________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:52:32 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals Joel D Uckelman writes: >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. @#$#$%$^@#$@##!!! -- Prosecutors will be violated. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 16:50:00 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: revision of 321 Is this a good compromise? ______ Rule 208 will be amended to read: The winner is the first Player to achieve (75 + total number of points / number of Players) points. ________ 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: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 16:57:14 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: prop 325 This is a dumb-assed proposal as written. I know of no fool who will vote for it. I suggest the author (cough, nick) either revise it by adding CONTENT or remove 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: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 20:08:27 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: revision of 321 Damon wrote: > >Is this a good compromise? > >______ > >Rule 208 will be amended to read: > >The winner is the first Player to achieve (75 + total number of >points / number of Players) points. When I check this against the current standings, I find that the first person to acheive 80.5333... points is the winner. First: Does achieve mean "get exactly" or "get this much or more"? Second: Should this proposal round down to the nearest integer to keep the math clean? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 19:16:24 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: tom's comments ACHIEVED? I can't say how it should be defined. I just used it because that's what is in the rules now. I see no need to round if you interpret achieving as getting equal to or greater than x amount of points. 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: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 19:33:39 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: question What is the proper name for a carbonated beverage? 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: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:38:21 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 325 >This is a dumb-assed proposal as written. I know of no fool who will vote >for it. I suggest the author (cough, nick) either revise it by adding >CONTENT or remove it. > >Damon I agree, I wouldn't vote for 325 in its current state. That's why it's inactive. I thought we had enough to work with for this turn, so I will activate it during the next turn. I will also flesh it out. There was some discussion about keeping some type of official record, so I made the proposal. We're just not going to work with it right now. n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 19:39:19 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: revision of 321 Mueller writes: >Damon wrote: >> >>Is this a good compromise? >> >>______ >> >>Rule 208 will be amended to read: >> >>The winner is the first Player to achieve (75 + total number of >>points / number of Players) points. > >When I check this against the current standings, I find that the first >person to acheive 80.5333... points is the winner. > >First: Does achieve mean "get exactly" or "get this much or more"? > >Second: Should this proposal round down to the nearest integer to keep the >math clean? First: We dealt with this during the end of the last game. Read in the message archives. Though the decision was nominally controversial at the time, it followed those made in other Nomics. Second: What the fuck are you talking about? They're numbers, aren't they? They're even rational! Josh -- The computer should be doing the hard work. That's what it's paid to do, after all. - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 19:34:56 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Nomic: Stuff Here are some slightly updated proposals, a couple errors were clarified but nothing too exciting was added. Josh asked if by propsing this system of money I hoped to later outlaw point trading. I had heard that idea suggested and I am taking it under consideration as I would any suggestion about Berserker Nomic. As for why I don't follow the point trading rules more closely, I just think score and money are significaly different as to warrant a differnet set of rules. Stayed tuned for my next email boys and girls! In our next episode we decide weather or not God can be a player in Berserker Nomic!!! PROPOSAL 327 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. PROPOSAL 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. Create rule 3XX+1 The Money Rule 1)The unit 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 non-negative integer value of money. 4)A positive integer amount of gold doubloons can be transfered between players by both parties notifying J. Uckelman. 5)Transfers of gold doubloons will be complete when J. Uckelman receives conformation of both parties intent to transfer gold doubloons. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 19:49:41 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: question >What is the proper name for a carbonated beverage? Malted battery acid ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:42:31 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: question >What is the proper name for a carbonated beverage? > >Damon > >__________ > > Put your hand in the oven > There's a heaven inside > > And it burns straight through > But the devil don't mind > > -- 7M3 pop. if im wrong, will you call for a judgement? n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 20:44:04 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: question Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>What is the proper name for a carbonated beverage? >> >>Damon >> >>__________ >> >> Put your hand in the oven >> There's a heaven inside >> >> And it burns straight through >> But the devil don't mind >> >> -- 7M3 > >pop. if im wrong, will you call for a judgement? > >n Watch out, Damon may have taken up calling it "soda" now that he's out east. Josh -- Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe. Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 21:27:47 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: question At 08:44 PM 10/1/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>What is the proper name for a carbonated beverage? >>> >>>Damon >>> >>>__________ >>> >>> Put your hand in the oven >>> There's a heaven inside >>> >>> And it burns straight through >>> But the devil don't mind >>> >>> -- 7M3 >> >>pop. if im wrong, will you call for a judgement? >> >>n > >Watch out, Damon may have taken up calling it "soda" now that >he's out east. > > >Josh If you really wanna be a fruit, "soda pop". That's what Mike calls it. Or at least that's the rumor I'm starting. Everyone please berate him about that. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 21:23:07 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Pop The reason I ask is because I got in a huge debate over whether it is pop or soda. They tried to argue that Iowans are stuck in the 50s, being in the middle of nowhere, and still cling to archaic words like "pop." I say they are the one's who must learn to live in the now. Here, they don't even have 24 packs. Two guys didn't even believe me when I said they existed. If this appalls anyone, please email dtroupes@student.umass.edu with zealous defenses of the RIGHT way to refer to a carbonated beverage. I'll also let everyone know the reactions I get; the more, the better. (The reason I am mailing the nomic list is that you guys are the only people I know who would find this humorous and take the time to reply.) 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: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 21:51:14 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Pop It's pop, me, phil and Matt (my lab partners) all agree. Everyone knows that! jeff ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:49:24 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: question >At 08:44 PM 10/1/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>>What is the proper name for a carbonated beverage? >>>> >>>>Damon >>>> >>>>__________ >>>> >>>> Put your hand in the oven >>>> There's a heaven inside >>>> >>>> And it burns straight through >>>> But the devil don't mind >>>> >>>> -- 7M3 >>> >>>pop. if im wrong, will you call for a judgement? >>> >>>n >> >>Watch out, Damon may have taken up calling it "soda" now that >>he's out east. >> >> >>Josh > >If you really wanna be a fruit, "soda pop". That's what Mike calls it. Or >at least that's the rumor I'm starting. Everyone please berate him about >that. Mike, I berate thee with great enthusiasm. You are a fruit. Soda pop? I continue to berate thee. n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 23:05:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: question Nathan D Ellefson writes: >If you really wanna be a fruit, "soda pop". That's what Mike calls it. Or >at least that's the rumor I'm starting. Everyone please berate him about >that. Mike, what kind of lame motherfucker are you? Josh -- Music is the pleasure the human soul experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting. - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 00:15:48 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Pop Jeff wrote: >It's pop, me, phil and Matt (my lab partners) all agree. Everyone knows >that! The last time I heard people call it pop I was in Minnesota. We all thought it was a hilarious name and used it with gusto... Now I'm back in California and we're back to plain old soda. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 01:31:44 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: question At 11:05 PM 10/1/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Nathan D Ellefson writes: >>If you really wanna be a fruit, "soda pop". That's what Mike calls it. Or >>at least that's the rumor I'm starting. Everyone please berate him about >>that. > >Mike, what kind of lame motherfucker are you? I'll tell you, he certainly is one lame-ass motherfucker whom I shall berate with great enthusiasm. in fact, i scoff at him. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 11:45:31 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Nomic: Judgement 30 The call for judgment states that: God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one. Some of the more common issues raised have been 1. Must be one and only one being. 2. Must be real. 3. Must be human. 4. Must consent. 5. Must have a surname. Well in answer to 1, 2, 3, and 5. There is only one God, he is real and human, and his name is Jesus Christ. Showing consent seems to be the problem here. Consent has always been assumed whenever a player has been sponsored in the past, but there was also the assumption that and player could send the person nominated for playerhood an email at anytime asking their consent. As far as I know God doesn't send emails. As for Tom's prophecies from God, these need to be tested as suggested in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21. If Tom could provide proof of the divine inspiration of his emails, say by predicting the Dow Jones for a week straight, then I say this matter deserves more consideration. If he is found to be a false prophet then I say we accept Kuhns' proposal about burning Tom at the stake. So my judgment on the statement "God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one" is TRUE. -D. Bailey ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:09:45 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement 30 Dakota R Bailey writes: >The call for judgment states that: > >God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be >added as one. > >Some of the more common issues raised have been > >1. Must be one and only one being. >2. Must be real. >3. Must be human. >4. Must consent. >5. Must have a surname. > >Well in answer to 1, 2, 3, and 5. There is only one God, he is real and >human, and his name is Jesus Christ. I'm sorely tempted to appeal this judgment based on its commentary, even though I agree with the statement issued. Josh -- "Formal symbolic representation of qualitative entities is doomed to its rightful place of minor significance in a world where flowers and beautiful women abound." - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:09:15 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Appeal to Judgment I would like to appeal the judgment, not because of the final decision, but because of the reasoning and the comments. I disagree with the absolute truth of this statement in Judge Bailey's decision: >There is only one God, he is real and >human, and his name is Jesus Christ. I find it strange how quickly he came upon these conclusions. There is no explanation of how he came to these, and frankly, I find it not in the spirit of Berserker Nomic to be so careless in the consideration of a CFJ. It do agree with Dakota's discourse on the consent factor, but his non-existent explanations for the other four problems give me no reason to believe these conclusions were come to by reason. I say "by reason" because I think reason is the very foundation upon which our game lies. If we can not trust reason as a stable ground for this game, what can we trust? I believe these conclusions I have mentioned above were not come to with the proper amount of attention to reason. Therefore, I again ask that this decision be repealed so that we might have a more clear understanding of all the reasons why God can't play in Nomic. I request that Player Nick Osborn, Jason Durheim, and Adam Haar be inelligible for appointment on the appealate court. (Sorry for any misspellings.) 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: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 13:08:05 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Appeal of 30 Matt Kuhns, Mike Jensen, and Nate Ellefson have been selected for the Appeals Court for the statement: God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:01:19 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement 30 >Dakota R Bailey writes: >>God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be >>added as one. >> >>Some of the more common issues raised have been >> >>1. Must be one and only one being. >>2. Must be real. >>3. Must be human. >>4. Must consent. >>5. Must have a surname. >> >>Well in answer to 1, 2, 3, and 5. There is only one God, he is real and >>human, and his name is Jesus Christ. > >I'm sorely tempted to appeal this judgment based on its commentary, >even though I agree with the statement issued. I'm in agreement with Josh here, though I'm not sure what precisely could be gained by calling for judgement... Though I've always taken a more pragmatic approach to gameplay than a number of players. I hope the next judge bases his decision on more sound reasoning. 