cannot be proven false. It is simply not >possible. In fact, there is quite a bit of agreement among the sector >of the populaiton most familiar with Holy Scripture that all these >statements are true.=20 Let me introduce you to a notation our philosophy professor often had cause to use when grading recent papers: QB (question-begging) Why should we believe your argument simply because it's backed up by "bible experts", if to believe them we need to believe in your conclusion, that God exists? Josh -- If it sounds GOOD to YOU, it's bitchen; and if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:52:04 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: As long as we're quoting Biblical passages - At 11:34 AM 9/29/98 -0500, Josh wrote: >Quote me something about trumpets of blood! Whores! Pi = 3! "...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:03:21 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: As long as we're quoting Biblical passages - At 11:06 AM 9/29/98 -0500, you wrote: > >All found in Song of Solomon, and often understood as statements of love >between God and God's people: > >4:5 Your two breasts are like two fawns >7:3 Your two breasts are like two fawns >7:7 You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. >7:8 Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine >8:8 We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. >8:10 I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers > >Just thought I'd share some word of God. :) I'd say this is irrefutable evidence that even God supports the BLO. Remember, together we can BLO America. Nathan Ellefson, President, Boob Liberation Organization ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:37:01 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposals 328 At 12:46 AM 9/29/98 -0500, Dakota wrote: >PROPOSAL + 1 It's 328. >Amend Rule 3XX Player Attribute Rule to read >The set of player attributes is defined as {score, money}#if317{score, wins, >money}#endif, anything not listed in this rule as a player attribute is not >a player attribute. I'm betting that not everyone understands the preprocessor directives (#if and #endif) you include in your proposal. I can act as C compiler if you want me to, but it still bears some explanation. >Create rule 3XX+1 The Money Rule Don't do this -- you may be accidentally overwriting a rule with a number already in use (and possibly violating Rule 108). Specify what number you want it to be, and make sure that number isn't already in use. I suggest 227, as it is the least number >200 that hasn't been used for anyting. >1)The units associated with the money player attribute is the gold doubloon. > Therefore a rule which refers to the mechanics of points, the unit > associated with score, does not relate to money. Unit, I think you mean. >2)The money attribute of all current players at the time of passage of this > rule shall be set equal to 1000 gold doubloons. >3)One must always have a positive integer value of money. Positive? Does this prohibit me from spending my last doubloon? Do you mean non-negative here? >4)A positive integer amount of money can be transfered between players by > both parties notifying Joel. >----------------------------------------------- You should probably use "Joel Uckelman" instead, as my first name doesn't _officially_ refer to anyone in the game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:44:00 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 30 judge selection I just realized that I had forgotten to post the judge selection last night: Dakota Bailey has been selected to Judge the statement: God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:17:28 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 325 At 06:47 PM 9/28/98 -0500, Damon wrote: >The duties of the Berserker Nomic Administrator are vote collection, >dispatching official Berserker Nomic notices, updating the Berserker Nomic >web page, and all other miscellaneous administrative duties. Other major duties you may want to include would be Judge selection and vote counting. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:15:00 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: State of the Game Summary The following, to the best of my knowledge, was true upon the sending of this message: I. Proposals A. Active: 317 Restart after Wins Uckelman 318 GWIB Protocol Plagge 319 Limbo Plagge 320 Rule Names Kortbein 321 1000-Point Wins Luloff 323 Abs. & Proxy Voting Osborn 324 PoliGo GWIB Definition Mueller 326 Administrator Luloff 327 Player Attributes Bailey 328 Money Bailey B. Inactive: 325 All-Time Standings Osborn II. Voting Voting on active proposals will begin in approximately 5 days. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:20:13 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 30 judge selection Joel D Uckelman writes: >I just realized that I had forgotten to post the judge selection last night: > >Dakota Bailey has been selected to Judge the statement: > >God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one. Somebody let me know when we have a significant enough sample size to be justified in thinking that the random judge selection is bogus. Not meant to be a slur on Dakota, of course. Josh -- "Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:01:13 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection results At 03:20 PM 9/29/98 -0500, Josh wrote: >Somebody let me know when we have a significant enough sample size to >be justified in thinking that the random judge selection is bogus. > >Not meant to be a slur on Dakota, of course. > >Josh I've used dice@pbm.com 27 times now for selecting judges. The results, listed in the form die sides: numbers returned 15: 13 14: 1, 13, 14 13: 1, 1, 4, 4, 13 12: 1, 1, 4, 8, 8, 9, 10 11: 1, 6, 11 10: 6, 6, 8, 10 9: 6, 8 8: 4, 8 Does this constitute a sufficient sample size? I've had it crank out 100 numbers at once before, and they seemed reasonably distributed, but it may be a different situation when only asking for one number. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:42:46 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: revised prop 326 The Berserker Nomic Administrator shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. The Administrator shall be identified by the word "Administrator" followed by his or her corresponding real human surname. The duties of the Berserker Nomic Administrator are vote collection, dispatching official Berserker Nomic notices, updating the Berserker Nomic web page, judge selecting, vote counting, and all other miscellaneous administrative duties. Due to these duties, the Berserker Nomic Administrator shall possess privelaged information. He or she may not share this information with any Player, direcly or indirectly, until the information becomes officially public. The first Berserker Administrator shall be Administrator Uckelman, represented by the person Joel Uckelman of Harwood 309 Lyon Hall in Ames, IA. (More widely known as the Pleasure Matrix.) The last two paragraphs of this proposal shall delete themselves (huh, huh - cool) upon the passage of this proposal. Damon __________ Put your hand in the oven There's a heaven inside And it burns straight through But the devil don't mind -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:50:50 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: RFJ 30, further analysis revisited I admit, I screwed up. I never should have written this while half asleep. It all came out half-assed. Please allow me to take this final look at it. Hopefully, I can do my subject a little respect. >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>Comments on RFJ 30: >> >>> >> >>>Rule 002 places several restrictions on what a Player can be: >> >>> >> >>>1. Must be one and only one being. >> >>>2. Must be real. >> >>>3. Must be human. >> >>>4. Must consent. >> >>>5. Must have a surname. >> >>> >> >>>We must be able to verify all of these, and I posit that none of them >>can >> >>>be known with any reasonable degree of certitude. >> >> >>On the contrary, doesn't the burden of proof lie upon those who would >>claim these statements false? I posit that none of the enumerated >>statements, no the statement of judgement, can be proven false. > >Perhaps in cases where it is otherwise obvious that the criteria >hold. Here it is not, so _someone_ must prove _something_. As we >have no rules governing burden of broof, I say we stick you with it >since this was your wacky idea. You're right, partially. The burden of proof lies upon both those claiming TRUE and FALSE. And what if it is impossible to determine the truth of the above statements? Then RFJ 30 must be dismissed, as it does not provide a statement that can be judged TRUE or FALSE. > >>>1. There has been considerable debate as to the nature of the >>Christian >> >>>God. Multiple heresies in the Church dealt with this, for instance, >>the >> >>>Arians. Ultimately, they were all excommunicated and violence ensued. >>This >> >>>type of heresy keeps coming back, and is still not settled. >> >> >>1. "The only true God is the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, >>three distinct Persons in one divine Being, or Essence." See also: >>Deut. 6:4 and 1 Cor. 8:4. > >Hmmmm. > >For the purposes of this discussion, we can't consider the bible an >appropriate source. It's far beyond a primary source, due to countless >rewritings, revisions, retellings, etc. etc. etc. Besides, if it >really is the Word of God, why should we believe God's word here, >when it would clearly be to his and your advantage? > >_I_ could write a book claiming that I was the winner of this nomic, >but that wouldn't lead you the believe that I was the winner of this >nomic. Not even if my books was really old and confusing and written >in funny languages. Why should we believe the word of God? We have believed the word of every other person who wanted to play. We believe the word of Josh when he speaks to his own advantage. We've always believed people who simply wanted to play. Unlike claims to actually winning the game, which are subject to intense scrutiny. Also, clarity and understandability are qualities of successful claims, not confusing nonsense. By the way, I have nothing to gain by God becoming a player. I do not claim to speak for him by proxy. I will not take advantage of the situation if he plays a non-active part in the game. > >>>2. What incontrovertable evidence do we have that God is real? If >>anyone >> >>>has some, I'd like them to produce it now. >> >> >>2. There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence. Belief in God >>is as reasonable as belief in the reliablity of one's senses or reason. >>Senses are mistaken. Reason is faulty. If this is a philosopjical >>question, such diverse philosophers as Descartes, Anselm, and > >Bzzzt. > >Descartes and Anselm's arguments are clearly bogus. You could >even ask any frat boy who's taken good old Phil. 201. An rgument isn't necisarily unsound because it appears ridiculus to a fallible human. > >>Kierkegaard have all published sound arguments in support of the > >As for Kierkegaard, his argument was essentially "We can't believe in >God using reason, so to believe in god, you have to make an _irrational_ >leap of faith" (emphasis mine), right? > >Well then. Sounds like a great argument to apply here, eh? Do not make reason into a god. At the most basic level, everything is believed through an irrational leap of faith. It is a greater leap of faith to believe in one's own reason than to believe in God. > >>authenticity of God. >> >>> >> >>>3. Again, see 1. The Arian Heresy addresses this as well. If Jesus of >> >>>Nazareth was the only human part of God, and Jesus is dead, then God >>cannot >> >>>be said to have any human component. >> >> >>3. "Jesus Christ is true God, begotten of of the Father from eternity, >>and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary." "I believe that Jesus >>Christ is also true man because the Scriptures expressly call Him man=8A" >>See also: 1 Tim. 2:5. > >See above re bogus bible quotes. See above re bogus josh quotes. > >>>4. If you can talk to God to get His consent, I'd like to have a word >>with >> >>>Him. >> >> >>4. God is both omniscient (John 21:17) and omnipotent (Gen. 17:1, Luke >>1:37, and Matt. 19:26). As an omniscient being, he knows he has been >>sponsored in the game. As an omnipotent being, he is in no way >>restricted from informing us that he does not want to play. Because he >>has not informed us that he doesn't wish to play through official >>channels, we must assume tacit consent, per game custom. I believe this should be the legalistic interpretation; however it's awfully arrogant to imagine that we can pick up on everything from God. Still, it's the rules that matter > >Will God, if he exists and is added to our game, be exercising >his omniscience, or will we have free will? I refuse to add such >a player to the game until we resolve this question, for otherwise >all our