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: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 13:28:17 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Re: Nomic: Appeal to Judgment >I find it strange how quickly he came upon these conclusions. There is no >explanation of how he came to these, and frankly, I find it not in the >spirit of Berserker Nomic to be so careless in the consideration of a >CFJ. I can assure you that I did not come to these conclusions quickly. I personally base my life on those conclusions and it was not a whimsical decision, it is based on sound historical facts. I'm sorry I didn't state that in my first judgment, but I sincerly doubt it would have mattered to you. I didn't think Berserker Nomic was the place to have a discussion about the existence of God, I'll know better in the future. -D. Bailey ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 13:34:46 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Nomic: appeal 30 Glad to see that, once again, Harwood North is overrepresented. Keep up the good work Joel; and remember where I told you to pick up your payment. ps - I'm not sure our communication lines are secure anymore. I keep sensing other people are learning of our conspiracy. Until I figure that out, just keep a low profile. 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: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 14:33:28 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: My mail I find this an extremely ironic situation, Dakota. Actually, I would like the mail, but I'll understand if you don't want to take the time or money to send it to me. As for your previous comments, I am not implying that you haven't considered the place or existence of God in the context of your life. What I'm saying, or trying to say, is that you haven't considered it within the context of our Nomic game. My point being that the amount of scrutiny is higher in Nomic than most people's lives. Nomic requires much more proof of things than an individual might. So, you may consider the amount of historical information present sufficiently supporting the existence of God, but Nomic needs PROOF, OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, not just support. For me, it is true to say that Nomic is more scrutinizing than I am in my life. For instance, I would never debate with myself over the precise meaning of "achieve." However, in Nomic it is necessary to debate over details. If you really must know, I currently consider myself agnostic; but, I do attend church, and for good reason (at least I think they are good reasons). Also, this is the place to have a discussion about the existence of God, simply because we must be able to determine whether God can play the game or not. There is no need to avoid issues here. I think we all enjoy a good healthy discussion. Finally, the reason I appealed your decision. Say a devout polytheist (a Hindu for example) wanted to play the game. This person may have just as much evidence to "prove" that he is correct in what he believes. He might look at this judgment and say, "This game is run by a bunch of close-minded people. They dismiss my religion in less than a sentence, without even giving so much as one shred of evidence for this statement." This is not the impression I would want someone to get of our game. I would like to keep this game open to all races, religions, sexes (women), sexual orientations, and such. Making such statements in judgments without clarifying them is dangerous and undesirable, I think. 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: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 14:41:01 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: appeal 30 At 02:04 PM 10/2/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Glad to see that, once again, Harwood North is overrepresented. Keep up >the good work Joel; and remember where I told you to pick up your payment. > >ps - I'm not sure our communication lines are secure anymore. I keep >sensing other people are learning of our conspiracy. Until I figure that >out, just keep a low profile. > >Damon Hehe. You're forgetting that there's just a higher concentration of Players living here than anywhere else. If people want me to stop using the dice server and do something else for selecting judges (like rolling real dice, for instance), please make it known. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 15:24:16 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: My mail Well stated, Damon. I couldn't agree more. Oh, and Dakota. Regarding the Dow? God would advise you to consider the merits of CDs and savings bonds, if you get my drift. :) -plagge At 02:33 PM 10/2/98 -0500, Damon wrote: > >I find this an extremely ironic situation, Dakota. Actually, I would like >the mail, but I'll understand if you don't want to take the time or money >to send it to me. > >As for your previous comments, I am not implying that you haven't >considered the place or existence of God in the context of your life. >What I'm saying, or trying to say, is that you haven't considered it >within the context of our Nomic game. My point being that the amount of >scrutiny is higher in Nomic than most people's lives. Nomic requires much >more proof of things than an individual might. > >So, you may consider the amount of historical information present >sufficiently supporting the existence of God, but Nomic needs PROOF, >OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, not just support. For me, it is true to say that >Nomic is more scrutinizing than I am in my life. > >For instance, I would never debate with myself over the precise meaning >of "achieve." However, in Nomic it is necessary to debate over details. > >If you really must know, I currently consider myself agnostic; but, I do >attend church, and for good reason (at least I think they are good reasons). > >Also, this is the place to have a discussion about the existence of God, >simply because we must be able to determine whether God can play the game >or not. There is no need to avoid issues here. I think we all enjoy a >good healthy discussion. > >Finally, the reason I appealed your decision. Say a devout polytheist >(a Hindu for example) wanted to play the game. This person may have just >as much evidence to "prove" that he is correct in what he believes. He >might look at this judgment and say, "This game is run by a bunch of >close-minded people. They dismiss my religion in less than a sentence, >without even giving so much as one shred of evidence for this statement." >This is not the impression I would want someone to get of our game. I >would like to keep this game open to all races, religions, sexes (women), >sexual orientations, and such. Making such statements in judgments >without clarifying them is dangerous and undesirable, I think. > > > >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: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 18:44:15 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: My mail Damon pontificates: >Finally, the reason I appealed your decision. Say a devout polytheist >(a Hindu for example) wanted to play the game. This person may have just >as much evidence to "prove" that he is correct in what he believes. He >might look at this judgment and say, "This game is run by a bunch of >close-minded people. They dismiss my religion in less than a sentence, >without even giving so much as one shred of evidence for this statement." Actually, Damon, a true Hindu would not be at all uncomfortable with the idea that we believe in different gods than he. That is something of the nature of Hinduism. On the other hand, he may take offense that we have attempted to disprove the existence of Providence. n ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 19:45:30 CDT From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Nick's point >Actually, Damon, a true Hindu would not be at all uncomfortable with the >idea that we believe in different gods than he. That is something of the >nature of Hinduism. On the other hand, he may take offense that we have >attempted to disprove the existence of Providence. Nick. Apparently you missed my point. I happen to know that Hinduism is a very open religion. That was NOT my point. My point was that this situation would not like the fact that we explicitly deny the validity of his religion by saying there is ONLY one God. He might feel left out. I believe there is a subtle difference in what you thought I was saying and what I was saying. But really it doesn't matter because I'm sure there are other polytheistic religions out there that aren't so open. 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: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 19:42:16 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: My mail At 06:44 PM 10/2/98 -0500, you wrote: >Damon pontificates: >>Finally, the reason I appealed your decision. Say a devout polytheist >>(a Hindu for example) wanted to play the game. This person may have just >>as much evidence to "prove" that he is correct in what he believes. He >>might look at this judgment and say, "This game is run by a bunch of >>close-minded people. They dismiss my religion in less than a sentence, >>without even giving so much as one shred of evidence for this statement." > >Actually, Damon, a true Hindu would not be at all uncomfortable with the >idea that we believe in different gods than he. That is something of the >nature of Hinduism. On the other hand, he may take offense that we have >attempted to disprove the existence of Providence. > >n Damon's point seems valid even if his example isn't quite right. And we haven't been trying to disprove the existance of God -- we've just shown that we don't have any knowledge about the issue. However, I think most of us would agree that we want to avoid reliance on faith as much as possible when admitting players. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 03:56:41 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Appeal to Judgment Dakota R Bailey writes: >>I find it strange how quickly he came upon these conclusions. There is no >>explanation of how he came to these, and frankly, I find it not in the >>spirit of Berserker Nomic to be so careless in the consideration of a >>CFJ. > I can assure you that I did not come to these conclusions >quickly. I personally base my life on those conclusions and it was not a >whimsical decision, it is based on sound historical facts. I'm sorry I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ... which I don't believe, which is why I personally want a new (similar, but differently reasoned) judgment. >didn't state that in my first judgment, but I sincerly doubt it would >have mattered to you. I didn't think Berserker Nomic was the place to >have a discussion about the existence of God, I'll know better in the future. Berserker Nomic is the place for most things. Josh -- Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe. Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 10:28:47 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 330 * Amend Rule 211 to read: $ If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule most recently changed takes precedence. If two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the immutable rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If at least one of the mutable rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the chronological method for determining precedence. If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the appropriate method (numerical or chronological) again governs.$* The only change here is pegging mutable rule precedence to the order in which rules are changed rather than the rules' ordinal numbers. This change should eliminate some of the unintended consequences of our current rule precedence system (such as invalidating rules we just passed). With any legislative system, it seems that you would want the most recent changes to supersede earlier rules -- this proposal makes it that way. While it may be slightly more confusing to determine precedence with this in place, there's no reason I can't also put a Precedence Ruleset on the page or just keep a precedence list somewhere. Finally, I appologize for slipping this in so close to the end of debate. If there isn't much reaction, I may make this proposal inactive so it can be held over for the next debate period. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 11:20:09 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 331 I'd like some feedback here to give me an idea of what you guys think we could do with this stuff and just if you like it. I was thinking this would make it useful to add Player attributes. For instance, this would make it possible for someone to be burnt at the stake, physically. Also, each Player's attributes could depend to some extent upon their physical bodies and their locations. Dakota's doubloons are an example. They could be used at the Market to buy other attributes, or deposited at the Bank to get interest, or wagered at the Track. Other attributes that would work well in this physical world, I think: strength (increased in the Athletic Facility), knowledge (increased at the College), aesthetic sense (increased in the Art Exhibition Museum), health (increased at Hospital for those near death experiences, decreased at bar), headstones (to keep track of how many times a Player has died), etc. Here's the prop (inactive and incomplete): ____ This proposal will create Rule 331, (Beginning of Rule 331) There is a physical component to this Nomic game in which can exist people, places, and things. Each Player will have a body through which they will exist in this physical component. Bodies of Players must at all times be located at some place in this physical component. These are all possible locations at which things and people may exist: College, Athletic Facility, Bank, Track, Cemetery, Hospital, Bar, Art Exhibition Museum, Market. In the event that a Player's body is destroyed or found to be useless for any physical activities, that Player will instantly be given a new body, which will appear in the Art Exhibition Museum. (Ending of Rule 331) and change 327? to read: The set of player attributes is defined as {score, wins, money, body}; anything not listed in this rule as a player attribute is not a player attribute. ______ That's all I've got so far. How should I proceed? Should I add the other attributes I discussed earlier and define them in this proposal too? Let me know. Damon __________ Could it be that he has a talent for music? -- Ludwig Geyer speaking of his step-son, Richard Wagner ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 11:33:05 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: REVISION of 326 THIS IS A REVISION! prop 326: ___ The 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 Administrator are vote collection, dispatching official notices, updating the web page, judge selecting, vote counting, and all other miscellaneous administrative duties. Due to these duties, the 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 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 three paragraphs of this proposal shall delete themselves (huh, huh - cool) upon the passage of this proposal. The single occurrence of "Joel Uckelman" in rule 314 will be replaced with "the Administrator." _____ Damon __________ Could it be that he has a talent for music? -- Ludwig Geyer speaking of his step-son, Richard Wagner ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:08:01 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal 332 I'm marking proposal 332 inactive. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:07:20 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal 332 * There shall be a 50 by 50 hexagonal grid representing the land in which Berserker Nomic takes place. Each player shall initially be granted one hex of land in a randomly selected location. All other land shall be Public Land. There shall at no time be less than 50 hexes of Public Land. * This isn't everything I'd like this proposal to contain -- for instance, I'm still developing an economic model to accompany land ownership. If at all possible, I'd also like to harmonize this with Damon's 331. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 13:31:03 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 331 Damon wrote: >and change 327? to read: > >The set of player attributes is defined as {score, wins, money, body}; >anything not listed in this rule as a player attribute is not a player >attribute. If someone wins and all player attributes are set to zero, what does that do to your body? Perhaps we should just have a set of instructions for a win, with each characteristic in the game being modified in an explicit way. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 13:34:02 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 332 Joel wrote: >* >There shall be a 50 by 50 hexagonal grid representing the land in which >Berserker Nomic takes place. > >Each player shall initially be granted one hex of land in a randomly >selected location. All other land shall be Public Land. There shall at no >time be less than 50 hexes of Public Land. >* > >This isn't everything I'd like this proposal to contain -- for instance, >I'm still developing an economic model to accompany land ownership. If at >all possible, I'd also like to harmonize this with Damon's 331. Perhaps a coordinate system to keep track of each spot would be useful. Also, why hexes? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:42:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 332 Mueller writes: >Joel wrote: >>* >>There shall be a 50 by 50 hexagonal grid representing the land in which >>Berserker Nomic takes place. >> >>Each player shall initially be granted one hex of land in a randomly >>selected location. All other land shall be Public Land. There shall at no >>time be less than 50 hexes of Public Land. >>* >> >>This isn't everything I'd like this proposal to contain -- for instance, >>I'm still developing an economic model to accompany land ownership. If at >>all possible, I'd also like to harmonize this with Damon's 331. > >Perhaps a coordinate system to keep track of each spot would be useful. > >Also, why hexes? Because Joel's a supernerd. Trust me, he's got a coordinate system. Josh -- The more I see of men, the better I like my dog. - Blaise Pascal ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 13:18:20 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 332 >Mueller writes: >>Joel wrote: >>>* >>>There shall be a 50 by 50 hexagonal grid representing the land in which >>>Berserker Nomic takes place. >> >>Also, why hexes? > >Because Joel's a supernerd. I originally was suspicious of the hex system for similar reasons, but after some consideration I decided it was the best arrangement. It's really not hard to conceive, either, if you think of it as a grid with alternating columns offset by half a row. But "There shall at no time be less than 50 hexes of Public Land" really ought to read "...FEWER than 50 hexes of Public Land." 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, 04 Oct 1998 13:20:13 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Attributes >Perhaps we should just have a set of instructions for a win, with each >characteristic in the game being modified in an explicit way. That sounds like a good idea. I'm sure we'll eventually stumble across a convenient way of adding, modifying, and reseting player attributes. But I'm waiting to see what passes this turn before I worry too much about all of that. Damon __________ Could it be that he has a talent for music? -- Ludwig Geyer speaking of his step-son, Richard Wagner ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 13:36:06 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 332 At 01:18 PM 10/4/98 -0500, Kuhns wrote: >But "There shall at no time be less than 50 hexes of Public Land" really >ought to read "...FEWER than 50 hexes of Public Land." > Consider it changed. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 13:34:41 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 332 At 01:34 PM 10/4/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >Joel wrote: >>* >>There shall be a 50 by 50 hexagonal grid representing the land in which >>Berserker Nomic takes place. >> >>Each player shall initially be granted one hex of land in a randomly >>selected location. All other land shall be Public Land. There shall at no >>time be less than 50 hexes of Public Land. >>* >> >>This isn't everything I'd like this proposal to contain -- for instance, >>I'm still developing an economic model to accompany land ownership. If at >>all possible, I'd also like to harmonize this with Damon's 331. > >Perhaps a coordinate system to keep track of each spot would be useful. I already have a coordinate system worked out, it just didn't make it into the proposal yet. >Also, why hexes? Hexes are better for approximating movement and distances than squares. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 23:23:32 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 332 Joel wrote: >At 01:34 PM 10/4/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >>Also, why hexes? > >Hexes are better for approximating movement and distances than squares. If we just want distinct spots to exist and the ability to abstractly move among them, this doesn't seem so important. Are you envisioning a system where players can only move through a few spots a day in a formal manner? That might be really interesting: getting across the board through hostile territory (capture the flag comes to mind) might add a lot to the game. But even then, I'm not sure we need to worry about approximating movement in the real world. Say we used squares, so what if you can only move at right angles (or alternately that spots are odd distances away depending on whether you move diagonally or cardinally). Or is this ultimately just an esthetic issue? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 22:45:53 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 332 At 11:23 PM 10/4/98 -0400, you wrote: >Joel wrote: >>At 01:34 PM 10/4/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >>>Also, why hexes? >> >>Hexes are better for approximating movement and distances than squares. > >If we just want distinct spots to exist and the ability to abstractly move >among them, this doesn't seem so important. Ah, but movement is important to my proposal, as will be obvious when its complete. >Are you envisioning a system where players can only move through a few >spots a day in a formal manner? That might be really interesting: getting >across the board through hostile territory (capture the flag comes to mind) >might add a lot to the game. I had not envisioned the movement of players at all, but it certainly is a possibility. >But even then, I'm not sure we need to worry about approximating movement >in the real world. Say we used squares, so what if you can only move at >right angles (or alternately that spots are odd distances away depending on >whether you move diagonally or cardinally). > >Or is this ultimately just an esthetic issue? > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net I appologize for being so evasive in my answers, but it will all make more sense when I present it in its entirety, and I don't want to create confusion by introducing it any more peicemeal than is necessary. I should have a more complete conception ready in a few days. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 00:29:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 332 Mueller writes: >Joel wrote: >>At 01:34 PM 10/4/98 -0400, Mueller wrote: >>>Also, why hexes? >> >>Hexes are better for approximating movement and distances than squares. > >If we just want distinct spots to exist and the ability to abstractly move >among them, this doesn't seem so important. > >Are you envisioning a system where players can only move through a few >spots a day in a formal manner? That might be really interesting: getting >across the board through hostile territory (capture the flag comes to mind) >might add a lot to the game. > >But even then, I'm not sure we need to worry about approximating movement >in the real world. Say we used squares, so what if you can only move at >right angles (or alternately that spots are odd distances away depending on >whether you move diagonally or cardinally). Or better yet, define the properties in any damn shape we want, and then simply use vectors in 2-space to move about. If a move takes you inside a property, you're in it. >Or is this ultimately just an esthetic issue? Isn't everything? 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: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 10:08:24 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder 1. Voting on the proposals started this morning at 1:19 CDT. It seems this went unnoticed by everyone, including me. 2. Voting on letting Aaron Woell into the game continues. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 10:10:10 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot These proposals are up for voting: 317 318 319 320 321 323 324 236 327 328 329 330 J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 12:01:00 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: voting reminder Joel D Uckelman writes: >1. Voting on the proposals started this morning at 1:19 CDT. It seems this >went unnoticed by everyone, including me. > >2. Voting on letting Aaron Woell into the game continues. So are you going to be a groovy administrator and put together a voting ballot complete with proposal texts? Josh -- Music is the pleasure the human soul experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting. - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 12:41:41 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: voting reminder At 12:01 PM 10/5/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>1. Voting on the proposals started this morning at 1:19 CDT. It seems this >>went unnoticed by everyone, including me. >> >>2. Voting on letting Aaron Woell into the game continues. > >So are you going to be a groovy administrator and put together >a voting ballot complete with proposal texts? > > > > >Josh I could, but I might be difficult to use as a ballot since some of the proposals are so long. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 13:05:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 15:52:55 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Aaron Woell is now a player in Berserker Nomic. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 21:19:52 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: My Voting Also, before I forget, yes on the new guy joining. At 01:05 PM 10/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >Below is a the complete text of all active proposals, as requested. > > >317 Yes >318 No >319 Yes >320 No >321 Yes >323 Yes >324 Yes >326 Yes >327 No >328 No >329 Yes >330 Yes Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 21:31:35 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: My Voting At 09:19 PM 10/5/98 -0400, you wrote: >Also, before I forget, yes on the new guy joining. > >At 01:05 PM 10/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Below is a the complete text of all active proposals, as requested. >> >> Doh! Now I've got Snowgod's disease. Sorry, I forgot that replies go to the pub list. Disregard all that, some was antivoting on good stuff and some was actual displeasure.... Sheepish Tom ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 00:16:25 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: My Voting Mueller writes: >Also, before I forget, yes on the new guy joining. > >At 01:05 PM 10/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Below is a the complete text of all active proposals, as requested. >> >> [fucking votes snipped] RANT ON: Don't send votes to the fucking list! By doing so the voting process is contaminated! The list reply-to address is always set to the list. Don't reply to things to the list unless you want them to go to the list. RANT OFF 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: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 13:10:21 -0500 From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Nomic: What a mess I voted "no" on quite a few proposals simply because I could not find them. So for future reference: If you want me to vote for your proposal make sure that you put the proposal number in each email about it so that I can find the bloody thing. - a disgruntle berserker ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 15:45:19 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot The results for which you've all been waiting: 317 passed (10-1-0-4) 318 passed (6-5-0-4) 319 passed (9-2-0-4) 320 failed (2-9-0-4) 321 failed (4-7-0-4) 323 passed (6-5-0-4) 324 failed (3-7-1-4) 326 passed (6-5-0-4) 327 passed (6-5-0-4) 328 failed (5-6-0-4) 329 failed (5-6-0-4) 330 passed (7-4-0-4) Things I have yet to do, but will probably get to this evening: 1. There's scads of points to be awarded. 2. The page has yet to be updated. Regardless, the next debate period started with the end of voting at 13:19 CDT this afternoon. It is now Jason Durheim's turn. Finally, as I've only just tablulated the results and not looked at what the Proposals that passed actually do in concert, there may now be weird things hapening of which I'm not yet aware. It's like the game is creating a mach cone, and I'm the sound waves. But I'll catch up. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 17:15:04 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: What a mess Andrew J Palecek writes: >I voted "no" on quite a few proposals simply because I could not find them. > So for future reference: If you want me to vote for your proposal make >sure that you put the proposal number in each email about it so that I can >find the bloody thing. > > >- a disgruntle berserker That's what the giant ballot was for, you hosehead. Josh -- Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding. - Samuel Johnson ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:34:49 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: proposals A list of all the proposals up for vote was easily accessible from the website. I found it to be quite useful when deciding on my votes. This coupled with the previously mentioned "giant ballot" leaves no excuse for not knowing the contents of each proposal. Andy, if I could burn you at the stake, I would. Instead, I choose to stick my tongue out at you and insert my thumb in my ear. There, how does that feel? n ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 19:03:03 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: OFFICIAL POSTING Well, I guess it's not official, but I decleare the new fuckwad of the game to be Andy Palecek. It was previously Nick, but I think Andy is now deserving of the title - certainly moreso than Nick. Thoughts? Damon __________ Could it be that he has a talent for music? -- Ludwig Geyer speaking of his step-son, Richard Wagner ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 19:17:46 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 333 (That's 666/2) Rule 222 will be amended to read: Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-(total inactive proposals numbered less than proposal number+total withdrawn proposals numbered less than proposal number)-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. _____ Why I think this is important: Basically this is to safeguard against someone proposing 100 proposals and then withdrawing them all so that they may be able to get MANY more points for their proposal than I think we want them to be getting. It's a pretty minor point, but one that I feel could be taken advantage of and would be better taken care of. If anyone disagrees with me, please say why. If enough people don't see this as a problem then I will withdraw it. Damon __________ Could it be that he has a talent for music? -- Ludwig Geyer speaking of his step-son, Richard Wagner ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 20:25:45 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot (Non Political Go) Joel wrote: >The results for which you've all been waiting: > >317 passed (10-1-0-4) >318 passed (6-5-0-4) >319 passed (9-2-0-4) >320 failed (2-9-0-4) >321 failed (4-7-0-4) >323 passed (6-5-0-4) >324 failed (3-7-1-4) Fine, just destroy my dreams... I don't care... As an act (that's sure to annoy those among the Terrible Seven that didn't anti-vote) of either protest or a sad inability to come to terms with reality, I formally indicate my desire to become a Non Go Player. I'll run Non Political Go until I'm forced to stop by lack of participation, a proposal, or someone else wants to take over the administration. The current Non Game State of Non Political Go: The Non 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 The Non Play List [Non Stones] name: Non Go Score / last move / had Non Stones at [T] Tom Mueller: 0 / none / none Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net PS I'm sure glad my stake burning prop didn't pass either :) PPS Oh, and since there technically aren't any rules for this game, I'll put the people who start quick ahead of me on the play list since they didn't have any forewarning that "Non Go" was starting. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 20:31:16 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 333 (That's 666/2) Damon wrote: >Rule 222 will be amended to read: > >Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their >Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-(total inactive proposals >numbered less than proposal number+total withdrawn proposals numbered >less than proposal number)-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), >rounded to the nearest integer. I'll vote for this as an improvement on the current situation, but I was wondering what the original purpose of tying points awarded to the proposal's number was? Why not just 15*(favor/non-neutrals) or something simpler for Joel to deal with.... Why not just 10 straight out? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:38:56 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 333 (That's 666/2) >Rule 222 will be amended to read: > > > >Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their >Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-(total inactive proposals >numbered less than proposal number+total withdrawn proposals numbered >less than proposal number)-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), >rounded to the nearest integer. > >_____ > > >Why I think this is important: > >Basically this is to safeguard against someone proposing 100 proposals >and then withdrawing them all so that they may be able to get MANY more >points for their proposal than I think we want them to be getting. It's a >pretty minor point, but one that I feel could be taken advantage of and >would be better taken care of. > >If anyone disagrees with me, please say why. If enough people don't see >this as a problem then I will withdraw it. > >Damon > >__________ > > Could it be that he has a talent for music? > > -- Ludwig Geyer speaking of his > step-son, Richard Wagner Valid point, I support this proposal. n ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 21:04:01 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: update delays Sorry about the delays to getting the ruleset updated, but I've been having some difficulties with my program that cranks out the html. Hopefully this will be resolved tonight... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 22:42:52 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: point awards Here is the scoring breakdown for last turn. Anyone who scored (huh, you said scored) more than once has the points broken down after the total. Damon Luloff, +63 (9+5+8-10+11+5+19+5+5+6) Joel Uckelman, +54 (24+5+25) Tom Plagge, +53 (15+23+5+5+5) Dakota Bailey, +32 (5+20-10+17) Nick Osborn, +28 (17+5+6) Andy Palecek, +23 (5+8+5+5) Jeff Schroeder, +21 (5+5+5+6) Tom Mueller, +17 (5-10+10-5-10+17) Matt Kuhns, +11 (5+6) Ed Proescholdt, +5 Josh Kortbein, -5 (-10+5) <=9 is for opposed minority scoring (usually) >9 is for a successful proposal -10 is for an unsuccessful proposal If you want to see what each number is for, look at the Event Log on the page. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 22:54:54 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: point awards Correction. >Here is the scoring breakdown for last turn. Anyone who scored (huh, you >said scored) more than once has the points broken down after the total. > >Damon Luloff, +63 (9+5+8-10+11+5+19+5+5+6) >Joel Uckelman, +54 (24+5+25) >Tom Plagge, +53 (15+23+5+5+5) >Dakota Bailey, +32 (5+20-10+17) >Nick Osborn, +28 (17+5+6) >Andy Palecek, +23 (5+8+5+5) >Jeff Schroeder, +21 (5+5+5+6) >Tom Mueller, +17 (5-10+10+5-10+17) >Matt Kuhns, +11 (5+6) >Ed Proescholdt, +5 >Josh Kortbein, -5 (-10+5) > ><=9 is for opposed minority scoring (usually) >>9 is for a successful proposal >-10 is for an unsuccessful proposal > >If you want to see what each number is for, look at the Event Log on the page. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 23:08:08 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 333 (That's 666/2) Mueller writes: >Damon wrote: >>Rule 222 will be amended to read: >> >>Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their >>Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-(total inactive proposals >>numbered less than proposal number+total withdrawn proposals numbered >>less than proposal number)-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), >>rounded to the nearest integer. > >I'll vote for this as an improvement on the current situation, but I was >wondering what the original purpose of tying points awarded to the >proposal's number was? > >Why not just 15*(favor/non-neutrals) or something simpler for Joel to deal >with.... > >Why not just 10 straight out? > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net Wasn't it done to get some sort of diminishing return? Josh -- "Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." - Lautreamont ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 23:22:08 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 333 (That's 666/2) Josh Kortbein writes: > >Mueller writes: >>Damon wrote: >>>Rule 222 will be amended to read: >>> >>>Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their >>>Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-(total inactive proposals >>>numbered less than proposal number+total withdrawn proposals numbered >>>less than proposal number)-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), >>>rounded to the nearest integer. >> >>I'll vote for this as an improvement on the current situation, but I was >>wondering what the original purpose of tying points awarded to the >>proposal's number was? >> >>Why not just 15*(favor/non-neutrals) or something simpler for Joel to deal >>with.... >> >>Why not just 10 straight out? >> >>Tom Mueller >>mueller4@sonic.net > >Wasn't it done to get some sort of diminishing return? Whoops, nevermind, I'm thinking of something else. > > > > > >Josh > > >-- >"Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." > - Lautreamont > -- Universities hire professors the way some men choose wives - they want the ones the others will admire. - Morris Kline ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 23:56:45 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: another correction At 11:14 PM 10/6/98 -0500, you wrote: > >I earned -5 points during that round of voting. >I recall having a nonnegative, nonzero number of points prior to >voting. Why is my score now -5? > >Josh -5 was your net point change. You actually now have 0. Sorry. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 23:52:41 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: New proposal Introducing the No-risk proposal: ***Players may, upon formally making a proposal which would transmute an immutable rule, designate that proposal as a "no-risk" proposal. No-risk proposals function exactly like other proposals, except the proposal's sponsor does not lose or gain points as a result of the proposal's passing or failing.*** Some days ago, in the midst of the avalanche of proposals we recently finished with, I hinted at a proposal allowing what I then referred to as "disinterested proposals," which would not involve any gain or loss on the sponsor's part. The original impetus for this proposal was concern that the requirement of unanimity when attempting to transmute immutable rules made the odds against success of a transmutation so poor that it would discourage players from attempting to transmute rules at all. This seems to be an effective game flaw, one that could be remedied simplly by allowing players to propose transmutation without concern for gain or loss of points. I believe the no-risk proposal should be limited to transmutations, because lifting the consequence of point exchange from all proposals would cause a shift in game dynamics that I would not like to see. Of course, I do not require that transmutation proposals be "risk-free;" if someone wants to chance the loss of points for potential gain, I see no problem. This is still the first draft of this proposal, naturally, so comments questions and suggestions are welcome. 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, 07 Oct 1998 00:04:39 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New proposal Matthew J Kuhns writes: >Introducing the No-risk proposal: > >***Players may, upon formally making a proposal which would transmute an >immutable rule, designate that proposal as a "no-risk" proposal. No-risk >proposals function exactly like other proposals, except the proposal's >sponsor does not lose or gain points as a result of the proposal's passing >or failing.