play may be worthless, when God foresees the entire outcome >and manipulates it to his advantage. In a good way, of course. Yes, God is always omniscient. If he is not always omniscient, he is not God. You will enjoy just as much free will as you always have. It is doubtful that God would manipulate the game simply to win. I believe he would prefer the technical aspects of play and not care much for the point totals. > >>God wants to be deeply involved with every part of every person's life >>(Psalms 139 13-16). >> >>Berserker Nomic is part of every player's life. >> >>---- >> >>God wants to be deeply involved with Berserker Nomic. > >Define "deeply". Try replacing "deeply" with "integrally". > >>>5. What is God's surname? God? Damn? So is he God God? Bob God (or >>Robert >> >>>God, as Nate says)? The easiest way to resolve this would be to ask >>him. >> >>>For that, see 4. >> >> >>5. "Christ" is the eptithet added to Jesus's name, the very definition >>of "surname." >> >>> >> >>>Rule 309 mandates that to be admitted as Players, entities meet these >> >>>requirements. God appears to meet none of them. Therefore, this >>statement >> >>>shold be judged false. >> >> >>Again, the judgement statement cannot be proven false. It is simply not >>possible. In fact, there is quite a bit of agreement among the sector >>of the populaiton most familiar with Holy Scripture that all these >>statements are true.=20 > >Let me introduce you to a notation our philosophy professor often >had cause to use when grading recent papers: > >QB > > >(question-begging) > >Why should we believe your argument simply because it's backed >up by "bible experts", if to believe them we need to believe in your >conclusion, that God exists? Fine. If you wish, you may dismiss the work of some of the most intellectually gifted people to ever walk the earth. Tell me, Josh, every time you multiply, do you reinvent the multiplication tables? How can you simply ignore people because you don't agree with their conclusions? One last time, I maintain that none of the above statements in question are false. Here I stand. n ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:37:18 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: The Word of God As I promised to some of the Harwoodian Nomic-ers, I spoke to God last night. He told me to convey to you the following message: ----- Hi there! I am the Lord thy God. I recently became interested in Berserker Nomic when I came across your web page, and I convinced My servant Nick to add Me to the game. I'm afraid, though, that Nick is a fallible human being, and garbled my request a little bit. It was actually my Son Jesus Christ whom I wish to play through. As you may know, He is human in form, and as He is both God and Man, and thus both immortal and mortal, He can be considered living for your purposes. Christ will serve just fine as a surname. I'm really sorry about the confusion with my email account; We've had a lot of problems lately with the server, and it seems to be down for a while. Our technicians are blaming evil spirits, although I think most of them secretly suspect an IRQ conflict. May the peace of God be with you all! Your Lord, God ----- I think that should clear things up a bit. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:35:40 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 30, further analysis revisited At 04:50 PM 9/29/98 -0500, you wrote: >I admit, I screwed up. I never should have written this while half asleep. >It all came out half-assed. Please allow me to take this final look at it. >Hopefully, I can do my subject a little respect. > >>Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>>Comments on RFJ 30: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>Rule 002 places several restrictions on what a Player can be: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>1. Must be one and only one being. >>> >>>>2. Must be real. >>> >>>>3. Must be human. >>> >>>>4. Must consent. >>> >>>>5. Must have a surname. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>We must be able to verify all of these, and I posit that none of them >>>can >>> >>>>be known with any reasonable degree of certitude. >>> >>> >>>On the contrary, doesn't the burden of proof lie upon those who would >>>claim these statements false? I posit that none of the enumerated >>>statements, no the statement of judgement, can be proven false. >> >>Perhaps in cases where it is otherwise obvious that the criteria >>hold. Here it is not, so _someone_ must prove _something_. As we >>have no rules governing burden of broof, I say we stick you with it >>since this was your wacky idea. > >You're right, partially. The burden of proof lies upon both those claiming >TRUE and FALSE. And what if it is impossible to determine the truth of the >above statements? Then RFJ 30 must be dismissed, as it does not provide a >statement that can be judged TRUE or FALSE. This is misstating the argument. The _statement_ should be false because it _cannot be shown to be true_ that God meets the requirements to be a player. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:29:36 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Blasphemer Barbecue Anyone up for burning Tom at the stake for blasphemy? It's nothing personal against Tom, nor am I even really offended by sacrilege. I'm just up for a good human inferno. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" >As I promised to some of the Harwoodian Nomic-ers, I spoke to God last >night. He told me to convey to you the following message: >----- >Hi there! I am the Lord thy God. I recently became interested in >Berserker Nomic when I came across your web page, and I convinced My >servant Nick to add Me to the game. I'm afraid, though, that Nick is a >fallible human being, and garbled my request a little bit. It was actually >my Son Jesus Christ whom I wish to play through. As you may know, He is >human in form, and as He is both God and Man, and thus both immortal and >mortal, He can be considered living for your purposes. Christ will serve >just fine as a surname. I'm really sorry about the confusion with my email >account; We've had a lot of problems lately with the server, and it seems >to be down for a while. Our technicians are blaming evil spirits, although >I think most of them secretly suspect an IRQ conflict. May the peace of >God be with you all! >Your Lord, > >God >----- >I think that should clear things up a bit. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:57:27 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Blasphemer Barbecue Matt wrote: >Anyone up for burning Tom at the stake for blasphemy? It's nothing personal >against Tom, nor am I even really offended by sacrilege. I'm just up for a >good human inferno. I put forward the following proposal: It is possible for players may be burnt at the stake. For a player, hereafter the Provocateur, to be burned at the stake someone, called the Inciter, must make a public statement including nothing more than "I can't believe what X did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, X should be punished by The Mob." where X refers unambiguously to one player. For the next 72 hours, players may make statements to the effect that they join The Mob. At the end of this time, if three or more players, excluding the Provocateur and the Inciter, joined the mob then, 24 hours later, the Inciter is burned at the stake. During this 24 hour period, a player who has not participated in the above process, referred to as The Crowd Shamer, may make a public statement of more than 20 lines outlining exactly why each member of The Mob should be ashamed of themselves and how "What would your Mama think?" if she saw this. It is considered good form for The Crowd Shamer to be inventive. If no Crowd Shamer rose up to protect the Provocateur, the Provocateur is burned at the stake at the appointed hour. This causes them to lose all their points. If a Crowd Shamer defended the Provocateur, then the Provocateur is not burned at the stake. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 22:47:35 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: Blasphemer Barbecue This kicks ass. I commend Mr. Mueller on taking my amusing little aside and creating a fun new tradition. I call dibs on lighting up the first human presto log. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:18:32 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: State of the Game Summary Joel D Uckelman writes: >The following, to the best of my knowledge, was true upon the sending of >this message: > >I. Proposals >A. Active: > >317 Restart after Wins Uckelman i.e. "The History Eraser Button" >318 GWIB Protocol Plagge >319 Limbo Plagge >320 Rule Names Kortbein >321 1000-Point Wins Luloff >323 Abs. & Proxy Voting Osborn i.e. "Proxocological Voting" >324 PoliGo GWIB Definition Mueller >326 Administrator Luloff >327 Player Attributes Bailey >328 Money Bailey > >B. Inactive: > >325 All-Time Standings Osborn > >II. Voting > >Voting on active proposals will begin in approximately 5 days. > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu -- I am the author of all tucks & damask piping I am the Chrome Dinette I am the Chrome Dinette I am the eggs of all persuasion ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:48:27 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Blasphemer Barbecue Mueller writes: >Matt wrote: >>Anyone up for burning Tom at the stake for blasphemy? It's nothing personal >>against Tom, nor am I even really offended by sacrilege. I'm just up for a >>good human inferno. > >I put forward the following proposal: > >It is possible for players may be burnt at the stake. For a player, >hereafter the Provocateur, to be burned at the stake someone, called the >Inciter, must make a public statement including nothing more than "I can't >believe what X did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there >isn't one, X should be punished by The Mob." where X refers unambiguously >to one player. > >For the next 72 hours, players may make statements to the effect that they >join The Mob. At the end of this time, if three or more players, excluding >the Provocateur and the Inciter, joined the mob then, 24 hours later, the >Inciter is burned at the stake. During this 24 hour period, a player who >has not participated in the above process, referred to as The Crowd Shamer, >may make a public statement of more than 20 lines outlining exactly why >each member of The Mob should be ashamed of themselves and how "What would >your Mama think?" if she saw this. It is considered good form for The >Crowd Shamer to be inventive. > >If no Crowd Shamer rose up to protect the Provocateur, the Provocateur is >burned at the stake at the appointed hour. This causes them to lose all >their points. > >If a Crowd Shamer defended the Provocateur, then the Provocateur is not >burned at the stake. If anything, our nomic has been characterized by a strong caution against letting small-mob rule rule. Big mobs are OK though because they're generally masked by voting processes. As such, I find this to be a potentially highly destructive proposal, as it could be abused easily. Please consider and comment. Josh -- "Whereas the truth is that fullness of soul can sometimes overflow in utter vapidity of language, for none of us can ever express the exact measure of his needs or his thoughts or his sorrows; and human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars." - G. Flaubert ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:44:55 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 30, further analysis revisited Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>On the contrary, doesn't the burden of proof lie upon those who would >>>claim these statements false? I posit that none of the enumerated >>>statements, no the statement of judgement, can be proven false. >> >>Perhaps in cases where it is otherwise obvious that the criteria >>hold. Here it is not, so _someone_ must prove _something_. As we >>have no rules governing burden of broof, I say we stick you with it >>since this was your wacky idea. > >You're right, partially. The burden of proof lies upon both those claiming >TRUE and FALSE. And what if it is impossible to determine the truth of the >above statements? Then RFJ 30 must be dismissed, as it does not provide a >statement that can be judged TRUE or FALSE. But if that is the case, then I will simply make my own CFJ, which asks that the new player rule be interpreted a manner such that "real person" is read as something like "is determinably true that person X is real." I believe this would be popularly held to be true. >>>>1. There has been considerable debate as to the nature of the >>>Christian >>> >>>>God. Multiple heresies in the Church dealt with this, for instance, >>>the >>> >>>>Arians. Ultimately, they were all excommunicated and violence ensued. >>>This >>> >>>>type of heresy keeps coming back, and is still not settled. >>> >>> >>>1. "The