*** > >Some days ago, in the midst of the avalanche of proposals we recently >finished with, I hinted at a proposal allowing what I then referred to as >"disinterested proposals," which would not involve any gain or loss on the >sponsor's part. > >The original impetus for this proposal was concern that the requirement of >unanimity when attempting to transmute immutable rules made the odds >against success of a transmutation so poor that it would discourage players >from attempting to transmute rules at all. > >This seems to be an effective game flaw, one that could be remedied simplly >by allowing players to propose transmutation without concern for gain or >loss of points. One thing: What reasons do we have for wanting it easier to transmute rules? Or for wanting rules to be transmuted more often? > >I believe the no-risk proposal should be limited to transmutations, because Absolutely. If, that is, one is all for scoring and the like. Which I assume many people are since they keep talking about scoring, and voting to obtain opposed minority points. :) >lifting the consequence of point exchange from all proposals would cause a >shift in game dynamics that I would not like to see. Of course, I do not >require that transmutation proposals be "risk-free;" if someone wants to >chance the loss of points for potential gain, I see no problem. > >This is still the first draft of this proposal, naturally, so comments >questions and suggestions are welcome. I think that a very narrow scope is essential here. 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: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:26:59 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: No-risk transmutation >One thing: > >What reasons do we have for wanting it easier to transmute rules? >Or for wanting rules to be transmuted more often? I don't really want to make it "easier" per se, which is why my approach doesn't lessen the requirement of unanimity. I just want to give people a chance to propose transmutation without risking points on such a tough set of requirements. Absolutely. If, that is, one is all for scoring and the like. Which >I assume many people are since they keep talking about scoring, and >voting to obtain opposed minority points. :) I'm pretty sure everyone in Berserker is all about scoring... huhuh-huhuh... >I think that a very narrow scope is essential here. Works for me. 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, 7 Oct 1998 01:30:51 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: New Proposal 334(?) The combination of the new Rules 327 and 317 has the undesirable effect of reseting Wins to 0 at the end of each game. My proposal follows: -------- Amend Rule 317 as follows: 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 but excluding Wins are reset to their initial state as appropriate, and play continues. This takes precedence over Rule 327. -------- n ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 01:41:12 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New Proposal 334(?) Nicholas C Osborn writes: >The combination of the new Rules 327 and 317 has the undesirable effect of >reseting Wins to 0 at the end of each game. My proposal follows: > > >-------- >Amend Rule 317 as follows: >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 but excluding Wins are reset to their initial state as >appropriate, and play continues. > >This takes precedence over Rule 327. >-------- > >n Boffo. -- ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 13:02:36 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: prop 333 (That's 666/2) At 08:31 PM 10/6/98 -0400, you wrote: >Damon wrote: >>Rule 222 will be amended to read: >> >>Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their >>Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-(total inactive proposals >>numbered less than proposal number+total withdrawn proposals numbered >>less than proposal number)-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), >>rounded to the nearest integer. > >I'll vote for this as an improvement on the current situation, but I was >wondering what the original purpose of tying points awarded to the >proposal's number was? The formula for awarding points is not one of our making -- we're still using the one (more or less) from Suber's ruleset. More at the point, then, (unless you're taking a modern literary-criticism standpoint in that the author's intent is irrelevant) is: why did Suber make it that way? It seems to me that by making proposal values increase, an instability is created -- we're forced to adjust things after a while -- and it gives more weight to recent events (in addtion to the import derived from their recency). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 13:20:07 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal numbers New proposals and their numbers: 333 - Luloff, Proposal Scoring 334 - Kuhns, Disinterested Proposals 335 - Osborn, Wins-erase Fix J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 15:57:41 CDT Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 16:05:46 -0500 From: My Belly Hurts At 03:57 PM 10/7/98 -0500, you wrote: > >I've got a question for y'all. Will rule 319 be applied expos facto? (I >hope I have the right latin term.) What I mean is, when do we start >counting the fifteen days from to determine which players are in limbo? >If we go by the actual time Players have been inactive, I think Durheim, >Haar, and maybe Nate or Mike might be in limbo. Or should we start from >the time of its passage? > >Damon Rule 107 explicitly prohibits retroactive application of rules. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 16:59:06 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: REVISION of 331 This proposal isn't even close to finished. The whole location thing is really confusing me. I don't know whether Joel will deal with that or me. Anyway, once I see Joels's proposal it will be easier for me to get to the whole location and adjusting location thing. But for now, this is what I have. Sorry it is so unorganized. If anyone has any ideas for ways to make it simpler or state things more clearly, I'd like to hear them. ___ This proposal will create Rule 331. (Beginning of Rule 331) There is a physical component to this Nomic game in which can exist people, places, and things. Each Player will have a body through which he will exist in this physical component. The following are 4 sub-attributes of bodies: {Number, State, Location, Health}. State is defined as either Alive or Dead. Health is defined as an integer greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 100. Low numerical values of health should be thought of as "bad health." High numerical values of health should be thought of as "good health." Number is a sub-attribute consisting of positive integers, dependent upon the State. Location (I will work out the details later, depending upon how Joel wants to work the location aspect of the game.) If ever the State of a Player is Dead, Number is increased by 1, State is returned to Alive. and Location is returned to Art Exhibition Museum (or whatever coordinates Joel will assign this place). Bodies of Players must at all times be located at some place in this physical component. The set of all possible locations at which things and people may exist is defined as: {College, Athletic Facility, Bank, Track, Cemetery, Hospital, Bar, Art Exhibition Museum, Market}. In the event that a Player's body is destroyed or found to be useless for any physical activities, that Player will instantly be given a new body, which will appear in the Art Exhibition Museum. (Ending of Rule 331) It will amend 327 to read: (Beginning of 327) The set of player attributes is defined as {score, wins, body[number, state, location, health]}; anything not listed in this rule as a player attribute is not a player attribute. (Ending of 327) Damon __________ LSD, if nothing else, intensifies taste (except a taste for food; food is out of the question). So the color of your socks, your sweater, had better be of genuine vegetable dye; otherwise you'll tear these clothes from yourself and go naked. Naked like the poet. (The acid test: will it hold up under LSD?) -- Ned Rorem ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 20:24:38 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: REVISION of 331 Damon wrote: > >This proposal will create Rule 331. > >(Beginning of Rule 331).... > >...The following are 4 sub-attributes of bodies: {Number, State, Location, >Health}. There's one place location is noted > >...Location (I will work out the details later, depending upon how Joel >wants to work the location aspect of the game.) > >If ever the State of a Player is Dead, Number is increased by 1, State is >returned to Alive. and Location is returned to Art Exhibition Museum (or >whatever coordinates Joel will assign this place). > >Bodies of Players must at all times be located at some place in this >physical component. > >The set of all possible locations at which things and people may exist is >defined as: {College, Athletic Facility, Bank, Track, Cemetery, Hospital, >Bar, Art Exhibition Museum, Market}. here's another >(Beginning of 327) > >The set of player attributes is defined as {score, wins, body[number, >state, location, health]}; anything not listed in this rule as a player >attribute is not a player attribute. and finally, a third place where location is defined. (Not to mention that it will be defined by Joel's prop, too.) Perhaps each idea should be contained in one rule which is thorough. If we keep this cross referencing thing going, then we just make more work, more possibility of inconsistency, and a more confusing ruleset. For example, 327 says "anything not listed in this rule as a player attribute is not a player attribute." but what if something with higher priority says that there's another one? I think 327 should either be killed, or broken into multiple rules that deal with independent attributes (or attributes here, charactersitics there and whatever we find most useful elsewhere), or condensed into one larger rule that describes everything the players can do or be. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 19:35:18 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Ruleset update Ther rulesets now reflect the current state of the rules, as I've now succeeded in fixing my rules munge (permanently, I hope). Thanks for your patience. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 19:37:38 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: REVISION of 331 At 04:59 PM 10/7/98 -0500, you wrote: > >This proposal isn't even close to finished. The whole location thing is >really confusing me. I don't know whether Joel will deal with that or me. >Anyway, once I see Joels's proposal it will be easier for me to get to >the whole location and adjusting location thing. But for now, this is >what I have. Sorry it is so unorganized. If anyone has any ideas for ways >to make it simpler or state things more clearly, I'd like to hear them. All I'll really be doing is assigning coordinates to the locations you create if your proposal passes. The only significance this will have is that it will prevent private ownership of public buildings. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 09:21:27 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 336 prop 336 Two trophies are hereby created. The first trophy shall bear the name "Close Does Count." The second trophy shall bear the name "Third Base." Upon a Player being declared the Winner other than through the impossiblity of further play, the person with the second greatest amount of points shall be awarded the Close Does Count trophy, and the person with the third greatest amount of points shall be awarded the Third Base trophy. The bearer of the Close Does Count trophy will have the privilege of striking the votes of three players on any two proposals of the bearer's choice. This may be used at any time, but only once before the trophy is re-awarded. The procedure for the striking of the votes will be as follows. During the voting period, the bearer of the Close Does Count trophy must tell the Administrator which proposal he wishes to use his strikes on and also which Players' votes he wishes to strike. He need tell only the Administrator. Stricken votes shall count as neutral, but be recorded as stricken, so that their actual votes may be public knowledge after the end of the voting period. The bearer of the Third Base trophy will have the privilege of making two nil-penalty proposals. A nil-penalty proposal is from which no point penalty shall arise if the proposal fails. In order to use this privilege, the bearer must publicly inform all Players that he is using his nil-penalty proposal upon his submission of said proposal. _________ This rule is obviously meant to give some reward to the second and third places, since there are currently no perks for coming in second or third. Personally, I think it would be more fun if there were rewards for doing well, but not winning. We have already discussed this some, and it sounded like this idea was received well. The only question I have is, how does everyone like my proposed rewards? Are they too much? Too little? Somehow off-base? I'd really like this one to pass, so tell me in what form you would vote for it. Damon __________ LSD, if nothing else, intensifies taste (except a taste for food; food is out of the question). So the color of your socks, your sweater, had better be of genuine vegetable dye; otherwise you'll tear these clothes from yourself and go naked. Naked like the poet. (The acid test: will it hold up under LSD?) -- Ned Rorem ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:08:21 CDT From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: n since i started using codiene, the game has really picked up. do you think you guys could slow it down a bit? n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:56:10 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: n Nicholas C Osborn writes: >since i started using codiene, the game has really picked up. do you >think you guys could slow it down a bit? > >n It's just a relativistic effect. Take two wormholes and try again in the morning. Josh -- We often hear that mathematics consists mainly of "proving theorems." Is a writer's job mainly that of "writing sentences?" - Gian-Carlo Rota ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:39:18 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Am I dead? I'm seriously considering the possiblity that I am no longer alive. I haven't heard from anyone on the nomic list, and I haven't seen anyone in my hall for a few hours. The only other person I know to be alive is the pissa delivery man - is he Satan or God? (If he's God maybe I can ask Him if He still wants to be in our game.) Damon __________ LSD, if nothing else, intensifies taste (except a taste for food; food is out of the question). So the color of your socks, your sweater, had better be of genuine vegetable dye; otherwise you'll tear these clothes from yourself and go naked. Naked like the poet. (The acid test: will it hold up under LSD?) -- Ned Rorem ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:50:26 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Am I dead? At 11:39 PM 10/10/98 -0500, you wrote: >I'm seriously considering the possiblity that I am no longer alive. I >haven't heard from anyone on the nomic list, and I haven't seen anyone in >my hall for a few hours. The only other person I know to be alive is the >pissa delivery man - is he Satan or God? (If he's God maybe I can ask Him >if He still wants to be in our game.) > >Damon Indeed, recent list traffic has been sparse, but I think that's attributable to people being away, busy, or both. Anyway, I would resist the urge to play games of chance with the pizza guy, especially poker with tarot cards, especially for your soul. Wait. Wrong frame of reference... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 00:05:57 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Am I dead? My Belly Hurts writes: > >I'm seriously considering the possiblity that I am no longer alive. I >haven't heard from anyone on the nomic list, and I haven't seen anyone in >my hall for a few hours. The only other person I know to be alive is the >pissa delivery man - is he Satan or God? (If he's God maybe I can ask Him >if He still wants to be in our game.) Maybe you should just wait to see if you get hungry. Do people who aren't alive get hungry? Josh -- I knew Jimi (Hendrix) and I think that the best thing you could say about Jimi was: there was a person who shouldn't use drugs. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 01:49:14 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Am I dead? >I'm seriously considering the possiblity that I am no longer alive. I >haven't heard from anyone on the nomic list, and I haven't seen anyone in >my hall for a few hours. The only other person I know to be alive is the >pissa delivery man - is he Satan or God? (If he's God maybe I can ask Him >if He still wants to be in our game.) i think youre alive, but im swallowing pink pills with codiene cough syrup. i hope you don't want any beer. if you get some beer, then the delivery man must not be god, according to the polka. however, if you dont get beer when you want it, then the delivery man is certainly satan. so, getting drunk would prove that you are alive. i wonder if theres cough syrup in heaven. n ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:04:11 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: new proposal all players must pay a yearly fee of $23 to osborn to support his codiene habit. this rule may be informally amended by osborn to aid his progress towards harder drugs. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:30:37 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: new proposal >all players must pay a yearly fee of $23 to osborn to support his codiene >habit. this rule may be informally amended by osborn to aid his progress >towards harder drugs. jensen amendment all players must pay a yearly fee of $.50 to osborn to support his codiene habit. this rule may be informally amended by osborn to aid his progress towards harder drugs, such as crank. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:34:52 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: A waste is a terrible thing to mind >all players must pay a yearly fee of $23 to osborn to support his codiene >habit. this rule may be informally amended by osborn to aid his progress >towards harder drugs. Ahahahah! You crack me up, Nick. Given that you are much more amusing with your brain awash in codeine, I am going to support this proposal. Hey, it's only 6.3 cents per day, after all--less than feeding one of those undernourished tots in Africa. 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, 11 Oct 1998 23:00:43 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: new proposal >>all players must pay a yearly fee of $23 to osborn to support his codiene >>habit. this rule may be informally amended by osborn to aid his progress >>towards harder drugs. > >jensen amendment > >all players must pay a yearly fee of $.50 to osborn to support his codiene >habit. this rule may be informally amended by osborn to aid his progress >towards harder drugs, such as crank. uckelman amendment all players must pay a yearly fee of $.50 to osborn to support his codiene habit, though osborn is free to use these funds to aid his progress towards harder drugs, such as crank. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:08:06 -0500 From: exodus Subject: Re: Nomic: new proposal I propose that a new position of "Drug Czar" be created within the game. This position will confer absolutely no power or authority, so it shall exist primarily as a symbolic trapping. The "Drug Czar" will have the freedom to make public statements and conduct ceremonies with foreign heads of state, but Nomic will disavow any endorsement of the aforementioned "Drug Czar" and his policies. Nomic will also refrain from providing any form of compensation for activities undertaken by the Drug Czar; so if the Drug Czar were to take Boris Yeltsin out to "Blondies" for an evening of good, clean, wholesome fun, he would not be reimbursed for any lap dances. The position shall be filled by the terms of a general election, in which any candidate (the only requirement being that a candidate is a "local"(see below for details) Nomic player) can submit his or her (or its) name to a general election list, which will be maintained by Joel. Nomic players are allowed to submit the name of only one candidate, and after every person has submitted a name (not necessarily being their own) by a date predetermined by Joel, every player will receive an emailed list of candidates courtesy of the Nomic mailing list. After that, each player will vote by sending a message to Joel informing them of their decsision, and only after every player has voted can the scores be tabulated with the winner revealed. Failure to account for all votes will nullify results of any election. The winner shall be the candidate who receives more votes than any other single candidate. You are not allowed to split your vote (1 is 1). This system of election places a great deal of trust in Joel, and while we consider him to be an honest and forthright person, if any person can document malfeasance on his part during the election process (in relation to the election and not in general), Joel will be immediately deducted three points from his overall score. The person exposing any wrongdoing on Joel's part will receive Joel's three points one day after penalization. Definition of the word "local" as used in the passage above, and in the context of the sentence it inhabited, for the purpose of further expanding the explanation of the proposal issued above, and not relating to any geographical definition or low-calorie nutritional substance: Must be a current member of the mailing list. Aaron P.S. to Damon: God brings nothing good to you unless it is a test, where upon failure of the test results in dismissal to Hell (located in any geographical range and not necessarily being Hades, examples being Ames, IA or South Queens). If you tipped the pizza man and was not sent to Hell, it may have been God and you passed by tipping the guy enough. On the other hand, Satan prefers to give you good things and then withhold them until you do his bidding by leading his army of hellspawn to conquer heaven, so I would be wary the next time they tell you that they no longer deliver to your area. In any event, please exercise caution - I would not like to deal with either entity. They cheat. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:57:02 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: new proposal At 11:00 PM 10/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >>>all players must pay a yearly fee of $23 to osborn to support his codiene >>>habit. this rule may be informally amended by osborn to aid his progress >>>towards harder drugs. >> >>jensen amendment >> >>all players must pay a yearly fee of $.50 to osborn to support his codiene >>habit. this rule may be informally amended by osborn to aid his progress >>towards harder drugs, such as crank. > >uckelman amendment > >all players must pay a yearly fee of $.50 to osborn to support his codiene >habit, though osborn is free to use these funds to aid his progress towards >harder drugs, such as crank. YEARLY FEE??? Now how the hell are you supposed to support a codine habit on...what...$7 a year? No way! The Uckelman ammendment is bad policy and should be defeated in favor of the Jensen ammendment. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 08:53:39 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: A waste is a terrible thing to mind At 10:34 PM 10/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >>all players must pay a yearly fee of $23 to osborn to support his codiene >>habit. this rule may be informally amended by osborn to aid his progress >>towards harder drugs. > >Ahahahah! You crack me up, Nick. Given that you are much more amusing with >your brain awash in codeine, I am going to support this proposal. Hey, it's >only >6.3 cents per day, after all--less than feeding one of those undernourished >tots in Africa. > I feel that Mr. Kuhns makes a very good point. Being a poor college student I can hardly afford that 75 cents a day that Sally Struthers asks for in order to give a child a heathly diet, medicine, a car, air conditioning, a college education, and a villa in the south of France. However, I can do my part for humanity and support nick's codine habit. And all for barely 10% of Sally Struthers asking price. (?) So, I enthusiastically support this proposal, and encourage others to do so as well. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:22:03 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: new amendment to prop i lost track of amendments all players must pay a yearly fee of a $1.50 to osborn to support his codiene habit, though osborn is free to use these funds to aid his progress towards harder drugs, such as crank or smack. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:21:25 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Nick's proposal I find this an amusing way to help Nick lose points when NO ONE votes for it. Damon __________ LSD, if nothing else, intensifies taste (except a taste for food; food is out of the question). So the color of your socks, your sweater, had better be of genuine vegetable dye; otherwise you'll tear these clothes from yourself and go naked. Naked like the poet. (The acid test: will it hold up under LSD?) -- Ned Rorem ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:10:45 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: new amendment to prop At 09:22 AM 10/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >i lost track of amendments > >all players must pay a yearly fee of a $1.50 to osborn to support his codiene >habit, though osborn is free to use these funds to aid his progress towards >harder drugs, such as crank or smack. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for something that contains no capital letters. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:29:37 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Re: P338 At 11:08 PM 10/11/98 -0500, Woell wrote: >I propose that a new position of "Drug Czar" be created within the game. You may want to rephrase this to be someting like "A new position of "Drug Czar" shall be created within the game." >This position will confer absolutely no power or authority, so it shall >exist primarily as a symbolic trapping. The "Drug Czar" will have the >freedom to make public statements and conduct ceremonies with foreign heads >of state, but Nomic will disavow any endorsement of the aforementioned >"Drug Czar" and his policies. Nomic will also refrain from providing any >form of compensation for activities undertaken by the Drug Czar; so if the >Drug Czar were to take Boris Yeltsin out to "Blondies" for an evening of >good, clean, wholesome fun, he would not be reimbursed for any lap dances. "Nomic" here would refer to nomic games in general (cf. R001), so you may want to change this to "Berserker Nomic" here, and anywhere you want to refer solely to our game. >The position shall be filled by the terms of a general election, in which >any candidate (the only requirement being that a candidate is a "local"(see >below for details) Nomic player) can submit his or her (or its) name to a >general election list, which will be maintained by Joel. Nomic players are >allowed to submit the name of only one candidate, and after every person >has submitted a name (not necessarily being their own) by a date >predetermined by Joel, every player will receive an emailed list of >candidates courtesy of the Nomic mailing list. After that, each player >will vote by sending a message to Joel informing them of their decsision, >and only after every player has voted can the scores be tabulated with the >winner revealed. Failure to account for all votes will nullify results of >any election. The winner shall be the candidate who receives more votes >than any other single candidate. You are not allowed to split your vote (1 >is 1). As my position is defined as "Administrator", you may want to replace all instances of my name with "the Administrator". >This system of election places a great deal of trust in Joel, and while we >consider him to be an honest and forthright person, if any person can >document malfeasance on his part during the election process (in relation >to the election and not in general), Joel will be immediately deducted >three points from his overall score. The person exposing any wrongdoing on >Joel's part will receive Joel's three points one day after penalization. Any malfeasance on my part could be reversed or corrected through the judicial system. And how would this documentation of wrongdoing be done? Who decides? Judges? You? Me? Why three points? In any case, as I want to avoid having any unfair advantages over other players due to my position as Administrator, I likewise object to the imposition of a penalty that solely applies to me. >Definition of the word "local" as used in the passage above, and in the >context of the sentence it inhabited, for the purpose of further expanding >the explanation of the proposal issued above, and not relating to any >geographical definition or low-calorie nutritional substance: Must be a >current member of the mailing list. > >Aaron Are you making a distinction here between Players and eligible candidates? It is possible to be a Player and not be subscribed to the mailing list. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:41:00 -0500 From: exodus Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: P338 >You may want to rephrase this to be someting like "A new position of "Drug >Czar" shall be created within the game." > That sounds as if I am ordering everyone else around, serf. >"Nomic" here would refer to nomic games in general (cf. R001), so you may >want to change this to "Berserker Nomic" here, and anywhere you want to >refer solely to our game. > Fine. Make up the rules as you go along. I bend 'em anyway. >As my position is defined as "Administrator", you may want to replace all >instances of my name with "the Administrator". > Easily done. >Any malfeasance on my part could be reversed or corrected through the >judicial system. > I didn't know we had a judicial system; I thought we lived in the shadow of a benevolent dictatorship like Bill Gates. Are judges appointed or elected? >And how would this documentation of wrongdoing be done? > With much forgery and wiretaps. >Who decides? Judges? You? Me? > Having you decide would be self-defeating. It's like Clinton pardoning himself. >Why three points? > More than one, less five. >In any case, as I want to >avoid having any unfair advantages over other players due to my position as >Administrator, I likewise object to the imposition of a penalty that solely >applies to me. > We'll penalize any player that does not have at least two A's in their proper name. How's that? >Are you making a distinction here between Players and eligible candidates? >It is possible to be a Player and not be subscribed to the mailing list. > I just wanted to make sure that no person submitted the name of someone not on the list. God knows what would happed if iNate submitted David Duke or Pat Buchannan. And who wouldn't vote for God? Aaron ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:54:19 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: P338 At 02:41 PM 10/12/98 -0500, Woell wrote: > >>You may want to rephrase this to be someting like "A new position of "Drug >>Czar" shall be created within the game." >> >That sounds as if I am ordering everyone else around, serf. Um, but if you don't change this and P338 passes, then we'll have "I" as the actor in a rule. No one will think you're ordering them around -- this is how proposals are done. >>"Nomic" here would refer to nomic games in general (cf. R001), so you may >>want to change this to "Berserker Nomic" here, and anywhere you want to >>refer solely to our game. >> >Fine. Make up the rules as you go along. I bend 'em anyway. Well, if you use "nomic" instead of "Berserker Nomic", I could claim that your proposal doesn't apply to our game. >>Any malfeasance on my part could be reversed or corrected through the >>judicial system. >> >I didn't know we had a judicial system; I thought we lived in the shadow of >a benevolent dictatorship like Bill Gates. Are judges appointed or elected? Look at Rules 214-219. >>In any case, as I want to >>avoid having any unfair advantages over other players due to my position as >>Administrator, I likewise object to the imposition of a penalty that solely >>applies to me. >> >We'll penalize any player that does not have at least two A's in their >proper name. How's that? Damon probably wouldn't like that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:59:13 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Aaron's proposal I hate to say it, but I don't see anyone voting for this proposal. Creative as it is, it doesn't do anything except make more work for everyone. Some people are already overwhelmed with their nomic responsibilities and stuff. Maybe if you could change it to actually do something ... Damon __________ LSD, if nothing else, intensifies taste (except a taste for food; food is out of the question). So the color of your socks, your sweater, had better be of genuine vegetable dye; otherwise you'll tear these clothes from yourself and go naked. Naked like the poet. (The acid test: will it hold up under LSD?) -- Ned Rorem ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 18:11:05 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Standings Yo, friendly Administrator. How are you organizing the standings? Josh is at the end, yet he has the same as the other players with zero points, with the exception that he has one win. Should this put him at the bottom? I assumed the current system organized the Players with identical scores by alphabetical. Please explain. Also, I would like to eventually see a separate list for wins. Damon __________ LSD, if nothing else, intensifies taste (except a taste for food; food is out of the question). So the color of your socks, your sweater, had better be of genuine vegetable dye; otherwise you'll tear these clothes from yourself and go naked. Naked like the poet. (The acid test: will it hold up under LSD?) -- Ned Rorem ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 18:37:04 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Standings >Also, I would like to eventually see a separate list for wins. while there is nothing preventing el administratoro from listing wins, the proposal that would officially record wins, prop325, is still in the works. im quite open to any suggestions concerning this proposal, as it is evidently a topic of intense emotional quandry. n ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 18:44:59 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: myprop isincerelyapologizetoallthosewhofindunorthodoxmethodsofconveyingmeaningbothersom e.imverysorry.infactipityyou.ihavechosenformyselfagoalhigherthanpassingpropasals .imheretohavefunandtohelpothersdothesame.ifyouhaveaproblemwiththismaybeyoushould askyourselfwhyyouarehere.iwouldalsoliketoapologizeformygrossoveruseoftheformofpu nctuationknownastheperiod.iwillremedythisinthenearfuture.n ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 19:40:54 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: myprop At 06:44 PM 10/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >isincerelyapologizetoallthosewhofindunorthodoxmethodsofconveyingmeaningboth ersom >e.imverysorry.infactipityyou.ihavechosenformyselfagoalhigherthanpassingprop asals >.imheretohavefunandtohelpothersdothesame.ifyouhaveaproblemwiththismaybeyous hould >askyourselfwhyyouarehere.iwouldalsoliketoapologizeformygrossoveruseofthefor mofpu >nctuationknownastheperiod.iwillremedythisinthenearfuture.n iappreciatethatyouwillbewagingwaronperiods.youaretheappleofyossarian'seye.yo ushouldbeproud. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:39:22 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick's proposal My Belly Hurts writes: > >I find this an amusing way to help Nick lose points when NO ONE votes for it. Not even Nick. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. - Walt Whitman ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:46:55 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Standings My Belly Hurts writes: > >Yo, friendly Administrator. How are you organizing the standings? Josh is >at the end, yet he has the same as the other players with zero points, >with the exception that he has one win. Should this put him at the >bottom? I assumed the current system organized the Players with identical >scores by alphabetical. My guess is that after Joel fixed the error by which he determined I had -5 points, he just left my entry where it was in the list, last. Josh -- I knew I'd hate COBOL the moment I saw they'd used "perform" instead of "do". - Larry Wall on a not-so-popular programming language ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:14:47 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Standings At 08:46 PM 10/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >My Belly Hurts writes: >> >>Yo, friendly Administrator. How are you organizing the standings? Josh is >>at the end, yet he has the same as the other players with zero points, >>with the exception that he has one win. Should this put him at the >>bottom? I assumed the current system organized the Players with identical >>scores by alphabetical. > >My guess is that after Joel fixed the error by which he determined I >had -5 points, he just left my entry where it was in the list, last. > >Josh That would be correct. Everyone with the same number of points is still tied, regardless of the order in which they are listed. It is a deviation from my normal method, and will probably be remedied next time I update the scores. But if you really want me to fix this before then, let me know. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:29:14 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Standings Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 08:46 PM 10/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >>My Belly Hurts writes: >>> >>>Yo, friendly Administrator. How are you organizing the standings? Josh is >>>at the end, yet he has the same as the other players with zero points, >>>with the exception that he has one win. Should this put him at the >>>bottom? I assumed the current system organized the Players with identical >>>scores by alphabetical. >> >>My guess is that after Joel fixed the error by which he determined I >>had -5 points, he just left my entry where it was in the list, last. >> >>Josh > >That would be correct. Everyone with the same number of points is still >tied, regardless of the order in which they are listed. It is a deviation >from my normal method, and will probably be remedied next time I update the >scores. But if you really want me to fix this before then, let me know. Oh, I care. I really care. > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu -- The best material model of a cat is another, or preferably the same, cat. - A. Rosenblueth ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:23:22 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: myprop At 06:44 PM 10/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >isincerelyapologizetoallthosewhofindunorthodoxmethodsofconveyingmeaningboth ersom >e.imverysorry.infactipityyou.ihavechosenformyselfagoalhigherthanpassingprop asals >.imheretohavefunandtohelpothersdothesame.ifyouhaveaproblemwiththismaybeyous hould >askyourselfwhyyouarehere.iwouldalsoliketoapologizeformygrossoveruseofthefor mofpu >nctuationknownastheperiod.iwillremedythisinthenearfuture.n NiCkYoUcOnTiNuEtOaMaZeMe. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:46:31 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: myprop >At 06:44 PM 10/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >>isincerelyapologizetoallthosewhofindunorthodoxmethodsofconveyingmeaningboth >ersom >>e.imverysorry.infactipityyou.ihavechosenformyselfagoalhigherthanpassingprop >asals >>.imheretohavefunandtohelpothersdothesame.ifyouhaveaproblemwiththismaybeyous >hould >>askyourselfwhyyouarehere.iwouldalsoliketoapologizeformygrossoveruseofthefor >mofpu >>nctuationknownastheperiod.iwillremedythisinthenearfuture.n > >NiCkYoUcOnTiNuEtOaMaZeMe. WOWCANTHISREALLYBETHEWORSTITCANGETORCOULDIPOSSIBLYMAKEITWORSEBYUSINGALLCAPSTHUSE LIMINATINGANYLETTERFORMVARIETYANDALSOADDINGTHEANNOYINGCONNOTATIONOFSHOUTINGNONST OP?YOUKNOWITHINKTHISISWORSETHOUGHITMAYHAVETODOWITHTHEFACTTHATIT'SSUCHALONGBUNCHO FTEXTRATHERTHANABRIEFBURST.CANTYPOGRAPHYGETANYWORSETHANBARELYPUNCTUATEDALLCAPSMO NOSPACEDTEXT? I hope not! 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, 13 Oct 1998 02:17:13 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Prop 325 Proposal 325, active The Player attribute "Wins" is the total number of individual games won by the corresponding player, including games of Berserker Nomic, Berserker Nomic's direct predecessor, or later incarnations of Berserker Nomic that contain this rule. The list of all former Players who have Wins greater than zero and all current Players along with each of these Players' corresponding Wins is the All Time Berserker Standings. The list shall be ordered by descending Wins. In cases of ties, Players will be listed by alphabetical order of their game epithets. Former Players in the All Time Berserker Standings shall be marked with an asterisk, and it shall be noted that the asterisk marks former Players. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:50:28 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Prop 325, slight adjustment Proposal 325, active The Player attribute "Wins" is the total number of individual games won by the corresponding player, including games of Berserker Nomic, Berserker Nomic's direct predecessor, or later incarnations of Berserker Nomic that contain this rule. The list of all former Players who have Wins greater than zero and all current Players along with each of these Players' corresponding Wins is the All Time Berserker Standings. The All Time Berserker Standings shall be ordered by descending Wins. In cases of ties, the All Time Berserker Standings will be determined by alphabetical order of Players' appropriate nomic epithets. Former Players in the All Time Berserker Standings shall be marked with an asterisk, and it shall be noted that the asterisk marks former Players. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:41:42 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop 325, slight adjustment At 04:50 AM 10/13/98 -0500, you wrote: >Proposal 325, active > >The Player attribute "Wins" is the total number of individual games won by >the corresponding player, including games of Berserker Nomic, Berserker >Nomic's direct predecessor, or later incarnations of Berserker Nomic that >contain this rule. > >The list of all former Players who have Wins greater than zero and all >current Players along with each of these Players' corresponding Wins is the >All Time Berserker Standings. The All Time Berserker Standings shall be >ordered by descending Wins. In cases of ties, the All Time Berserker >Standings will be determined by alphabetical order of Players' appropriate >nomic epithets. Former Players in the All Time Berserker Standings shall be >marked with an asterisk, and it shall be noted that the asterisk marks >former Players. Even though this would take precedence over Rule 317, it would be less confusing if you also amended it by adding the word "non-Win" in the correct location. 317, last sentence: . . .all non-Win Player attributes including scores are reset to their initial ^^^^^^^^^ states as appropriate, and play continues. ^^^^^^^ And make "state" plural while you're at it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:57:40 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop 325, Prop 335 Joel prophesies: >Even though this would take precedence over Rule 317, it would be less >confusing if you also amended it by adding the word "non-Win" in the >correct location. > >317, last sentence: . . .all non-Win Player attributes including scores >are reset to their initial ^^^^^^^^^ > states as appropriate, and play continues. > ^^^^^^^ > >And make "state" plural while you're at it. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu This is addressed by a seperate proposal of mine, Prop 335. However, I will adopt your wording, if you don't mind. ------ Amend Rule 317 as follows: Upon a Player being declared the Winner other than through the impossiblity of further play, that Player is credited with a Win, all non-Win Player attributes including scores are reset to their initial states as appropriate, and play continues. This takes precedence over Rule 327. ------ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:07:43 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Prop 335, more help from Joel Amend Rule 317 as follows: Upon a Player being declared the Winner other than through the impossiblity of further play, that Player is credited with a Win, all non-Win Player attributes including scores are reset to their initial states as appropriate, and play continues. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:13:21 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 339 $ Amend Rule 327 to read as follows: "The set of Player Attributes is defined as {score, Wins}. Upon the passage of a Proposal altering this set, the set shall amend itself to reflect the current set. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules or portions of Rules dealing with Player Attributes." $ This ensures that the list of player attributes remains current, freeing players of the need to remember to update it in attribute proposals. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:55:39 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: CFJ Just to clarify, I call for judgement on the following statement: Decisions made by the Court of Appeals are final, and may not themselves be appealed. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:28:58 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 31 judge assignment Joel Uckelman has been selected as judge for the statement: Decisions made by the Court of Appeals are final, and may not themselves be appealed. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:27:27 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: corrections Unfortunately, no one noticed this right away, but as per Rule 309, Aaron Woell can't yet submit a proposal because he hasn't been a player for an entire turn yet. Once we've voted on everything in this round, he can, but not until then. Therefore, I am voiding his proposal and renumbering all of the proposals after his. Sorry for the mixup. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:47:09 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: another quickie proposal This just specifies when the first election is to be held. It will have the side effect of making Joel the Alan Greenspan during the first turn, which I don't see as a problem, since nobody has any Subers yet. ----- The first general election shall be held during the voting period immediately following the passage of this rule. This rule deletes itself upon passage. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:42:56 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: New proposals There are a few proposals in this message. They are delimited by "-----". Basically, they define "Elected office," and they create money. I decided, in a mood of sentimentality, to name the currency unit after Peter Suber, inventor of the fine game we now call Berserker Nomic. ----- Elected offices within Berserker Nomic shall be filled by a general election, held during the voting period of every fifth turn. Players may publicly nominate any consenting player, including him/herself, for any elected office. The player receiving the most votes for each office is the winner, and takes over the office at the beginning of the next turn. In the case of a tie, a runoff election shall be held immediately over a period of 1.5 days, during which time the office is filled by the Administrator. Only the tied players shall be on the ballot, and the winner of the runoff election shall take over the office. The runoff process continues until one winner has been chosen. If no player is nominated for an office, the current official retains the position. A player may resign from an office at any time. If a player resigns from an office or goes into limbo while holding an office, a 1.5-day election for that office shall be held immediately following a 1.5 day nomination period. During that three-day period, the office is filled by the Administrator. The Administrator is not an elected official. ----- There exists an elected office in Berserker Nomic called Alan Greenspan. ----- There exists a unit of currency within Berserker Nomic called the Suber. The Suber, which may be traded in units as small as 0.01, shall be legal tender within the game. At the end of each voting period, players shall receive one point for each x Suber, where x is defined publicly at the beginning of each turn by the Alan Greenspan. Players may trade Subers freely if all players involved in the trade publicly consent. However, a player may at no time posess less than 0 Subers. ----- Strike rule 314. This rule deletes itself upon passage. ----- Change rule 327 to read as follows: "Player attributes are defined as Points, Subers, and Wins." This rule deletes itself upon passage. ----- Change Rule 318, Article II, Section B to read as follows: "The winner(s) of a GWIB created by Announcement receive(s) x Subers from each of the other participants, where x is a nonnegative number specified by the Game Master. If more than one player is declared a winner, they shall split equally the Subers lost by the other player(s), if any." Change Rule 318, Article IV, Section C to read as follows: "A GWIB created by Announcement cannot create or destroy points. A GWIB created by Approval may create or destroy points only in the manner approved in its Specification." This rule deletes itself upon passage. ----- ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:54:51 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Heheh I'm sure a few of you were confused when you read the first message I sent out a few minutes ago. Good ole majordomo screwed up the order. I just realized that I would be getting an assload of points were all those proposals to pass. I don't have a problem with this, but some of you might. Therefore, do the following: Change "rule" to "section" in each of the last three proposals in my multi-proposal message. Append each of those "rules" to the end of the proposal that defines the Suber. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:19:05 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New proposals New proposal numbers, in accordance with Tom's wishes. P339 ---- Elected offices within Berserker Nomic shall be filled by a general election, held during the voting period of every fifth turn. Players may publicly nominate any consenting player, including him/herself, for any elected office. The player receiving the most votes for each office is the winner, and takes over the office at the beginning of the next turn. In the case of a tie, a runoff election shall be held immediately over a period of 1.5 days, during which time the office is filled by the Administrator. Only the tied players shall be on the ballot, and the winner of the runoff election shall take over the office. The runoff process continues until one winner has been chosen. If no player is nominated for an office, the current official retains the position. A player may resign from an office at any time. If a player resigns from an office or goes into limbo while holding an office, a 1.5-day election for that office shall be held immediately following a 1.5 day nomination period. During that three-day period, the office is filled by the Administrator. The Administrator is not an elected official. ---- P340 ---- There exists an elected office in Berserker Nomic called Alan Greenspan. ----- P341 ---- There exists a unit of currency within Berserker Nomic called the Suber. The Suber, which may be traded in units as small as 0.01, shall be legal tender within the game. At the end of each voting period, players shall receive one point for each x Suber, where x is defined publicly at the beginning of each turn by the Alan Greenspan. Players may trade Subers freely if all players involved in the trade publicly consent. However, a player may at no time posess less than 0 Subers. Change rule 327 to read as follows: "Player attributes are defined as Points, Subers, and Wins." This section deletes itself upon passage. Change Rule 318, Article II, Section B to read as follows: "The winner(s) of a GWIB created by Announcement receive(s) x Subers from each of the other participants, where x is a nonnegative number specified by the Game Master. If more than one player is declared a winner, they shall split equally the Subers lost by the other player(s), if any." Change Rule 318, Article IV, Section C to read as follows: "A GWIB created by Announcement cannot create or destroy points. A GWIB created by Approval may create or destroy points only in the manner approved in its Specification." This section deletes itself upon passage. ----- P342 ----- Strike rule 314. This rule deletes itself upon passage. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:21:41 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:25:36 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Currently, Proposals 331, 338, 339, and a new proposal from Plagge would all amend Rule 327. I believe some of these could possibly be combined so that we can reap the full possible benefit. Otherwise, the above Proposal with the highest number that passes will be the only one to effect Rule 327. If the sponsors of these various amendments do not wish to work together, I would like to know why they think their proposal is a greater benefit than the others. n ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:26:10 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New proposals Disregard the last message. The highest Proposal number is now 341. New proposal numbers, in accordance with Tom's wishes. P339 ---- Elected offices within Berserker Nomic shall be filled by a general election, held during the voting period of every fifth turn. Players may publicly nominate any consenting player, including him/herself, for any elected office. The player receiving the most votes for each office is the winner, and takes over the office at the beginning of the next turn. In the case of a tie, a runoff election shall be held immediately over a period of 1.5 days, during which time the office is filled by the Administrator. Only the tied players shall be on the ballot, and the winner of the runoff election shall take over the office. The runoff process continues until one winner has been chosen. If no player is nominated for an office, the current official retains the position. A player may resign from an office at any time. If a player resigns from an office or goes into limbo while holding an office, a 1.5-day election for that office shall be held immediately following a 1.5 day nomination period. During that three-day period, the office is filled by the Administrator. The Administrator is not an elected official. ---- P340 ---- There exists an elected office in Berserker Nomic called Alan Greenspan. ----- P341 ---- There exists a unit of currency within Berserker Nomic called the Suber. The Suber, which may be traded in units as small as 0.01, shall be legal tender within the game. At the end of each voting period, players shall receive one point for each x Suber, where x is defined publicly at the beginning of each turn by the Alan Greenspan. Players may trade Subers freely if all players involved in the trade publicly consent. However, a player may at no time posess less than 0 Subers. Change rule 327 to read as follows: "Player attributes are defined as Points, Subers, and Wins." This section deletes itself upon passage. Change Rule 318, Article II, Section B to read as follows: "The winner(s) of a GWIB created by Announcement receive(s) x Subers from each of the other participants, where x is a nonnegative number specified by the Game Master. If more than one player is declared a winner, they shall split equally the Subers lost by the other player(s), if any." Change Rule 318, Article IV, Section C to read as follows: "A GWIB created by Announcement cannot create or destroy points. A GWIB created by Approval may create or destroy points only in the manner approved in its Specification." This section deletes itself upon passage. Strike rule 314. This rule deletes itself upon passage. ---- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:59:48 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Resubmitting, and making some significant changes Redefine proposals 339, 340, and 341 as follows: ----- Proposal 339 Elected officials Add a player attribute called Offices Held. Elected offices within Berserker Nomic shall be filled by a general election, held during the voting period of every fifth turn. Players may publicly nominate any consenting player, including him/herself, for any elected office. The player receiving the most votes for each office is the winner, and takes over the office at the beginning of the next turn. In the case of a tie, a runoff election shall be held immediately over a period of 1.5 days, during which time the office is filled by the Administrator. Only the tied players shall be on the ballot, and the winner of the runoff election shall take over the office. The runoff process continues until one winner has been chosen. If no player is nominated for an office, the current official retains the position. A player may resign from an office at any time