only true God is the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, >>>three distinct Persons in one divine Being, or Essence." See also: >>>Deut. 6:4 and 1 Cor. 8:4. >> >>Hmmmm. >> >>For the purposes of this discussion, we can't consider the bible an >>appropriate source. It's far beyond a primary source, due to countless >>rewritings, revisions, retellings, etc. etc. etc. Besides, if it >>really is the Word of God, why should we believe God's word here, >>when it would clearly be to his and your advantage? >> >>_I_ could write a book claiming that I was the winner of this nomic, >>but that wouldn't lead you the believe that I was the winner of this >>nomic. Not even if my books was really old and confusing and written >>in funny languages. > >Why should we believe the word of God? We have believed the word of every >other person who wanted to play. We believe the word of Josh when he speaks >to his own advantage. We've always believed people who simply wanted to >play. Unlike claims to actually winning the game, which are subject to >intense scrutiny. Also, clarity and understandability are qualities of >successful claims, not confusing nonsense. We have believed the word of every other person who said DIRECTLY that they wanted to play. If you are going to claim that the bible is equivalent to the DIRECT use of language by a potential player, then do so and prove so, or at least convince us so. But I will not accept that as an assumption, as you seem to expect us to. >By the way, I have nothing to gain by God becoming a player. I do not claim >to speak for him by proxy. I will not take advantage of the situation if he >plays a non-active part in the game. Did I say you did (really, did I)? Regardless of your personal motivations, I believe that adding "God" to our game will prove as useful to the game as adding Jill Wittrock or Rich Peters was, except that we would have a bit of trouble hearing from "God" that he had indeed decided to quit the game. >> >>>>2. What incontrovertable evidence do we have that God is real? If >>>anyone >>> >>>>has some, I'd like them to produce it now. >>> >>> >>>2. There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence. Belief in God >>>is as reasonable as belief in the reliablity of one's senses or reason. >>>Senses are mistaken. Reason is faulty. If this is a philosopjical >>>question, such diverse philosophers as Descartes, Anselm, and >> >>Bzzzt. >> >>Descartes and Anselm's arguments are clearly bogus. You could >>even ask any frat boy who's taken good old Phil. 201. > >An rgument isn't necisarily unsound because it appears ridiculus to a >fallible human. And, similarly, an argument isn't necessarily sound just because the human attempting to understand it might be experiencing a "failure" of reason. If you're going to bring external arguments in, which have already been seen to be false by both pro- and anti- god-exists folk, then perhaps you should bolster the arguments a bit with your own mojo. >>>Kierkegaard have all published sound arguments in support of the >> >>As for Kierkegaard, his argument was essentially "We can't believe in >>God using reason, so to believe in god, you have to make an _irrational_ >>leap of faith" (emphasis mine), right? >> >>Well then. Sounds like a great argument to apply here, eh? > >Do not make reason into a god. At the most basic level, everything is >believed through an irrational leap of faith. It is a greater leap of faith >to believe in one's own reason than to believe in God. We are working within a system in which reason is king. If your arguments don't want to play in reason's court then you're not going to get very far. I require some justification for your last statement. >>Will God, if he exists and is added to our game, be exercising >>his omniscience, or will we have free will? I refuse to add such >>a player to the game until we resolve this question, for otherwise >>all our play may be worthless, when God foresees the entire outcome >>and manipulates it to his advantage. In a good way, of course. > >Yes, God is always omniscient. If he is not always omniscient, he is not >God. You will enjoy just as much free will as you always have. It is >doubtful that God would manipulate the game simply to win. I believe he >would prefer the technical aspects of play and not care much for the point >totals. Is that will really free if God already knows what we're going to do? >>>God wants to be deeply involved with Berserker Nomic. >> >>Define "deeply". > >Try replacing "deeply" with "integrally". According to the Christian conception of God, God is everywhere, with everyone, at once. If you believe that then I fail to see how interacting on the human level would make him MORE involved with our nomic. The everywhereness seems akin to the everywhereness (sort of - aside from the fact that most of the universe is empty space) of quarks, etc. You can't get much more involved than that. >>Why should we believe your argument simply because it's backed >>up by "bible experts", if to believe them we need to believe in your >>conclusion, that God exists? > >Fine. If you wish, you may dismiss the work of some of the most >intellectually gifted people to ever walk the earth. Tell me, Josh, every >time you multiply, do you reinvent the multiplication tables? How can you >simply ignore people because you don't agree with their conclusions? Oh, please. Consider a group of physicists, who claim that they have discovered that the world is made of Jo-el. They claim that they reached this conclusion based on the complimentarity principle. You, being the savvy stud you are, do not buy into the complimentarity principle. Thus, you find their conclusion dubiously obtained, at best. This example illustrates, I think, what I was talking about before. For the purposes of this judgment, it doesn't matter that the bible scholars might possible have said something of worth, at least once; to nonbelievers their arguments and their reasoning hold little water because of the fundementally important assumptions. If their arguments hold little water then they are not good enough for Nomic. Besides, I'll have you know that I have invented multiplication tables, and reinvented them at that. And this evening I reinvented formulae for integrating tangent and secant. And I regularly reinvent the implication-only form of disjunction for my logic homework. So ha ha. Josh -- "Whereas the truth is that fullness of soul can sometimes overflow in utter vapidity of language, for none of us can ever express the exact measure of his needs or his thoughts or his sorrows; and human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars." - G. Flaubert ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:33:49 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: High Stakes cookout >>If no Crowd Shamer rose up to protect the Provocateur, the Provocateur is >>burned at the stake at the appointed hour. This causes them to lose all >>their points. >> > >If anything, our nomic has been characterized by a strong caution >against letting small-mob rule rule. Big mobs are OK though because >they're generally masked by voting processes. > >As such, I find this to be a potentially highly destructive proposal, >as it could be abused easily. Please consider and comment. > Josh points out a serious danger here. I really didn't pay much attention to the "lose all their points" part when I first read this. Having reconsidered, I must agree that there is a certain potential in this proposal for this being less a fun game feature and more a dangerous game flaw... I like the idea, but point bankruptcy seems to be a good deal too harsh for something which can be done so easily and arbitrarilly... Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:50:20 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: High Stakes cookout Matt wrote: > >>>If no Crowd Shamer rose up to protect the Provocateur, the Provocateur is >>>burned at the stake at the appointed hour. This causes them to lose all >>>their points. >>> >> >>If anything, our nomic has been characterized by a strong caution >>against letting small-mob rule rule. Big mobs are OK though because >>they're generally masked by voting processes. >> >>As such, I find this to be a potentially highly destructive proposal, >>as it could be abused easily. Please consider and comment. >> > >Josh points out a serious danger here. I really didn't pay much attention >to the "lose all their points" part when I first read this. Having >reconsidered, I must agree that there is a certain potential in this >proposal for this being less a fun game feature and more a dangerous game >flaw... > >I like the idea, but point bankruptcy seems to be a good deal too harsh for >something which can be done so easily and arbitrarilly... That's why I put in the crowd shamer part. A burning has to be unanimously consented to. If you still feel this is too dangerous, I'm totally willing to lighten the damage or just retract the prop... Opinions? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:20:46 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: High Stakes cookout Mueller writes: >Matt wrote: >> >>>>If no Crowd Shamer rose up to protect the Provocateur, the Provocateur is >>>>burned at the stake at the appointed hour. This causes them to lose all >>>>their points. >>>> >>> >>>If anything, our nomic has been characterized by a strong caution >>>against letting small-mob rule rule. Big mobs are OK though because >>>they're generally masked by voting processes. >>> >>>As such, I find this to be a potentially highly destructive proposal, >>>as it could be abused easily. Please consider and comment. >>> >> >>Josh points out a serious danger here. I really didn't pay much attention >>to the "lose all their points" part when I first read this. Having >>reconsidered, I must agree that there is a certain potential in this >>proposal for this being less a fun game feature and more a dangerous game >>flaw... >> >>I like the idea, but point bankruptcy seems to be a good deal too harsh for >>something which can be done so easily and arbitrarilly... > >That's why I put in the crowd shamer part. A burning has to be unanimously >consented to. > >If you still feel this is too dangerous, I'm totally willing to lighten the >damage or just retract the prop... Since the best real-life analog(ue?) to this seems to be requiring the flamebait to wear a funny hat, I think that you should either (a) come up with an independent system of attributes, like groons or karma points or whatever, that this proposal manipulates (b) make the hat metaphorical, and pass it around when new people are toasted. Or maybe require the player to posess some other funny item. Josh -- ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:51:24 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: High Stakes cookout >I like the idea, but point bankruptcy seems to be a good deal too harsh for >>something which can be done so easily and arbitrarilly... > >That's why I put in the crowd shamer part. A burning has to be unanimously >consented to. > >If you still feel this is too dangerous, I'm totally willing to lighten the >damage or just retract the prop... > This proposition still sounds like it could be fun... the only reason I question the safety mechanism is that, while technically everyone must consent to a burning, that consent is the default position while one player must actively step forward as the voice of reason to prevent the accused from winding up all extra-crispy, and while I think this could be fun it would require someone stepping forward. Most likely it should be foolproof, but I'd hate to see it go wrong in some instance. Is there some way to write into the proposal a test period, wherein we try out the idea and are then required to vote on whether or not to keep it, or something like that? I suppose if someone was really worried they could pay someone else to bail them out. I know I'm willing to stand up to a (simulated) angry mob for a few points, or other forms of nomicurrency as they are established. Having looked at both sides of the issue I'm willing to give this one a try. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:10:13 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Blasphemer Barbecue At 09:57 PM 9/29/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: > At the end of this time, if three or more players, excluding >the Provocateur and the Inciter, joined the mob then, 24 hours later, the >Inciter is burned at the stake. ^^^^^^^ Do you mean Provocateur here? Otherwise, we'd be burning the Player who led the Mob, not the Player the Mob is against. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:10:59 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals >>1)The units associated with the money player attribute is the gold doubloon. >> Therefore a rule which refers to the mechanics of points, the unit >> associated with score, does not relate to money. >>2)The money attribute of all current players at the time of passage of this >> rule shall be set equal to 1000 gold doubloons. >>3)One must always have a positive integer value of money. >>4)A positive integer amount of money can be transfered between players by >> both parties notifying Joel. > >Why not just feed off the point trading rule here? Because score and money are to different things. You can't have a negative amount of money for one, you can owe people money, but just because I owe someone $100 doesn't mean the next $100 that comes into my possesion is going to them. I also didn't think that people's monetary transactions needed to be told to the entire group. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:36:50 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Blasphemer Barbecue Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 09:57 PM 9/29/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >> At the end of this time, if three or more players, excluding >>the Provocateur and the Inciter, joined the mob then, 24 hours later, the >>Inciter is burned at the stake. > ^^^^^^^ > >Do you mean Provocateur here? Otherwise, we'd be burning the Player who led >the Mob, not the Player the Mob is against. You're saying you have a problem with that? -- Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding. - Samuel Johnson ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:36:32 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals Dakota R Bailey writes: >>>1)The units associated with the money player attribute is the gold doubloon. >>> Therefore a rule which refers to the mechanics of points, the unit >>> associated with score, does not relate to money. >>>2)The money attribute of all current players at the time of passage of this >>> rule shall be set equal to 1000 gold doubloons. >>>3)One must always have a positive integer value of money. >>>4)A positive integer amount of money can be transfered between players by >>> both parties notifying Joel. >> >>Why not just feed off the point trading rule here? > >Because score and money are to different things. You can't have a >negative amount of money for one, you can owe people money, but just >because I owe someone $100 doesn't mean the next $100 that comes into my >possesion is going to them. I also didn't think that people's monetary >transactions needed to be told to the entire group. I'm saying, though, that if you followed the point trading rule as closely as possible, major differences aside, then it'd be cooler. Plus more conducive to changes in the future, like having a rule governing transactions in general. Just a thought. Josh -- Timesharing: the use of several people by the computer ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:18:59 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals At 05:36 PM 9/30/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Dakota R Bailey writes: >>>>1)The units associated with the money player attribute is the gold doubloon. >>>> Therefore a rule which refers to the mechanics of points, the unit >>>> associated with score, does not relate to money. >>>>2)The money attribute of all current players at the time of passage of this >>>> rule shall be set equal to 1000 gold doubloons. >>>>3)One must always have a positive integer value of money. >>>>4)A positive integer amount of money can be transfered between players by >>>> both parties notifying Joel. >>> >>>Why not just feed off the point trading rule here? >> >>Because score and money are to different things. You can't have a >>negative amount of money for one, you can owe people money, but just >>because I owe someone $100 doesn't mean the next $100 that comes into my >>possesion is going to them. I also didn't think that people's monetary >>transactions needed to be told to the entire group. > >I'm saying, though, that if you followed the point trading rule as >closely as possible, major differences aside, then it'd be cooler. >Plus more conducive to changes in the future, like having a rule >governing transactions in general. > >Just a thought. > >Josh Yes, but I think the intent is ultimately to outlaw point trading in leiu of trading other things. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:49:11 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Blasphemer Barbecue J. Uckelman wrote: >At 09:57 PM 9/29/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >> At the end of this time, if three or more players, excluding >>the Provocateur and the Inciter, joined the mob then, 24 hours later, the >>Inciter is burned at the stake. > ^^^^^^^ > >Do you mean Provocateur here? Otherwise, we'd be burning the Player who led >the Mob, not the Player the Mob is against. I replace the noted instance of Inciter with Provocateur in this porposal. Thanks Joel, that would have been an interesting glitch when the first person tried to use this rule :) Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:47:28 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals Joel D Uckelman writes: >Yes, but I think the intent is ultimately to outlaw point trading in leiu >of trading other things. In that case I might be strongly against Dakota's proposal, since I see nothing wrong with two players agreeing to exchange points if they choose to do so. They ARE the player's points, after all, and they should have that freedom. Dakota, what is your intention?? Josh -- "Writing is like prostitution. First you do for the love of it, Then you do it for a few friends, And finally you do it for money." -Moliere ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:40:05 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals At 07:47 PM 9/30/98 -0500, Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Yes, but I think the intent is ultimately to outlaw point trading in leiu >>of trading other things. > >In that case I might be strongly against Dakota's proposal, >since I see nothing wrong with two players agreeing to exchange points >if they choose to do so. They ARE the player's points, after all, and >they should have that freedom. The reason I say this is that I would like to see points as an index of how players are doing --meaning that scores would be affected by money, assets, etc..., but would not be possessions per se. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:52:32 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 07:47 PM 9/30/98 -0500, Josh wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Yes, but I think the intent is ultimately to outlaw point trading in leiu >>>of trading other things. >> >>In that case I might be strongly against Dakota's proposal, >>since I see nothing wrong with two players agreeing to exchange points >>if they choose to do so. They ARE the player's points, after all, and >>they should have that freedom. > >The reason I say this is that I would like to see points as an index of how >players are doing --meaning that scores would be affected by money, assets, >etc..., but would not be possessions per se. "How players are doing" is so incredibly vague as to be worthless. Ultimately, points can determine only how close to the winning score a player is, and as such anything we do with points can't change the fact that that information is discernable from scores. Would you like to stipulate an alternate definition of "how players are doing"? Josh -- Mathematics is a language. - Josiah Gibbs ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:26:08 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals At 10:52 PM 9/30/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 07:47 PM 9/30/98 -0500, Josh wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>Yes, but I think the intent is ultimately to outlaw point trading in leiu >>>>of trading other things. >>> >>>In that case I might be strongly against Dakota's proposal, >>>since I see nothing wrong with two players agreeing to exchange points >>>if they choose to do so. They ARE the player's points, after all, and >>>they should have that freedom. >> >>The reason I say this is that I would like to see points as an index of how >>players are doing --meaning that scores would be affected by money, assets, >>etc..., but would not be possessions per se. > >"How players are doing" is so incredibly vague as to be worthless. >Ultimately, points can determine only how close to the winning score >a player is, and as such anything we do with points can't change the >fact that that information is discernable from scores. > >Would you like to stipulate an alternate definition of "how players >are doing"? > >Josh Well, you've already said what I meant. Before point trading, points were an index of how close one was to wining. The advent of point trading has (potentially) added a monetary value to points. I would prefer to see the monetary and indexing parts separated, with scores reflecting (as mentioned before) money, assets, success of proposals, and such without being directly alterable by players themselves. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:33:06 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 10:52 PM 9/30/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>At 07:47 PM 9/30/98 -0500, Josh wrote: >>>> >>>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>Yes, but I think the intent is ultimately to outlaw point trading in leiu >>>>>of trading other things. >>>> >>>>In that case I might be strongly against Dakota's proposal, >>>>since I see nothing wrong with two players agreeing to exchange points >>>>if they choose to do so. They ARE the player's points, after all, and >>>>they should have that freedom. >>> >>>The reason I say this is that I would like to see points as an index of how >>>players are doing --meaning that scores would be affected by money, assets, >>>etc..., but would not be possessions per se. >> >>"How players are doing" is so incredibly vague as to be worthless. >>Ultimately, points can determine only how close to the winning score >>a player is, and as such anything we do with points can't change the >>fact that that information is discernable from scores. >> >>Would you like to stipulate an alternate definition of "how players >>are doing"? >> >>Josh > >Well, you've already said what I meant. Before point trading, points were >an index of how close one was to wining. The advent of point trading has >(potentially) added a monetary value to points. I would prefer to see the >monetary and indexing parts separated, with scores reflecting (as mentioned >before) money, assets, success of proposals, and such without being >directly alterable by players themselves. Why does players' ability to alter scores by trading points make the information about standings which scores provide any less meaningful? Josh -- I don't believe in natural science. - Kurt Godel ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:45:15 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals At 11:33 PM 9/30/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 10:52 PM 9/30/98 -0500, you wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>At 07:47 PM 9/30/98 -0500, Josh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>>Yes, but I think the intent is ultimately to outlaw point trading in leiu >>>>>>of trading other things. >>>>> >>>>>In that case I might be strongly against Dakota's proposal, >>>>>since I see nothing wrong with two players agreeing to exchange points >>>>>if they choose to do so. They ARE the player's points, after all, and >>>>>they should have that freedom. >>>> >>>>The reason I say this is that I would like to see points as an index of how >>>>players are doing --meaning that scores would be affected by money, assets, >>>>etc..., but would not be possessions per se. >>> >>>"How players are doing" is so incredibly vague as to be worthless. >>>Ultimately, points can determine only how close to the winning score >>>a player is, and as such anything we do with points can't change the >>>fact that that information is discernable from scores. >>> >>>Would you like to stipulate an alternate definition of "how players >>>are doing"? >>> >>>Josh >> >>Well, you've already said what I meant. Before point trading, points were >>an index of how close one was to wining. The advent of point trading has >>(potentially) added a monetary value to points. I would prefer to see the >>monetary and indexing parts separated, with scores reflecting (as mentioned >>before) money, assets, success of proposals, and such without being >>directly alterable by players themselves. > >Why does players' ability to alter scores by trading points make >the information about standings which scores provide any less meaningful? > > > >Josh I'm not claiming that; however: 1. there's no real incentive to use money if points can be traded 2. we have some rules that do things you wouldn't want done to something used as money (destroying it, for instance). 3. there aren't enough points in circulation, and I'm against creating as many as I think we'd need. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu