________________________________________ 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. 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. ----- Proposal 340 The Suber 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. Add a player attribute called "Subers." ----- Proposal 341 Subers and points I. There is a compontent of each player's score dependent upon the number of Subers he/she has accumulated. At the end of every turn, this component is set equal to [(Subers / Total Subers held by all players) x 200]. II. At the beginning of each game, players begin with 1000 Subers. New players will begin with 500 Subers. III. Upon passage of this rule, this clause sets each player's Subers to 1000 and then deletes itself. IV. Strike rule 314, the point trading rule. This clause deletes itself upon passage. V. 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." and 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 clause deletes itself upon passage. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:16:00 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Damn it all. shit. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of Proposal 340. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:23:20 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Minor Revision of 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 one 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. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:05:18 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting If Jason Durheim makes a proposal before 13:19 CDT today, voting will start at 13:19 CDT. Otherwise, voting will start when a) Durheim makes a proposal, or b) when Durheim goes into Limbo, whichever comes first. No one can go into Limbo automatically until 20 October. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:28:07 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Repsonse >If Jason Durheim makes a proposal before 13:19 CDT today, voting will start >at 13:19 CDT. Otherwise, voting will start when a) Durheim makes a >proposal, or b) when Durheim goes into Limbo, whichever comes first. No one >can go into Limbo automatically until 20 October. So much for "forcing" everyone to get involved by making it necessary for certain people to make proposals in a turn. It seems to me the only thing this does is slow the game down. I'm betting a. we will have to wait for the 20th to roll around b. guys on Harwood will hound Durheim until he quits or makes some proposal which one of them will create for him. I am still for getting rid of mandatory proposing. Anyone else? Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:31:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Repsonse My Belly Hurts writes: > >>If Jason Durheim makes a proposal before 13:19 CDT today, voting will start >>at 13:19 CDT. Otherwise, voting will start when a) Durheim makes a >>proposal, or b) when Durheim goes into Limbo, whichever comes first. No one >>can go into Limbo automatically until 20 October. > >So much for "forcing" everyone to get involved by making it necessary for Forced proposals rock. Whose stupid idea was that, again, to leave it in to appease voters. Joel? :) >certain people to make proposals in a turn. It seems to me the only thing >this does is slow the game down. I'm betting a. we will have to wait for >the 20th to roll around b. guys on Harwood will hound Durheim until he >quits or makes some proposal which one of them will create for him. I'm guessing that b => Durheim quits. >I am still for getting rid of mandatory proposing. Anyone else? Me. Josh -- The computer should be doing the hard work. That's what it's paid to do, after all. - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:49:55 -0500 From: Il Duce Subject: Nomic: Power of Force >>So much for "forcing" everyone to get involved by making it necessary for > >Forced proposals rock. Whose stupid idea was that, again, to leave it >in to appease voters. Joel? :) I supported this idea. Of course, I don't recall any of you all-seeing sages ever suggesting that this current situation would be the result. In any event I was more concerned with people who wanted to play but might not make proposals unless they were encouraged to do so. I expected that people who didn't want to play the game at all would display enough common sense to quit. >I'm guessing that b => Durheim quits. I really can't see why, then, he hasn't done so yet. I don't think this occurrence will be that common. > >>I am still for getting rid of mandatory proposing. Anyone else? No. There can't be that many more in the game who have mentally quit but have not bothered to tell anyone else. And the if we scrapped the turn-based system we would need to significantly re-organize gameplay. I'm for giving it a chance a little longer. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:14:47 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Power of Force At 12:49 PM 10/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >>>So much for "forcing" everyone to get involved by making it necessary for >> >>Forced proposals rock. Whose stupid idea was that, again, to leave it >>in to appease voters. Joel? :) > >I supported this idea. Of course, I don't recall any of you all-seeing >sages ever suggesting that this current situation would be the result. In >any event I was more concerned with people who wanted to play but might not >make proposals unless they were encouraged to do so. I expected that people >who didn't want to play the game at all would display enough common sense >to quit. > >>I'm guessing that b => Durheim quits. > >I really can't see why, then, he hasn't done so yet. I don't think this >occurrence will be that common. >> >>>I am still for getting rid of mandatory proposing. Anyone else? > >No. There can't be that many more in the game who have mentally quit but >have not bothered to tell anyone else. And the if we scrapped the >turn-based system we would need to significantly re-organize gameplay. I'm >for giving it a chance a little longer. Why would this require a significant reorganization? Just change it so that people aren't forced to make proposals. The only reason we have this system, as Kuhns rightly points out, it to force people who are ACTUALLY playing but less involved to make proposals, not people who really aren't in the game. If Durheim is not really in the game, then he can do something about it. Otherwise, the system works fine. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:20:27 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Rebuttal >>>So much for "forcing" everyone to get involved by making it necessary for >> >>Forced proposals rock. Whose stupid idea was that, again, to leave it >>in to appease voters. Joel? :) >I supported this idea. Of course, I don't recall any of you all-seeing >sages ever suggesting that this current situation would be the result. In This comment really pisses me off. I distinctly recall raising this objection in specific reference to these types of circumstances. Must I go back into the archives? Fuck it! I don't have time for that. How could you not see this coming? The whole point is that if you want to play you are going to propose without this so called "help." If you don't want to play you are going to either quit or sit on your ass until someone asks you to quit or makes you quit. Also, this rule could be taken advantage of. Say I am pissed off and I want to crew nomic, or just bribe everyone out of points, and it is my turn. I can refuse to propose until everyone in the game gives me 20 points. The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages in this case. >any event I was more concerned with people who wanted to play but might not >make proposals unless they were encouraged to do so. I expected that people Who are these people, Kuhns? Where are they? Why don't they speak for themselves? I see everyone in this game in one of two categories: 1. Active 2. Inactive (with no hope of becoming active) with the possible exception of Mike Jensen. >who didn't want to play the game at all would display enough common sense >to quit. >>I'm guessing that b => Durheim quits. >I really can't see why, then, he hasn't done so yet. I don't think this >occurrence will be that common. Not common?!? It's already happened how many times? 3? 4? > >>>I am still for getting rid of mandatory proposing. Anyone else? >No. There can't be that many more in the game who have mentally quit but >have not bothered to tell anyone else. And the if we scrapped the >turn-based system we would need to significantly re-organize gameplay. I'm >for giving it a chance a little longer. Perhaps you could give me better justification for this rule remaining than the bullshit excuse "For encouragement." I have yet to conceive of any situation in which this will encourage anyone to do anything but quit or stall the game. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:35:54 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Judgment 31 Decisions made by the Court of Appeals are final, and may not themselves be appealed. TRUE The problem in question stems from an ambiguity in the second section of Rule 214/1. If "Judgment" and "Notice of Dismissal" here refer both to the lower courts and the Appellate Court, then it would seem that Appeals can be made indefinitely. If, however, Rule 214/1 section 2 seems to correspond to section 1 -- that is, the "Judgment" in section 2 is a direct result of the "Request for Judgment" in section 1 -- then this excludes Judgments on Appeal from further appeal. Rule 216/1 allows Judges to consider "game-custom and the spirit of the game" in cases when "the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue." As it seems that the latter interpretation is more in accordance with game-custom and legal precedent (q.v. J25), I am inclined to rule TRUE on the statement. However, I do so with some reservation: this statement has allowed a lower court Judge to alter the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:57:46 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Rebuttal At 02:20 PM 10/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >>... >Also, this rule could be taken advantage of. Say I am pissed off and I >want to crew nomic, or just bribe everyone out of points, and it is my >turn. I can refuse to propose until everyone in the game gives me 20 >points. The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages in this case. What a perfectly evil idea. I wish I had thought of it. Even with "limbo," all you have to do is post once in a while to stay in the clear. >>any event I was more concerned with people who wanted to play but might not >>make proposals unless they were encouraged to do so. I expected that people > >Who are these people, Kuhns? Where are they? Why don't they speak for >themselves? I see everyone in this game in one of two categories: 1. >Active 2. Inactive (with no hope of becoming active) with the possible >exception of Mike Jensen. Jensen's turn will come eventually, and then it's only a matter of time before anarchy shall reigneth supreme. :) > [Damon-rant deleted] I originally liked the idea of keeping mandatory proposals too, but only for the purpose of getting Kuhns to vote for it. The concept seems kind of useless now. -Tom ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:06:51 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: turn-based system By completely chucking the turn-based system, do we eliminate the option of winning by rule conflict? I could see getting rid of requiring the person whose turn it is to make a proposal, but let's retain turns. Maybe we could do something else with the person whose turn it is. Any ideas out there? Maybe passing a proposal could be woth more to them. Maybe we could give them two votes instead of one. Maybe we could give them the opportunity to veto any proposal with with less than a super-majority. Maybe we could just officialy call them "The Remo" for the entirety of their turn. WhateverŠ Would someone please talk to Durheim? Why, yes, I think I will. n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:15:56 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: pronouncement forclarityssake i am the eggman. i am the walrus. if ever rules are made creating offices entitled eggman or walrus then i will immediately have those offices. i am the eggman. i am the walrus. and theres probably nothing you can do about it. go run like little pigs from a gun. im crying. i need more codiene. this one isnt from the song. i really do need the codiene. n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:45:25 -0500 From: Il Duce Subject: Nomic: Settle down for Chrissakes Hey My Belly Hurts: If you're going to get that personal over what appears to be a routine disagreement, maybe you need to re-evaluate how important this game is. If everyone gets that pissy that arbitrarilly this is going to become one hell of an unpleasant game very quickly. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:19:13 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Pardon, Kuhns By "pissed off," I meant in the nomic sense. Of course I am not ACTUALLY pissed off. I hope this of all things is clear. I was simply logically frustrated if you catch my drift. I would never let such a silly thing as a game get between us, Kuhns. :) However, I would let it get between Mr. Ellefson's and my relationship. I despise that man. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:29:43 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Re: Nomic: Pardon, Kuhns Damon had the audacity to write: >By "pissed off," I meant in the nomic sense. Of course I am not ACTUALLY >pissed off. I hope this of all things is clear. I was simply logically >frustrated if you catch my drift. I would never let such a silly thing as >a game get between us, Kuhns. :) > >However, I would let it get between Mr. Ellefson's and my relationship. I >despise that man. > >Damon Don't talk bad about my roommate or I'll kick your ass. I mean it. And your face sucks. By the way, just exactly why did you use the word relationship, there? > >__________ > > I don't want to spend the rest of my life > Looking for a girl > Never gonna find > > -- 7M3 > ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:56:22 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: the wait and other such matters Fortuitously, I met Durheim as I was returning from Quiz Bowl practice, upon which he informed me that he was behind and wanted to go into Limbo. As such, the voting begins now. I'll have the complementary ballot, proposal list, and mints for your pillows out to the list shortly. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:57:48 -0500 From: Il Duce Subject: Nomic: Soda pop boy's roommate >Damon had the audacity to write: > >>By "pissed off," I meant in the nomic sense. Damn. That means my ability to judge ephemeral qualities through text is off again. Oh well. I'll go back to default for now: ignore everything. =) Of course I am not ACTUALLY >>pissed off. I hope this of all things is clear. I was simply logically >>frustrated if you catch my drift. I would never let such a silly thing as >>a game get between us, Kuhns. :) No matter, I was going to blame it on there being something funny in the water in Massechusetts anyway. >> >>However, I would let it get between Mr. Ellefson's and my relationship. I >>despise that man. >> >>Damon > >Don't talk bad about my roommate or I'll kick your ass. I mean it. And >your face sucks. By the way, just exactly why did you use the word >relationship, there? Yeah, your mom's face sucks... (take that to mean whatever you want). --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:07:53 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot These, to the best of my knowledge, are the Proposals up for voting: 325 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:26:16 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: full text of Proposals ------------------------------------- 325 - Nick Osborn 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. ------------------------------------ 333 - Damon Luloff 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. --------------------------------------- 334 - Matt Kuhns 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. ------------------------------------------ 335 - Nick Osborn 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. ------------------------------------------ 336 - Damon Luloff 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 one 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. -------------------------------------- 337 - Nick Osborn 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. ---------------------------------------- 338 - Joel Uckelman 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." ------------------------------------------ 339 - Tom Plagge 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. 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. ------------------------------------- 340 - Tom Plagge 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. 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. Add a player attribute called "Subers." ----------------------------------------- 341 - Tom Plagge I. There is a compontent of each player's score dependent upon the number of Subers he/she has accumulated. At the end of every turn, this component is set equal to [(Subers / Total Subers held by all players) x 200]. II. At the beginning of each game, players begin with 1000 Subers. New players will begin with 500 Subers. III. Upon passage of this rule, this clause sets each player's Subers to 1000 and then deletes itself. IV. Strike rule 314, the point trading rule. This clause deletes itself upon passage. V. 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." and 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 clause deletes itself upon passage. -------------------------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:53:04 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 32 I request Judgment on the following: Players in Limbo are not to be counted for voting purposes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 20:01:07 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 32 Nate Ellefson has been selected as Judge for RFJ 32: Players in Limbo are not to be counted for voting purposes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:24:46 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignment Haar should actually be judge for RFJ 32, as Nate so astutely observed. Thanks. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 22:28:13 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 32 joel wrote: >Nate Ellefson has been selected as Judge for RFJ 32: > >Players in Limbo are not to be counted for voting purposes. > Nate is an appellete judge and should have been excluded from the judging pool. I must protest this assignment. >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:19:15 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Berserker: RFJ 33 I request judgement on following RFJ Claim: Jason Durheim is not in Limbo. Reasoning: Rule 319/0, Limbo says in part "B. A player may go into Limbo only by a. Publicly declaring him/herself in Limbo or b. Taking no Nomic-related action (voting, proposing, commenting) for a period of fifteen days." Therefore, the only way for Jason Durheim to be in Limbo at this time is time is by his public declaration. Joel publicly said so so, not Jason. Therefore Jason is not in Limbo. I think that this Joel's public notice is not sufficient because: 1. Rule 106/1 Public Nature of and Effects of Proposals says "All proposed rule-changes shall be posted to nomic@iastate.edu before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form on which they were voted." This is the only rule which indicates what public might mean and if refers to the mailing list, not conversations with Joel. And Joel's posts to the mailing list can only put "him/herself" into Limbo as per R319. 2. It might set a bad precedent to be loose and messy with the formalities of rule following: remember when "God" tried to enter the game by informing players who posted for him, that problem would have been eliminated if the person requesting playerhood had to publicly request it. (Unless this RFJ is False) ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:38:28 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Power of Force Il Duce writes: >>>So much for "forcing" everyone to get involved by making it necessary for >> >>Forced proposals rock. Whose stupid idea was that, again, to leave it >>in to appease voters. Joel? :) > >I supported this idea. Of course, I don't recall any of you all-seeing >sages ever suggesting that this current situation would be the result. In Isn't it enough that we said it was skank? Josh -- "Kill them all, God will know His own." - Bishop of Angouleame, when asked how to tell 'true believers' from 'heretics', during the Albigensian Crusades ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:37:14 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: turn-based system Nicholas C Osborn writes: >By completely chucking the turn-based system, do we eliminate the option of >winning by rule conflict? I could see getting rid of requiring the person >whose turn it is to make a proposal, but let's retain turns. Maybe we could >do something else with the person whose turn it is. Any ideas out there? >Maybe passing a proposal could be woth more to them. Maybe we could give >them two votes instead of one. Maybe we could give them the opportunity to >veto any proposal with with less than a super-majority. Maybe we could just >officialy call them "The Remo" for the entirety of their turn. WhateverŠ How would incentives like these help when the real problem with such players is motivation to participate? With no requirements, turns are redundant. > >Would someone please talk to Durheim? > >Why, yes, I think I will. > >n -- Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding. - Samuel Johnson ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:55:58 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgment 31 Joel D Uckelman writes: >Decisions made by the Court of Appeals are final, and may not themselves be >appealed. > >TRUE > >The problem in question stems from an ambiguity in the second section of >Rule 214/1. If "Judgment" and "Notice of Dismissal" here refer both to the >lower courts and the Appellate Court, then it would seem that Appeals can >be made indefinitely. If, however, Rule 214/1 section 2 seems to correspond >to section 1 -- that is, the "Judgment" in section 2 is a direct result of >the "Request for Judgment" in section 1 -- then this excludes Judgments on >Appeal from further appeal. > >Rule 216/1 allows Judges to consider "game-custom and the spirit of the >game" in cases when "the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the >point at issue." As it seems that the latter interpretation is more in >accordance with game-custom and legal precedent (q.v. J25), I am inclined >to rule TRUE on the statement. However, I do so with some reservation: this >statement has allowed a lower court Judge to alter the jurisdiction of the >Appellate Court. I would like to appeal this decision, on the basis of the final statement Joel makes. Joel himself has said repeatedly that he does not want the judiciary to have this kind of power. Why, then, does he use it? I exclude from judge selection Nick Osborn and Jason Durheim. I also present the following statement for judgment. Appeals to the ruling in judgment 31 (above) may not be limited as per the ruling in judgment 31. My reasoning is simple: until the matter presented in CFJ 31 is put to judicial rest, it seems quite improper to use the results of CFJ 31 during further determination (i.e. appelation) of the truth or falsity of the claim presented in CFJ 31. If one wants to do that one ought to pass a rule, as Mr. Uckelman should have prompted one to do in the first place. For this CFJ, I exclude Joel Uckelman, and the first two players (who are not Damon Luloff) left on the list of possible exclusions, after the appellate court for the above call is selected. Josh -- Playing guitar is like fucking -- you never forget it. Unless you're really, really stupid. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:22:30 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 35 I call for Judgment on the following statement: Excluded players must be specified by name to be valid exclusions. In Josh's RFJ 34, he does the following: >For this CFJ, I exclude Joel Uckelman, and the first two players >(who are not Damon Luloff) left on the list of possible exclusions, >after the appellate court for the above call is selected. This asks me to determine which players are to be excluded from the list based not on explicitly naming the players, but rather on a method for selecting them. Rule 215/0 states that exclusions be "a Player selected by the Complainant." The above does not name Players, and therefore is not legal. Moreover, it will not be possible to select Judges for RFJ 34 until this matter is resolved. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:34:25 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selections Ed Proescholdt has been selected to Judge RFJ 33: Jason Durheim is not in Limbo. Damon Luloff, Dakota Bailey, and Andy Palecek have been selected to Judge Appeal 31: Decisions made by the Court of Appeals are final, and may not themselves be appealed. The Judge for RFJ 34 will be selected pending the outcome of RFJ 35 (someone correct me if this isn't the correct procedure). Nick Osborn has been selected to Judge RFJ 35: Excluded players must be specified by name to be valid exclusions. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:35:22 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 35 Joel D Uckelman writes: >I call for Judgment on the following statement: > >Excluded players must be specified by name to be valid exclusions. > > >In Josh's RFJ 34, he does the following: >>For this CFJ, I exclude Joel Uckelman, and the first two players >>(who are not Damon Luloff) left on the list of possible exclusions, >>after the appellate court for the above call is selected. > >This asks me to determine which players are to be excluded from the list >based not on explicitly naming the players, but rather on a method for >selecting them. Rule 215/0 states that exclusions be "a Player selected by >the Complainant." The above does not name Players, and therefore is not >legal. Moreover, it will not be possible to select Judges for RFJ 34 until >this matter is resolved. In fact, I selected 3 players. One by name (you), and two by algorithm. The algorithm is well-defined, finitary, and terminating. There should be sufficient players remaining after my exclusions and my appelate call, so there are enough players to do such a thing. Note that rule 215/0 says "selected," not named. Your bias against runtime determination is sickening. Josh -- "Kill them all, God will know His own." - Bishop of Angouleame, when asked how to tell 'true believers' from 'heretics', during the Albigensian Crusades ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 01:41:22 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: rfj I request a judgement on the following statement: Osborn is, and Uckelman is. n the eggman and the walrus ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 01:50:30 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgment 31 I for one am wondering what "list of possible exclusions" this referrs to, is this simply everyone left who is available to be placed in the court? If so does this list happen to be alphabetical or sorted in some other way (say by number of points?). I am interested in how this is even important because until the appelate court is selected noone knows who will be excluded. It leaves me to believe that it was done only to either test whether it could be done or just to provoke argument... :) >For this CFJ, I exclude Joel Uckelman, and the first two players >(who are not Damon Luloff) left on the list of possible exclusions, >after the appellate court for the above call is selected. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 01:55:35 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: further judge selection Joel Uckelman has been selected to Judge RFJ 36: Osborn is, and Uckelman is. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:53:39 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: rfj Nick wrote: >I request a judgement on the following statement: > >Osborn is, and Uckelman is. > >n >the eggman and the walrus > > Ummmmm.... What ??? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:04:05 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 35 Statement: Excluded players must be specified by name to be valid exclusions. Ruling: True. Judge's Comments: Setting up a system to remove Players from the judging pool is not the same as selecting them. A selection of a Player can only be made by naming that Player. If Kortbein needed more information to name the Players he wished to exclude, he should have waited until that information was available. n the eggman and the walrus ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:17:24 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: rfj I request a judgement on the following statement: "Either Uckelman is, or Osborn is." I exclude Uckelman, Mueller, and Kortbein from the Judicial Pool. If I may, I also wish to exclude: Clinton, the Colenol, other members of the Pentaverate, anyone without verifiable Earth citizenship, the Mafia, the NAACP, the NCAA, the CIA, the FBI, the IRS, the DPS, the SS, Mr. T, all of my unknown lost twins, and the nice lady who cleans the bathroom. n the eggman and the walrus ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:21:50 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: rfj >Nick wrote: >>I request a judgement on the following statement: >> >>Osborn is, and Uckelman is. >> >>n >>the eggman and the walrus >> >> > >Ummmmm.... What ??? > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net If this is found to be false, the game must be rewound until there is no longer a rules contradiction, as both Osborn and Uckelman must be to be Players. (I would like to follow this with a menacing laugh, but I find text woefully inadequate for my needs.) n the eggman and the walrus ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:59:00 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: yet another judge selection Tom Plagge has been selected to Judge RFJ 37: Either Uckelman is, or Osborn is. On a side note, I'm beginning to wonder what it is about our legal system that causes temporary insanity... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:14:09 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: RFJ 37 At 09:59 AM 10/16/98 -0500, you wrote: >Tom Plagge has been selected to Judge RFJ 37: > >Either Uckelman is, or Osborn is. JUDGEMENT: FALSE. I'm fairly convinced that both Uckelman and Osborn are, making the truth value for this statement "false." Game custom would seem to point toward the being of both players, anyway. And since being is a requirement for being a player, and both Uckelman and Osborn are players, I am forced to conclude that both entities, in fact, are. Another point: the statement as written seems to indicate that Uckelman's and Osborn's existence are mutually exclusive. I can't really justify that. There seems to be plenty of room in the Pleasure Matrix for the both of them. I would be inclined to dismiss this RFJ except that, on account of Osborn's new codeine dependence, I'm afraid the matter would persist. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:30:02 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: J36 Osborn is, and Uckelman is. TRUE 1 (1) On A 2 (2) Uj A 1 (3) ExOn 1 EI 2 (4) ExUn 2 EI 1,2 (5) ExOx & ExUx 3,4 &I That is, if Nick is an Osborn, and Joel is an Uckelman, then there exists at least one x such that x is an Osborn and at least one x such that x is an Uckelman. In any case, even if Nick is somehow an impostor, I know other people who are (or claim to be) Osborns (e.g. Nick's parents). The point of contention here may be at my assumption that Nick is an Osborn. I've never heard him called anything else (except "Remo the Fuckwad" by Damon), and he gets Nick Osborn's mail, and Nick Osborn's parents visit him occasionally -- so either he has done an excellent job of assuming someone else's identity or really is Nick Osborn. If he has merely become Nick Osborn, I think we are still justified in calling him by the name he has assumed. The more logically astute may charge me with begging the question above -- that I am implicitly assuming the existance of Nick and Joel in lines 1 and 2 and using that to prove my point. If Nick doesn't exist, then I don't know how all of this stuff that's not mine made it's way in to my room; if I don't exist, I can't fathom how it is that I can sit here pontificating about my existance. In summation, if this statement is false, then either I have a figment of my imagination for a roommate, or you're all playing a game Administered by a nonexistant entity. Application of Occam's Razor leads me to side with my halucination rather than mass halucination, but points even more strongly to a TRUE ruling. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:52:22 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Nick is sick and should be humanely shot in the head. He writes: >A selection of a Player can only be made by naming that >Player. There are many alternative ways of selecting things than by naming. If I wanted, I could indicate the Player with the initials JDU. It would be obvious that I am referring to Player Uckelman. I believe indication is sufficient for selection. What else need there be? This shows that Judge Osborn's logic can't be depended on and the statement should be appealed. I think the criteria Josh set up, depending upon interpretation, could have definitely been capable of indicating specific Players for selection; the problem lies with his definition of the set to which they were chosen, NOT the inability of his algorithm to indicate. I would appreciate judges putting more thought into their judgments from now on. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:08:03 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 35 Nicholas C Osborn writes: >Statement: >Excluded players must be specified by name to be valid exclusions. > >Ruling: >True. > >Judge's Comments: >Setting up a system to remove Players from the judging pool is not the same >as selecting them. A selection of a Player can only be made by naming that >Player. If Kortbein needed more information to name the Players he wished >to exclude, he should have waited until that information was available. I call for an appeal on this judgment, because it appears that Mr. Osborn has simply provided us with a statement of his opinion, rather than attempting to reason out what might be the proper judgment. I exclude Jason Durheim, Jeff Schroeder, and Joel Uckelman. Josh -- The best material model of a cat is another, or preferably the same, cat. - A. Rosenblueth ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:04:00 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selections Joel D Uckelman writes: >Ed Proescholdt has been selected to Judge RFJ 33: >Jason Durheim is not in Limbo. > >Damon Luloff, Dakota Bailey, and Andy Palecek have been selected to Judge >Appeal 31: >Decisions made by the Court of Appeals are final, and may not themselves be >appealed. > >The Judge for RFJ 34 will be selected pending the outcome of RFJ 35 >(someone correct me if this isn't the correct procedure). I do not believe this is the correct procedure but at the moment cannot articulate the proper one. > >Nick Osborn has been selected to Judge RFJ 35: >Excluded players must be specified by name to be valid exclusions. > > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu -- Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess play: a chess player ma y offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the g ame. - G.H. Hardy ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:13:08 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgment 31 Jeff Schroeder writes: >I for one am wondering what "list of possible exclusions" this referrs to, >is this simply everyone left who is available to be placed in the court? >If so does this list happen to be alphabetical or sorted in some other way >(say by number of points?). I am interested in how this is even important >because until the appelate court is selected noone knows who will be >excluded. It leaves me to believe that it was done only to either test >whether it could be done or just to provoke argument... :) I believe that, by tradition, the list of possible judges is kept in alphabetical order, as that is the order they are in, after all exclusions, when they are assigned numbers for the purposes of random selection. Thus, it is obvious that "list of possible exclusions" refers to the list of eligible judges, who have not already been excluded by me. a, b, and c. Fnord. Josh -- This paper contains much that is new and much that is true. Unfortunately, that which is true is not new and that which is new is not true. - Anonymous Referee's report ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:58:04 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: A35 judge assignments Tom Mueller, Tom Plagge, and Ed Proescholdt have been selected as the Appellate Court for Appeal 35: Excluded players must be specified by name to be valid exclusions. (NB: the exclusion of being a Judge on another case was waived for this selection due to lack of eligible candidates.) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:32:19 -0500 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: nomic: RFJ 33 Judgement on the statement: Jason Durheim is not in Limbo. TRUE There is no formal definition of a public declaration for the purposes of Berserker nomic, but I believe that this use of "public" implies a message to the mailing list. In any case, a chance conversation with only one member of Berserker nomic does not count as a public declaration. Jason Durheim told only Joel that he was going into limbo, and then Joel made the public statement. Thus, Jason Durheim never made a public declaration that he went into Limbo as necessary in rule 319 Ed ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:15:06 PDT From: "Jason Durheim" Subject: Nomic: Limbo I, Jason Durheim, offifcially declare myself in Limbo so the game can proceed. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:24:33 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: limbo and voting I'm sure you've all noticed this already, but just in case: Since Durheim was never in limbo, the voting period never actually started. So I imagine the ballots will be scrapped and we will have to resubmit them for the REAL voting period. Pray tell, when does the new voting period end, Joel? Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:59:39 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: limbo and voting At 06:24 PM 10/16/98 -0500, you wrote: > >I'm sure you've all noticed this already, but just in case: > >Since Durheim was never in limbo, the voting period never actually >started. So I imagine the ballots will be scrapped and we will have to >resubmit them for the REAL voting period. Pray tell, when does the new >voting period end, Joel? > > >Damon Voting now ends at 4:15 CDT, 18 October 1998. If you want me to keep the vote you sent me, let me know, otherwise, vote. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 21:34:00 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Attention, attention Joel has just informed me that: "The monkey has now updated the page." josh ha ha ha -- I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:38:26 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Judge selection, a retrospective What follows are the results of the random judge selections since this game has started, including those players who are no longer with us. Player Selections RFJs ----------------------------- Dakota Bailey 2 0 Ben Byrne 4 0 Allan Dudding 1 0 Jason Durheim 0 0 Nate Ellefson 1 1 Adam Haar 2 0 Mike Jensen 3 2 Josh Kortbein 1 7 Matt Kuhns 3 0 Damon Luloff 2 5 Chris Mayfield 1 0 Tom Mueller 1 2 Nick Osborn 5 2 Andy Palecek 3 0 Rich Peters 2 0 Tom Plagge 2 1 Ed Proescholdt 2 0 Jeff Schroeder 2 0 Joel Uckelman 4 4 Jill Wittrock 1 0 Aaron Woell 0 0 TOTAL 42 24 MEAN 2 1.30384 STD. DEV. 1.13286 1.95667 Appellate courts' judges were counted separately, which explains the disparity between the totals. Note the strange cluster of action centered in the Pleasure Matrix. :) Observation: given that the deletion/addition of players near the beginning of the alphabet has bumped things back and forth a bit, the maxes are roughly at the beginning, middle, and end of the list. A question: what sort of distribution, across RFJs and turns, would we like to see? It's difficult to determine whether or not we'd even be meeting it, since the judge pool changes from RFJ to RFJ. Observation: is there a correlation between making RFJs and being selected a judge? The stats for Damon and I support this hypothesis; we were available less often for judgeship, since we made most of the calls. Joel, however, fowls things up. Any stat geeks out there care to comment? The shifting pool size confounds me. This message, including a nifty graph, may be found at http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/judges.html Josh -- A true Zen saying, nothing is what I want. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:02:14 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Pre-proposal discussion I'd like to air an idea for a proposal, either: (a) One putting a moratorium on opposed minority point scoring, for a given time period, like 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, whatever or (b) One as in (a), but which is periodic; say, once every two months, there is a week/turn in which no opposed minority points may be obtained. The motivation of this proposal would be that these happy, carefree no-opposed-minority-point-scoring times would be conducive to our having a progressive nomic, rather than one which just creeps along, growing in odd directions, until someone wins. The last turn saw many proposals lose due to (apparent) attempts to gain opposed minority points, and I foresee the same thing happening in the current turn. Thoughts? Josh -- If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:13:59 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting ends at 04:15 CDT today. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 01:39:42 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Re: judging stats Joel D Uckelman writes: >Assuming that you're not opposed to it, I'll probably assimilate your >judging stats in to the site somewhere (with appropriate credit given, of >course). > >A suggestion: with the shifting judging pool, a relevant statistic might be >(number of times selected/number of times in the pool) -- if you want to >figure this out, all specified exclusions are on the Judgments page, while >all of the assignments can be found (in several places, but most >conveniently) in the Event Log. I also still have all of the messages sent >me by the dice server, if the raw numbers are of any interest to you. Anyone out there interested modifying these stats to include information about the number of times each player was included in the selection pools? I've taken a look at it and it's a lot more annoying than it seems since one has to take into account the state of the judiciary during each selection, which isn't well-documented. 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, 18 Oct 1998 12:35:56 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results Here are the results from the round of voting that ended at 04:15 CDT, 18 October: 325 failed (2-7-0-6) - Nick Osborn - All-time Wins 333 failed (2-7-0-6) - Damon Luloff - Proposal Scoring Change 334 passed (6-3-0-6) - Matt Kuhns - No-risk Transmutation 335 failed (4-5-0-6) - Nick Osborn - Wins Are Not Reset 336 failed (3-6-0-6) - Damon Luloff - Trophies 337 failed (3-6-0-6) - Nick Osborn - Codeine 338 passed (6-3-0-6) - Joel Uckelman - Auto-update for Attributes 339 failed (3-6-0-6) - Tom Plagge - Offices Held Attribute 340 passed (5-4-0-6) - Tom Plagge - Creation of Subers 341 passed (5-4-0-6) - Tom Plagge - Score dependence on Subers J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:49:57 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Here are the points scored from proposals: +52 Tom Plagge (-10, +27, +28, +7) +34 Matt Kuhns (+28, +6) +31 Joel Uckelman (+31) +19 Aaron Woell (+7, +6, +6) +13 Ed Proescholdt (+7, +6) +12 Jeff Schroeder (+6, +6) +7 Josh Kortbein (+7) +6 Damon Luloff (-10, -10, +7, +7, +6, +6) -30 Nick Osborn (-10, -10, -10) Additionally, everyone gains +12.5 points from their 1000 Subers. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 13:08:02 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Ignore the last score update. Here are the points scored from proposals: +55 Tom Plagge (-10, +27, +28, +7, +3) +34 Matt Kuhns (+28, +6) +31 Joel Uckelman (+31) +19 Aaron Woell (+7, +6, +6) +13 Ed Proescholdt (+7, +6) +12 Jeff Schroeder (+6, +6) +11 Damon Luloff (-10, -10, +7, +7, +6, +6, +2, +3) +7 Josh Kortbein (+7) -21 Nick Osborn (-10, -10, -10, +2, +4, +3) Additionally, everyone gains +12.5 points from their 1000 Subers. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 13:12:45 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: new title In light of the fact that I voted in the affirmative on every proposal while my three proposals, two of which would have benefited the game in a most practical fashion, were all voted down, I am changing my title. I am no longer the eggman and the walrus. From this point forth, I shall be known as the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus. May God bless you all, especially those poor souls who voted against proposals that we need, n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 14:53:44 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Failed proposals OK: Now that we've had all these proposals fail, who's interested in my proposal, for no-opposed-minority-points proposal periods? Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. - Walt Whitman ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 14:52:46 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Hoser players I would like to officially nominate the following players as this round's Remoes: Nate Ellefson Adam Haar Mike Jensen Aaron Woell as they have auto-abstained during the last two voting periods. Any seconds? Josh -- Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding. - Samuel Johnson ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:14:34 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Hoser players >I would like to officially nominate the following players as this >round's Remoes: > >Nate Ellefson >Adam Haar >Mike Jensen >Aaron Woell > >as they have auto-abstained during the last two voting periods. > > > >Any seconds? > > > >Josh > >-- >Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not >obliged to find you an understanding. > - Samuel Johnson You have my second, although it is unnecessay. You could just declare the above Reomoes, and they would be. Nonetheless, you have the approval of the original Remo. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:27:50 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Hoser players Nicholas C Osborn writes: >You have my second, although it is unnecessay. You could just declare the >above Reomoes, and they would be. Nonetheless, you have the approval of the >original Remo. > >n >the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus Fine, they are officially (Remo the fuckhead)s. Josh -- We are servants rather than masters in mathematics. - Charles Hermite ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:44:07 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Remo Supremo I think it would be appropriate to designate Damon as El Remo Supremo for his tendency to vote against every good proposal. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:45:01 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: Hoser players At 02:52 PM 10/18/98 -0500, you wrote: > >I would like to officially nominate the following players as this >round's Remoes: > >Nate Ellefson >Adam Haar >Mike Jensen >Aaron Woell > >as they have auto-abstained during the last two voting periods. > > > >Any seconds? I enthusiastically, yet belatedly, second this nomination. As far as I'm conserned these hosers, no, REMOES, are the scum of the earth. We should all take whatever steps necessary to make them know how detestable they are, and then, once they do know, tell them some more. I will be telling those heathens in room 302 myself in a moment. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:48:02 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Re: Nomic: Hoser players >I would like to officially nominate the following players as this >round's Remoes: > >Nate Ellefson >Adam Haar >Mike Jensen >Aaron Woell > >as they have auto-abstained during the last two voting periods. I must protest inclusion in this list. First of all, I have auto-abstained every voting period in this game, not just the last two periods. So obviously I am not in the same class as a bunch of rookies. Also, my motivations are pure, and do not all involve laziness. Oh no, I base my non-votes on high ideals. I am fundamentally opposed to democracy in all its forms, and chose to remain silent in protest. You all suck on your thumbs and hold your blankies in your false sense of security so proud in your corrupt, immoral democracy which has been notorious for its wild excesses. Well pig-dogs, the hour is at hand! Even now we rise up to smite this abomination, thus ending Nomic democracy once and for all. We will bury you! Ha! Ha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Don't say I didn't warn you when your back's against the wall. Viva la revolucion Mike Subcomandante Marcos Jensen ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:58:30 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Joel D Uckelman writes: >335 failed (4-5-0-6) - Nick Osborn - Wins Are Not Reset So... now the idea is that if someone wins, everyone's number of wins is set to 0. Neat. An attribute that is utterly meaningless, after this game. Greedy bastards, all of you: Kuhns Luloff Proescholdt Schroeder Woell Josh -- "Writing is like prostitution. First you do for the love of it, Then you do it for a few friends, And finally you do it for money." -Moliere ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:02:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Remo Supremo Thomas J Plagge writes: >I think it would be appropriate to designate Damon as El Remo Supremo for >his tendency to vote against every good proposal. You voted no a few times, yourself... Josh -- A good mathematical joke is better, and better mathematics, than a dozen mediocre papers. - J.E. Littlewood ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:03:29 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Hoser players Michael S Jensen writes: >>I would like to officially nominate the following players as this >>round's Remoes: >> >>Nate Ellefson >>Adam Haar >>Mike Jensen >>Aaron Woell >> >>as they have auto-abstained during the last two voting periods. > >I must protest inclusion in this list. First of all, I have auto-abstained >every voting period in this game, not just the last two periods. So All of them? Josh -- "So, would you say it's about time for our viewers to... crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes. Yes I would, Kent." ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:02:36 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Hoser players Nathan D Ellefson writes: >At 02:52 PM 10/18/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >>I would like to officially nominate the following players as this >>round's Remoes: >> >>Nate Ellefson >>Adam Haar >>Mike Jensen >>Aaron Woell >> >>as they have auto-abstained during the last two voting periods. >> >> >> >>Any seconds? > >I enthusiastically, yet belatedly, second this nomination. As far as I'm >conserned these hosers, no, REMOES, are the scum of the earth. We should >all take whatever steps necessary to make them know how detestable they >are, and then, once they do know, tell them some more. I will be telling >those heathens in room 302 myself in a moment. You said it, Remo. Josh -- Hofstadter`s Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter`s Law. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:23:41 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: RFJ (38?) I present the following statement for judgment: The results of the recent round of voting must be overturned, as the turn was not run in accordance with the rules. Reasoning: The rule "Parts of a Turn" says Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. Additionally, the Player currently taking a turn is required to make a Proposal during this period. The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be the longer of 204 hours (8.5 days) or until the current Player makes a Proposal. Should the current player forfeit during this period, its duration shall be 204 hours. During the recent voting period, Jason Durheim was originally required to make a proposal, as it was his turn. The rule "Limbo" says C. If a player is in Limbo when it is his/her turn, or if a player goes into Limbo during his/her turn, then that player forfeits his/her turn to the next player in the rotation. So clearly, Jason forfeited his turn to Nate Ellefson. Now, "forfeits" in the "Limbo" rule is a poor choice of words, because the same word is used in "Parts of a Turn." In "Limbo," "forfeits" clearly refers to the turn. In "Parts of a Turn" I claim that, according to game custom, "forfeit" refers to one's exiting from the game, not simply the forfeiture of a turn, as some may choose to read it. The ramifications: the voting period should not have ended until Nate made a proposal, as the period had already lasted longer than 204 hours. One could claim that the period should last another 204 hours past Nate's assumption of the turn, but I'm happy with it lasting until Nate makes a proposal. >From the judging pool, I exclude Nick Osborn, Jeff Schroeder, and Aaron Woell. [If I'm not mistaken, that leaves only Joel.] 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, 18 Oct 1998 17:54:34 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Nomic: RFJ I RFJ on the statement Haar is. I exclude Osborn from the judging pool. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:54:59 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Nomic: RFJ I RFJ on the statement Mueller is. I exclude Osborn from the judging pool. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:55:39 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Nomic: RFJ I RFJ on the statement Palecek is. I exclude Osborn from the judging pool. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:53:57 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Nomic: RFJ I RFJ on the statement Ellefson is. I exclude Osborn from the judging pool. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:59:52 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Nomic: RFJ I RFJ on the statement It is Bailey's turn, and further play is impossible. I exclude Kortbein, Haar, Plagge. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:57:50 -0500 From: Il Duce Subject: Nomic: greedy bastards >Josh writes: >Greedy bastards, all of you: > > Kuhns > Luloff > Proescholdt > Schroeder > Woell > Hey, I may have been greedy. And you could even make the case that I'm a bastard (in the colloquial sense, not the literal one). But in any event, what's so inherently wrong with that? We can still fix this before it causes serious problems. And while I can't speak for all the greedy bastards named, I would personally be open to changing my vote on this concept in exchange for monetary compensation, perhaps as low as a high two-digit number of Subers. =) 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, 18 Oct 1998 18:16:37 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 43 I request Judgment on the following: The game may not end through an unappealable lower court Judgment. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:20:24 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Hoser players Mike Subcomandante Marcos Jensen wrote: >>I would like to officially nominate the following players as this >>round's Remoes: >> >>Nate Ellefson >>Adam Haar >>Mike Jensen >>Aaron Woell >> >>as they have auto-abstained during the last two voting periods. > >I must protest inclusion in this list. First of all, I have auto-abstained >every voting period in this game, not just the last two periods. So >obviously I am not in the same class as a bunch of rookies. Also, my >motivations are pure, and do not all involve laziness. Oh no, I base my >non-votes on high ideals. I am fundamentally opposed to democracy in all >its forms, and chose to remain silent in protest. You all suck on your >thumbs and hold your blankies in your false sense of security so proud in >your corrupt, immoral democracy which has been notorious for its wild >excesses. Well pig-dogs, the hour is at hand! Even now we rise up to >smite this abomination, thus ending Nomic democracy once and for all. We >will bury you! Ha! Ha! >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Don't say I didn't warn you when your back's against >the wall. Would a resubmission of the stake burning proposal pass, now that its necessity has been so aptly demonstrated? :) Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 18:29:01 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignments Joel Uckelman has been selected as Judge for RFJ 38: The results of the recent round of voting must be overturned, as the turn was not run in accordance with the rules. Josh Kortbein has been selected as Judge for RFJ 39: Ellefson is. Ed Proescholdt has been selected as Judge for RFJ 40: Haar is. Tom Mueller has been selected as Judge for RFJ 41: Mueller is. Jeff Schroeder has been selected as Judge for RFJ 42: Palecek is. Nick Osborn has been selected as Judge for RFJ 43: It is Bailey's turn, and further play is impossible. Damon Luloff has been selected as Judge for RFJ 44: The game may not end through an unappealable lower court Judgment. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:29:46 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ Dakota R Bailey wrote: >I RFJ on the statement > >Mueller is. > > >I exclude Osborn from the judging pool. People have been interpreting this (sometimes) to mean that whoever the RFJ is about is a player.... Where is that interpretation supported? I get that either (1) it questions the existance of Mueller in Berserker (in some way I don't fathom), or (2) it is a claim which should be dismissed as not rules-related. Rule 216 "Duties of Judges" says in part: "Judges may Dismiss Requests for Judgment without comment if they contain no clear statement, are not answerable with a TRUE or FALSE, or do not address a rules-related matter." Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:35:33 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ I wrote: >Dakota R Bailey wrote: >>I RFJ on the statement >> >>Mueller is. >> >> >>I exclude Osborn from the judging pool. > >People have been interpreting this (sometimes) to mean that whoever the RFJ >is about is a player.... > >Where is that interpretation supported? I get that either (1) it questions >the existance of Mueller in Berserker (in some way I don't fathom), or (2) >it is a claim which should be dismissed as not rules-related. > >Rule 216 "Duties of Judges" says in part: "Judges may Dismiss Requests for >Judgment without comment if they contain no clear statement, are not >answerable with a TRUE or FALSE, or do not address a rules-related matter." I dismiss this RFJ (now that I know I'm the judge) as non rules related. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 18:48:42 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: potential game-breaker Nick Osborn's judgment as to whether or not the game ends (which I assume to be forthcoming) does not determine that the game has actually ended, for the following reason: Game actions occur independently of what we do -- for instance, when I count votes, I am _determining_ what happened several hours before; my couning the votes does not _cause_ Proposals to pass. The same situation applies here: we send judges to look in the black box that is the game to observe the true state of affairs. Whether the judge sees correctly does not alter the state of affiars inside the box, and the rules specifically provide that we can send three more judges to look in the box if we think that to be the case. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 18:52:45 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ At 06:35 PM 10/18/98 , you wrote: >I wrote: >>Dakota R Bailey wrote: >>>I RFJ on the statement >>> >>>Mueller is. >>> >>> >>>I exclude Osborn from the judging pool. >> >>People have been interpreting this (sometimes) to mean that whoever the RFJ >>is about is a player.... >> >>Where is that interpretation supported? I get that either (1) it questions >>the existance of Mueller in Berserker (in some way I don't fathom), or (2) >>it is a claim which should be dismissed as not rules-related. >> >>Rule 216 "Duties of Judges" says in part: "Judges may Dismiss Requests for >>Judgment without comment if they contain no clear statement, are not >>answerable with a TRUE or FALSE, or do not address a rules-related matter." > >I dismiss this RFJ (now that I know I'm the judge) as non rules related. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net > I think you missed the point, Mueller. Dakota could have just as easily called for judgement on the statement, "Pork tenderloins are really quite tasty" and it would have served his demented purposes just as well. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:04:19 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Appeal of 33 I appeal judgment 43. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:04:11 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Judgment 43 Ruling: True Statement: It is Bailey's turn, and further play is impossible. Judge's Comments: According to Rule 220, Binding Nature of Judgments, "Judgments have the force of rules until they are overturned or no longer apply." According to Rule 213, Winning through Impossibility of Further Play, "If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determinedwith finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner. This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner." Judgments have the force of Rule. In a Judgment, anything that is found to be true effectively is a Rule. According to Judgment 43, it is Bailey's turn, and further play is impossible. As further play is impossible, Bailey is the Winner. The game is over. An appeal is a game action. Since the game is over, further game actions may not take place. An appeal may not take place. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:05:54 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ Thomas J Plagge wrote: >At 06:35 PM 10/18/98 , you wrote: >>I wrote: >>>Dakota R Bailey wrote: >>>>I RFJ on the statement >>>> >>>>Mueller is. >>>> >>>> >>>>I exclude Osborn from the judging pool. >>> >>>People have been interpreting this (sometimes) to mean that whoever the RFJ >>>is about is a player.... >>> >>>Where is that interpretation supported? I get that either (1) it questions >>>the existance of Mueller in Berserker (in some way I don't fathom), or (2) >>>it is a claim which should be dismissed as not rules-related. >>> >>>Rule 216 "Duties of Judges" says in part: "Judges may Dismiss Requests for >>>Judgment without comment if they contain no clear statement, are not >>>answerable with a TRUE or FALSE, or do not address a rules-related matter." >> >>I dismiss this RFJ (now that I know I'm the judge) as non rules related. >> >>Tom Mueller >>mueller4@sonic.net >> > >I think you missed the point, Mueller. Dakota could have just as easily >called for judgement on the statement, "Pork tenderloins are really quite >tasty" and it would have served his demented purposes just as well. If I refuse to see it, it isn't there (at least as far as motives go). Tom "Head+In-The=Sand" Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:15:45 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: appeals court selection Adam Haar, Josh Kortbein, and Jeff Schroeder are the Appeals Court for Judgment 43. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:23:52 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Appeal of 33 >I appeal judgment 43. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu People of Berserker Nomic: The emperor has no clothes. Judgment 43 cannot be appealed. The second game of our contest is over, the third has not yet begun. Right now, we should be spending our time trying to fix the rule set so that this doesn't hapen again, in preparation for our third game of the contest. Do not be tricked by Joel. Up until now he has been completely reliable, but this time he is wrong. Those of you who have been informed by my roommate that you are part of the appelate court for judgment 43, I urge you to not recognize this, as it is an infraction of the rules. The game is over. Congradulate Bailey, let's discuss how to prevent this in the future, and start scamming to win the next game. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:38:38 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Appeal of 33 At 07:23 PM 10/18/98 , you wrote: >>I appeal judgment 43. >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu > >People of Berserker Nomic: > >The emperor has no clothes. Judgment 43 cannot be appealed. The second game >of our contest is over, the third has not yet begun. Right now, we should >be spending our time trying to fix the rule set so that this doesn't hapen >again, in preparation for our third game of the contest. > >Do not be tricked by Joel. Up until now he has been completely reliable, >but this time he is wrong. > >Those of you who have been informed by my roommate that you are part of the >appelate court for judgment 43, I urge you to not recognize this, as it is >an infraction of the rules. > >The game is over. Congradulate Bailey, let's discuss how to prevent this in >the future, and start scamming to win the next game. > >n >the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus No congratualtions are in order: whenever any Judgment is issued, Rule 214 allows 36 hours for Appeal. Note that Rule 214, due to the alteration of precedence to recency, takes precedence over Rule 213, the rule declaring a winner if further play is impossible. Thus, the Appeals Court is allowed to make a decision. Incedentally, I'm beginning to think that the two lowest exclusions (Judges and Appeals Judges) for Judge selection should be dropped: this would prevent someone from necessarily being judge due to lack of other eligible players. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:40:36 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Appeal of 33 Nick wrote: >>I appeal judgment 43. >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu > >People of Berserker Nomic: > >The emperor has no clothes. Judgment 43 cannot be appealed. The second game >of our contest is over, the third has not yet begun. Right now, we should >be spending our time trying to fix the rule set so that this doesn't hapen >again, in preparation for our third game of the contest. > >Do not be tricked by Joel. Up until now he has been completely reliable, >but this time he is wrong. > >Those of you who have been informed by my roommate that you are part of the >appelate court for judgment 43, I urge you to not recognize this, as it is >an infraction of the rules. Presuming you're correct: What rules? >The game is over. Congradulate Bailey, let's discuss how to prevent this in >the future, and start scamming to win the next game. To what degree does Berserker have an existance separate from our conception of it? If we just disagree with one interpetation (that might be right or might not be depending on your viewpoint) that ends the game, would the game legitimately continue? For everyone, or just those who disagreed? Not sure here on any count, but I'd like to hear other people's opinion as I form my own. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:45:07 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Nomic: Appellate court I, the Rt. Hon. Nathan D. Ellefson, member of the great Appellate Court, do hereby stipulate that the Rt. Hon. Michael S. Jensen, Esq., shall write for the Majority, of which I presume I will be a part. I will send another message to the list to confirm my agreement with Justice Jensen's Opinion upon my reception of the final version sent to the general list. I reserve the right to withdraw my support from the Opinion of Justice Jensen if I do not feel the Appellate Judgement adequately reflects my opinion. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:47:05 -0500 From: Il Duce Subject: Nomic: what's over? >To what degree does Berserker have an existance separate from our >conception of it? If we just disagree with one interpetation (that might >be right or might not be depending on your viewpoint) that ends the game, >would the game legitimately continue? For everyone, or just those who >disagreed? > This is how I look at things... you might call it an ultra-pragmatist view; on some level the game only exists for us as we conceive of it. I feel like the game is not yet over, so I'm going to continue to consider it ongoing. See if some codeine-withdrawled so-and-so can tell ME when I have to quit playing... =) >Not sure here on any count, but I'd like to hear other people's opinion as >I form my own. 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, 18 Oct 1998 20:00:02 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Judgment 38 The results of the recent round of voting must be overturned, as the turn was not run in accordance with the rules. TRUE I find the Complainant's reasoning sound in it's entirety. It is now Nate Ellefson's, turn which will last until he makes an active proposal, and the voting and scoring are hereby voided. >From the judging pool, I exclude Nick Osborn, Jeff Schroeder, and Aaron Woell. [If I'm not >mistaken, that leaves only Joel.] As an aside, I find it vaguely disturbing that it was possible to know that I was going to be Judge -- this, and other recent events, may highlight a flaw in the current Judicial system. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:18:41 -0500 From: exodus Subject: Nomic: Precedents... Is voting by secret ballot a matter of public record, or am I correct in believing that according to the definition of the words "secret ballot", voting preferences of the players are to be kept secret? While the Administrator has not published a veritable list of "who did what", the inclusion of how the votes broke down seems to undermine the system of secret balloting. This situation is because of the small number of players, and the significant amount of communication outside the mailing list. Is there any support for a proposal limiting voting results to a simple Pass/Fail description. Also, I do not know what the term Remo connotes. According to the accompanying text it is because the players auto-abstained during the two previous rounds of voting. Considering I was made a player only in time for the last round of voting (I received no ballot for the previous round, nor was I aware that voting was taking place) and that I did not abstain from the previous round (I voted on a number of measures), I call into question Josh's statement that I am a Remo. However, I am inclined to dismiss his pathetic badgering as a tool of a loser, since his proposals did not pass and he is visibly upset. Either that or sexual frustration. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:43:21 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Nomic: We have decided The Right Honorable Michael S. Jensen, Esq. writing for the majority in the matter of Appeal 30: "God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one." Preamble: We, the members of the Court, having born witness to the anarchy and chaos that rules our game, have decided to exercise our legitimate and legal right, yea verily our obligation, to extend out the arm of justice and hand out peace and order to quell the tide of darkness that has engulfed our game. We wish to bring the light of reason and law to illuminate this present darkness. To further these ends, our judgement, which has the force of law, puts immediately into effect the following provisions. Provisions: 1.) Nomic Players Ellefson, Jensen, and Palecek make up a legal entity hereafter referred to as the "Tribunal". The Tribunal shall consist of no other players, nor shall any member of the Tribunal be removed from the Tribunal. The duties and rights of the Tribunal consist of the following left Duties and Rights of the Tribunal: A. The Tribunal shall be the sole mechanism for resolving RFJ's. No other mechanism shall be applied, such as assigned judges, appellate courts, or any other mechanism except a unanimous decision of the Tribunal. If the Tribunal cannot reach a unanimous decision, the RFJ is dismissed. B. The Tribunal shall make all rule changes. Rules may not be changed in any other way. Again, a unanimous decision of the Tribunal is required for a rule change to take effect. C. The Tribunal has unlimited control over all player attributes, including wins. All player attributes may at any time with or without due cause be altered by any member of the Tribunal with the consent of any other member thereof. D. No player may win without the unanimous consent all members of the Tribunal. This applies also to members of the Tribunal. E. The Tribunal may at any time punish any player in any manner deemed necessary for such crimes as insolence, treason, and other such actions the Tribunal determines to be crimes. This duty may be exercised with or without consent of other members of the Tribunal, with the exception that Tribunal members may not under any circumstances punish any other member of the Tribunal. F. The Tribunal must at all times strive to be polite and cheerful to all other players who are not members of the Tribunal. However, this duty will not be enforced. 2.) In player correspondence, the Tribunal must be referred to as "That Most August and Just Ruling Body, The Tribunal" and individual members of the Tribunal shall have their names preceded by "The Majestic, Excellent, and immeasurably Wise" although members of the Tribunal shall refer to each other as "Right Honorable Gentleman." 3.) The provisions of this Judgement go into effect immediately and are not alterable by any means. This judgement takes precedence over any and all rules now in effect, as these rules are immediately altered by the Tribunal as per DUTY B to remove all conflict. All outstanding RFJ's are now the exclusive domain of the Tribunal. 4.) This Judgement cannot be contested by any player, as the Legal system which would allow for such a contest no longer exits since this Judgement has the immediate force of law (reference rule 220) until it is overturned. However, the only way any judgement can be overturned is by the Tribunal. (gotta love those catch-22's) Comments: We stand now at the dawn of a new and exiting era, when the evils of democracy and the anarchy and chaos that results from that tyrannous system have been defeated. Embrace the future with us as we lead you into the Now. Berserker Nomic, which only recently looked to be in dire straights, has now miraculously transformed into a new creation, glorious in its gloriousness. I yearn tragically for this new dawn. Step away from the dark past and into the light. Note Behind: There are those of you who embrace the old order that may be surprised we have ruled a judgement which is neither true nor false, and which does not even address the matter we originally considered. Although I am not required to justify my actions, out of kindness I do so. Rule 219 states "each Appellate Judge will publicly issue an opinion on the original Request of Judgment as per the guidelines for Judges." Now, I look through the rules, and nowhere do I see "guidelines for Judges". I see Duties of Judges, but these are required duties and not guidelines. And anyway, these Duties address the issuing of a Judgement, and not an opinion anyway (the two may appear similar but are quite different, which is why Duties of appellate Judges and Duties of Judges are addressed separately in the rules.) The point is moot anyway because any mechanism for overturning this judgement is removed by the judgement itself. Sorry (not really). ***** Supported in the majority by The Right Honorable Gentleman Nate Ellefson. _____ Opposed by Pig-Dog Kuhns who blew his chance at being a member of the Tribunal. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:42:33 CDT From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Re: Nomic: potential game-breaker >Nick Osborn's judgment as to whether or not the game ends does not >determine that the game has actually ended, No it doesn't becuase Nick Osborn is not a Player in the game. Osborn is the Player making the judment. Rules 002, 215, 216 >Game actions occur independently of what we do -- for instance, when I >count votes, I am _determining_ what happened several hours before; my >couning the votes does not _cause_ Proposals to pass. I agree that counting the votes does not cause anything to happen because you Joel are not a game entity, Uckelman is. The rules state a clear distinction between Players and their human representitives. So just as proposals are passed by Players(not humans) casting their votes, the effects of judgments are brought about by a Player issuing a judgment. Rule 220 says judgments have the force of rules until they are overturned or no longer apply. Osborn's statement said 'further play is impossible', combined with Rule 213 would mean that since further play is impossible and it being my turn I am the Winner and the game is over. Some would say this conflicts with Rule 214, the 36 hour appeal rule, but rule 211 clearly states that the most recently changed rule takes precedence over another, since judgments have the force of rule, then this would apply to the Osborn's judgment taking precedence of rule 214, thereby making further play impossible. If further play is impossible then an appeal of Osborn's judgment is not possible. >The same situation applies here: we send judges to look in the black box >that is the game to observe the true state of affairs. Judges are clearly refered to as Players in the rules, placing them inside this black box you refer to. Judgments are issued by players, from within the box, when you count votes Joel you are outside the box, these are two totally different situations. Bailey ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:43:37 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: We have decided At 08:43 PM 10/18/98 , you wrote: > > The Right Honorable Michael S. Jensen, Esq. writing for the majority > in the matter of Appeal 30: "God violates our definition of player, and > therefore may not be added as one." > > Preamble: > > We, the members of the Court, having born witness to the anarchy and chaos > that rules our game, have decided to exercise our legitimate and legal right, > yea verily our obligation, to extend out the arm of justice and hand out > peace and order to quell the tide of darkness that has engulfed our game. We > wish to bring the light of reason and law to illuminate this present > darkness. To further these ends, our judgement, which has the force of law, > puts immediately into effect the following provisions. > > Provisions: > > 1.) Nomic Players Ellefson, Jensen, and Palecek make up a legal entity > hereafter referred to as the "Tribunal". The Tribunal shall consist of no > other players, nor shall any member of the Tribunal be removed from the > Tribunal. The duties and rights of the Tribunal consist of the following > Duties and Rights of the Tribunal: > > A. The Tribunal shall be the sole mechanism for resolving RFJ's. No other > mechanism shall be applied, such as assigned judges, appellate courts, or any > other mechanism except a unanimous decision of the Tribunal. If the Tribunal > cannot reach a unanimous decision, the RFJ is dismissed. > > B. The Tribunal shall make all rule changes. Rules may not be changed in > any other way. Again, a unanimous decision of the Tribunal is required for a > rule change to take effect. > > C. The Tribunal has unlimited control over all player attributes, including > wins. All player attributes may at any time with or without due cause be > altered by any member of the Tribunal with the consent of any other member > thereof. > > D. No player may win without the unanimous consent all members of the > Tribunal. This applies also to members of the Tribunal. > > E. The Tribunal may at any time punish any player in any manner deemed > necessary for such crimes as insolence, treason, and other such actions the > Tribunal determines to be crimes. This duty may be exercised with or without > consent of other members of the Tribunal, with the exception that Tribunal > members may not under any circumstances punish any other member of the > Tribunal. > > F. The Tribunal must at all times strive to be polite and cheerful to all > other players who are not members of the Tribunal. However, this duty will > not be enforced. 2.) In player correspondence, the Tribunal must be referred > to as "That Most August and Just Ruling Body, The Tribunal" and individual > members of the Tribunal shall have their names preceded by "The Majestic, > Excellent, and immeasurably Wise" although members of the Tribunal shall > refer to each other as "Right Honorable Gentleman." > > 3.) The provisions of this Judgement go into effect immediately and are not > alterable by any means. This judgement takes precedence over any and all > rules now in effect, as these rules are immediately altered by the Tribunal > as per DUTY B to remove all conflict. All outstanding RFJ's are now the > exclusive domain of the Tribunal. > > 4.) This Judgement cannot be contested by any player, as the Legal system > which would allow for such a contest no longer exits since this Judgement has > the immediate force of law (reference rule 220) until it is overturned. > However, the only way any judgement can be overturned is by the Tribunal. > (gotta love those catch-22's) > > Comments: > > We stand now at the dawn of a new and exiting era, when the evils of > democracy and the anarchy and chaos that results from that tyrannous system > have been defeated. Embrace the future with us as we lead you into the Now. > Berserker Nomic, which only recently looked to be in dire straights, has now > miraculously transformed into a new creation, glorious in its gloriousness. > I yearn tragically for this new dawn. Step away from the dark past and into > the light. > > Note Behind: > > There are those of you who embrace the old order that may be surprised we > have ruled a judgement which is neither true nor false, and which does not > even address the matter we originally considered. Although I am not required > to justify my actions, out of kindness I do so. Rule 219 states "each > Appellate Judge will publicly issue an opinion on the original Request of > Judgment as per the guidelines for Judges." Now, I look through the rules, > and nowhere do I see "guidelines for Judges". I see Duties of Judges, but > these are required duties and not guidelines. And anyway, these Duties > address the issuing of a Judgement, and not an opinion anyway (the two may > appear similar but are quite different, which is why Duties of appellate > Judges and Duties of Judges are addressed separately in the rules.) The > point is moot anyway because any mechanism for overturning this judgement is > removed by the judgement itself. Sorry (not really). > > ***** > Supported in the majority by The Right Honorable Gentleman Nate Ellefson. > > _____ > Opposed by Pig-Dog Kuhns who blew his chance at being a member of the > Tribunal. Uh, I don't see any TRUE or FALSE statement here -- this can't be you're decision if you don't decide the statement. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:56:32 -0500 From: Il Duce Subject: Nomic: Excuse Me? --============_-1303360299==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Supported in the majority by The Right Honorable Gentleman Nate Ellefson. > >_____ >Opposed by Pig-Dog Kuhns who blew his chance at being a member of the >Tribunal. Huh? When did I do this? It was a while ago, but I don't recall this being quite the specific offer you made me. In any event, my opinion is as follows: I must disagree with the decision of my colleagues on the appellate court, for reasons including: 1) Mr. Jensen's statement contained errors such as "exciting" being spelled "exiting." 2) Mr. Jensen is insane, and has clearly chosen to act up out of resentment of competition from Mr. Osborn. 3) Mr. Jensen is once again trying his previously-failed tactic of using a logical loop, where he circumvents the rules to create a state which then closes the loop by permitting the original rule violation. Such unoriginality is rather disappointing from one who styles himself a "revolutionary." And, regarding the original matter, "God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one," I rule TRUE. God's existence can be neither proven nor disproven by any means available to us. Ergo, for reasons of simple practicality it is impossible for us to add him to our game. If He finds this judgment unsatisfactory, I'm sure He will find a way to let me know. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns --============_-1303360299==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Supported in the majority by The Right Honorable Gentleman Nate Ellefson. _____ Opposed by Pig-Dog Kuhns who blew his chance at being a member of the Tribunal. Huh? When did I do this? It was a while ago, but I don't recall this being quite the specific offer you made me. In any event, my opinion is as follows: I must disagree with the decision of my colleagues on the appellate court, for reasons including: 1) Mr. Jensen's statement contained errors such as "exciting" being spelled "exiting." 2) Mr. Jensen is insane, and has clearly chosen to act up out of resentment of competition from Mr. Osborn. 3) Mr. Jensen is once again trying his previously-failed tactic of using a logical loop, where he circumvents the rules to create a state which then closes the loop by permitting the original rule violation. Such unoriginality is rather disappointing from one who styles himself a "revolutionary." And, regarding the original matter, "God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one," I rule TRUE. God's existence can be neither proven nor disproven by any means available to us. Ergo, for reasons of simple practicality it is impossible for us to add him to our game. If He finds this judgment unsatisfactory, I'm sure He will find a way to let me know. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns --============_-1303360299==_ma============-- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:59:28 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 21:02:55 CDT From: "" I propose that Mike and Nate be declared illegal forever. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 21:11:18 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Re: Nomic: We have decided [blah, blah, blah] > > >Uh, I don't see any TRUE or FALSE statement here -- this can't be you're >decision if you don't decide the statement. > > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > Joel Uckelman has addressed the Tribunal but has not refered to it as "That Most August and Just Ruling Body, the Tribunal" and thus has his score set arbitrarily to -10^(10^1000000) points. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:59:59 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: We have decided I propose that Mike and Nate be declared illegal forever. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 21:35:57 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Grr... Sorry that message got sent twice. The mailhub here at Iowa State, perhaps in an effort to screw things up even more than they already are, has started to be a little bitchy. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:48:58 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: We have decided I will attempt to show where the logic went awry of the rules and why this coup attempt fails. Michael S Jensen wrote: > The Right Honorable Michael S. Jensen, Esq. writing for the majority in >the matter of Appeal 30: "God violates our definition of player, and >therefore may not be added as one." > >Preamble: > >We, the members of the Court, having born witness to the anarchy and chaos >that rules our game, have decided to exercise our legitimate and legal >right, yea verily our obligation, to extend out the arm of justice and hand >out peace and order to quell the tide of darkness that has engulfed our >game. We wish to bring the light of reason and law to illuminate this >present darkness. To further these ends, our judgement, which has the >force of law, puts immediately into effect the following provisions. The only rule effect I can see this having is the claim that the rest of the this message is a Judgement... a claim which I think is not justified by an examination of the rules. >Provisions: The mechanisms of the new government - irrelevant, and excised for space considerations. >Comments: "Glorious" Rhetoric - irrelevant, and excised for space considerations. >Note Behind: The meat of the coup attempt: >There are those of you who embrace the old order that may be surprised we >have ruled a judgement which is neither true nor false, and which does not >even address the matter we originally considered. Although I am not >required to justify my actions, out of kindness I do so. Rule 219 states >"each Appellate Judge will publicly issue an opinion on the original >Request of Judgment as per the guidelines for Judges." Now, I look through >the rules, and nowhere do I see "guidelines for Judges". That's all right, by the strictly ver batim standard of rule interpretation they set up, their opinions have no effect. Rule 219 "Duties of Appellate Judges" goes on to say: "The ruling of the majority of Appellate Judges will be the official Judgment." Above I noted that they claimed this to be their judgement. They were incorrect because a judgement is the majority ruling, and rulings are defined by Rule 216 "Duties of Judges" when that rule says: "Judges shall make rulings on only the questions presented for Judgment, consisting of TRUE/FALSE answers and analysis as the Judges see fit." Thus, the blather we see before us was not a ruling and not a Judgement for three reasons: 1. It contained no TRUE/FALSE ruling on the RFJ in question and lacked necassary content. 2. It was not "on only the questions presented for Judgment" and the "analysis" that the judges saw as fit overstepped the permitted bounds of the Judgement. (or maybe that part is fine, and their junta government would actually exist [were it not for 1] and only would have authority over "God violates our definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one.") 3. It was not analysis, but silly assertions which did not serve to convince anyone of anything. Analysis implies something which is being analyzed and statements regarding this subject, not outright creation. >I see Duties of >Judges, but these are required duties and not guidelines. And anyway, >these Duties address the issuing of a Judgement, and not an opinion anyway >(the two may appear similar but are quite different, which is why Duties of >appellate Judges and Duties of Judges are addressed separately in the >rules.) They were right on (if you use their strictly literal interpretation) about the distinction between straight out judgements in initial RFJs and opinions in Appeals. OPINIONS HAVE NO EFFECT, ONLY "RULINGS" DO BECUASE ONLY _THEY_ BECOME JUDGEMENTS IN APPEALS. Just to be thorough: Rule 220 "Binding Nature of Judgments" says: "Judgments have the force of rules until they are overturned or no longer apply." >The point is moot anyway because any mechanism for overturning >this judgement is removed by the judgement itself. Sorry (not really). If it was not a judgement, then it failed to remove the mechanism and their assertion is false. I think that loops are permitted, if the initiation of the loop is valid and strict logic is followed in the implementation of the loop. In this case the initiation was not valid. I didn't pay any attention to the implementation so wouldn't know whether it was logical or not. >***** >Supported in the majority by The Right Honorable Gentleman Nate Ellefson. You have the same opinion? That's nice, what about your ruling? >Opposed by Pig-Dog Kuhns who blew his chance at being a member of the Tribunal. As per Rule 314 "Point Trading" I offer to trade Kuhns 3 points for his integrity or logic whichever prompted him to refuse this silly madness. If you tell Joel its groovy, it happens. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:03:22 -0500 From: Il Duce Subject: Nomic: Three points/Two joints > >>Opposed by Pig-Dog Kuhns who blew his chance at being a member of the >Tribunal. > >As per Rule 314 "Point Trading" I offer to trade Kuhns 3 points for his >integrity or logic whichever prompted him to refuse this silly madness. If >you tell Joel its groovy, it happens. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net Hm. I hereby accept this award of points--only to encourage such rational and pragmatic decision-making in others, naturally. Grooovy. 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, 18 Oct 1998 22:08:16 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Precedents... exodus writes: > Is voting by secret ballot a matter of public record, or am I correct i >n >believing that according to the definition of the words "secret ballot", >voting preferences of the players are to be kept secret? While the >Administrator has not published a veritable list of "who did what", the >inclusion of how the votes broke down seems to undermine the system of >secret balloting. This situation is because of the small number of >players, and the significant amount of communication outside the mailing >list. Is there any support for a proposal limiting voting results to a >simple Pass/Fail description. Consult with Joel here. We've already had a LENGTHY debate about the public nature of past ballots. I think it would be neat to do it that way, he thinks not (vehemently). I may support such a proposal but believe you'd have a hard time getting it to pass. > Also, I do not know what the term Remo connotes. According to the >accompanying text it is because the players auto-abstained during the two >previous rounds of voting. Considering I was made a player only in time >for the last round of voting (I received no ballot for the previous round, >nor was I aware that voting was taking place) and that I did not abstain >from the previous round (I voted on a number of measures), I call into >question Josh's statement that I am a Remo. However, I am inclined to >dismiss his pathetic badgering as a tool of a loser, since his proposals >did not pass and he is visibly upset. Either that or sexual frustration. The nice thing about Remoicity is that you don't decide, we do. You haven't seen me upset. :) I'm merely concerned about the greater good of our Nomic. I will however admit to sexual frustration. The math and philosophy departments are lonely, lonely places. Josh -- We are servants rather than masters in mathematics. - Charles Hermite ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:57:38 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Nomic: yeeeee-haaaaaaa! Mueller has responded via the list and his sentiments have been echoed by a few others, so I will address them. His main point is that what I sent to the list earlier is not a judgement, supposedly because it violated rule 219. Actually however, what he really is accusing me of doing is violating rule 216 when he says leftAbove I noted that they claimed this to be their judgement. They were incorrect because a judgement is the majority ruling, and rulings are defined by Rule 216 "Duties of Judges" when that rule says: "Judges shall make rulings on only the questions presented for Judgment, consisting of TRUE/FALSE answers and analysis as the Judges see fit." I would certainly agree that what I did was not legal IF RULE 216 APPLIED TO APPELLATE JUDGES! It does not (at least not necessarily). The duties of appellate judges and judges are defined separately and are the two are entirely different animals (just because they both contain the word judge does not mean that one is a subset of the other). My judgement is only constrained to comply with rule 219, which does not lay out my duties in quite such a rigid manner. It says I must issue my opinion (equivalent to my Judgement, or the consequences of differentiating between the two is rather disturbing, more later) as per the guidelines for judges. Now this is a rather vague statement. I understand that this statement might refer to rule 216, and this is what Mueller is saying. However, it might not. It might, in fact refer to "guidelines" which do no exist in the current ruleset (perhaps they were there before and were removed, but rule 219 was not changed, I don't know, and it isn't important) or perhaps to guidelines that I am missing. =20 Anyway, the point is that the matter is subject to debate (if nothing else because I want to debate it) and must be interpreted. Now, I chose to interpret it in my own way (I am certainly not going to interpret it, if given the choice, in someone else's way. That's just stupid) as is my perogative, until the rules or a judgement tell me otherwise. And, in my interpretation of rule 219, my judgement was totally legal. =20 Now, another, more legitimate point is that opinions of appellate judges are distinct from judgements and as such do not have the force of law as per rule 220. However, if this is not the case then appellate courts are completely unnecessary, because their decisions are not binding. I guess I'm totally OK with this interpretation as it promotes my agenda of anarchy, although it seems to me a pretty stupid opinion. I guess the real crux of the matter though, is what can be done? You say I broke the rules, I say I didn't. This is a matter that can only be decided by a RFJ. However, the RFJ, judged against myself, would overturn my judgement (yes, it is a judgement, at least until it is overturned). Until that happens, my judgement has the force of law, which means the parts that alter the judicial process are totally legit, and any RFJ would be pointless. We are caught in a paradox. If i'm right, you can't do anything about it, and if I'm wrong you can't do anything about it. (at least legally. You could do something illegal, but then you've done the same thing you accuse me of doing but worse, because you believed it to be illegal when you did it.) The point is just because you say it is not a valid judgement does not mean that is the case. I've already written too much so I'll stop. Mike ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:16:59 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge removal/selection Adam Haar has been fined 10 points and replaced on RFJ 32 (Players in Limbo are not to be counted for voting purposes.) by Nick Osborn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:14:11 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Judgment 39 Statement: Ellefson is. Judgment: TRUE Comments: "Ellefson" refers to Player Nate Ellefson. Thus "is" can mean either "exists as a player" or "exists," in the hamburgers-and-prostitutes sense in which we normally think of "exists." In the former case, clearly Ellefson is, as Ellefson was in the past, and Ellefson has not since withdrawn from the game. Ellefson's existance as a player would not discontinue without Ellefson's withdrawal, so Ellefson still is. In the latter case: Ellefson exists as a player, by the reasoning above. Thus, Ellefson must be represented by a real, live human being. Ellefson is represented by Nate Ellefson, who must therefore be a real, life human being. Josh -- Attaching significance to invariants is an effort to recognize what, because of its form or colour or meaning or otherwise, is important or significant in what is only trivial or ephemeral. A simple instance of failing in this is provided by the poll-man at Cambridge, who learned perfectly how to factorize a^2 - b^2 but was floored because the examiner unkindly asked for the factors of p^2 - q^2. - H.W. Turnbull ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:28:24 -0500 From: Thomas J Plagge Subject: Nomic: Re: Jensen's comments Mike, while I certainly respect you for finding such a weasly way to screw things up, it would seem to me that you are clearly in the wrong. And it does not make the game impossible to continue just because you believe yourself to be correct. I could declare myself emperor and order you and Nate to be my lackeys, and firmly believe I was within my power, but I wouldn't be right. So then why are you wrong? Well, it's because "the guidelines for Judgements" obviously refers to 216. 216 applies to judges, and since you claim you made a judgement, that would make you a judge. I urge you to go about anarchy in a more clever manner. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:22:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Judgment on appeal to RFJ 43 In all claims below, my co-counsel Adam Haar assents. He shall send his verification of assent tomorrow, after lumbering onto campus. Haar's assent is all that is required for the court to hear the appeal, and to issue a judgment, as I assent. Also, obviously, I shall author the majority opinion. The court shall hear the appeal. Furthermore, the court shall issue a new judgment. Judgment: FALSE Comments: Dakota Bailey says: Rule 220 says judgments have the force of rules until they are overturned or no longer apply. Osborn's statement said 'further play is impossible', combined with Rule 213 would mean that since further play is impossible and it being my turn I am the Winner and the game is over. Some would say this conflicts with Rule 214, the 36 hour appeal rule, but rule 211 clearly states that the most recently changed rule takes precedence over another, since judgments have the force of rule, then this would apply to the Osborn's judgment taking precedence of rule 214, thereby making further play impossible. If further play is impossible then an appeal of Osborn's judgment is not possible. The important claim here is that Nick Osborn's judgment, because it has the force of rule, takes precedence over rule 214. While judgments have the force of rules, that does not imply that a judgment "changes" rules. According to game custom, changing of rules is accomplished through passage of proposals. Any changes due to rulings are changes in rule interpretation, not rules, so long as the rulings do not literally modify the ruleset, which seems unlikely given the requirements of RFJs and judgments. Thus, Nick Osborn's judgment does not take precedence over rule 214, so appeals to said judgment (namely, Joel Uckelman's) are allowed. Now, as to the claim that it is Dakota Bailey's turn: At the time of the judgment under appeal, the ruling on RFJ 38 had not yet been handed down. However, RFJ 38 has since been judged true. This seems to indicate that, at the time of the call for judgment 38, it was indeed Nate Ellefson's turn. Nate Ellefson did not forfeit the game, go into Limbo, or make a proposal before RFJ 43 was made. Therefore, it was still Nate Ellefson's turn. If RFJ 43 is to be judged true, its conjuncts must be judged true, so it must be Dakota Bailey's turn. If it is to be Dakota Bailey's turn, Nate Ellefson's turn must end. According to rule 217, a turn may not end until all outstanding RFJs have been judged or dismissed. Therefore Nate Ellefson's turn cannot have ended. Thus, it cannot be Dakota Bailey's turn. It is possible to claim that the ruling handed down for RFJ 43 takes precedence over rule 217, thereby avoiding the requirements that all RFJs be completed, but this argument is fallacious in the same manner that the argument above, for a moratorium on appeals, is. As one of the conjuncts in RFJ 43 is false, the statement is false. Thus, from RFJ 43, nothing can be inferred (or, need be inferred) about the impossibility of further play. Since this judgment has made no actions in that regard, the court finds that the possibility of further play is nonzero, as it was before the call for judgment 43. Josh -- "I've just had seventeen straight whiskeys, I think that's a record." -Dylan Thomas ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:22:18 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Berserker: Dealing with the confusion. I make an RFJ on the statement: RFJs Judged by initial judges or appelate judges in a manner inconsistent with reasonable interpretations of the rules are subject to future RFJs which rule on their inconsistency; if the puportedly inconsistent RFJ changes the mechanism by which RFJs are dealt with, the secondary RFJ is dealt with in both manners (in parallel) and if different verdicts are returned, the verdict which the most players publicly support shall hold sway; this RFJ should be judged in this manner. Exclusions (just to be safe): Ellefson, Jensen, and Palecek Initiater's Resasoning: R216 says: "Judges shall make rulings on only the questions presented for Judgment, consisting of TRUE/FALSE answers and analysis as the Judges see fit." This RFJ permits a legitmate ruling/Judgement on "the questions presented for judgement" that will bear on the coup attempt. If the administrator distributes this as normal and our junta-in-waiting also rule on it, the admin distributed ruling will permit its branch (presuming its True and the coup's is False) to strengthen itself by public support, hopefully averting the coup. It also provides a clear line of reasoning which puts down the coup, namely that a RFJ's jurisdiction extend only to the questions it answers. A second RFJ could use this reasoning and the strength of a supported True branch to end the coup in a rule consistent manner. I believe that the rules do not speak to this matter and "game-custom and the spirit of the game" are the watchwords on this RFJ. So on the strength of the advantages above, I ask whoever judges this to rule it consistent with custom and spirit and True. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:18:01 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Joel Uckelman has been selected (by virtue of being the only one left) to judge on RFJ 44: RFJs Judged by initial judges or appelate judges in a manner inconsistent with reasonable interpretations of the rules are subject to future RFJs which rule on their inconsistency; if the puportedly inconsistent RFJ changes the mechanism by which RFJs are dealt with, the secondary RFJ is dealt with in both manners (in parallel) and if different verdicts are returned, the verdict which the most players publicly support shall hold sway; this RFJ should be judged in this manner. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:23:49 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Declaration I declare myself in a state of Limbo. I spent 6 hours of Saturday in crew practice and 16 hours on a project for today. Sunday I spent 16 hours at a crew regatta (the biggest one in the USA). I received 72 messages yesterday and I have NO time to deal with ANY of them. Sorry all. Expect me to be back sometime after Tuesday. My apologies, Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:55:42 -0500 From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Re: Nomic: Berserker: Dealing with the confusion. The Rt. Hon. Nathan Ellefson speaking for the Tribunal: The Tribunal, in accordance with the authority vested is us by Judgment 30, Provision 1, Duty A, will convene this evening to consider RFJ 44. Additionally, the decision issued by Haar and Kortbein is invalid, also in accordance with Judgement 30, Provision 1, Duty A. The Tribunal looks upon these attempts to usurp our legal and just authority with displeasure, though we will take no diciplinary action at this time. Do not try our patience in the future. The Majestic, Excellent, and immeasurably Wise Nathan Ellefson At 01:22 AM 10/19/98 -0400, you wrote: >I make an RFJ on the statement: > >RFJs Judged by initial judges or appelate judges in a manner inconsistent >with reasonable interpretations of the rules are subject to future RFJs >which rule on their inconsistency; if the puportedly inconsistent RFJ >changes the mechanism by which RFJs are dealt with, the secondary RFJ is >dealt with in both manners (in parallel) and if different verdicts are >returned, the verdict which the most players publicly support shall hold >sway; this RFJ should be judged in this manner. > >Exclusions (just to be safe): >Ellefson, Jensen, and Palecek > >Initiater's Resasoning: >R216 says: "Judges shall make rulings on only the questions presented for >Judgment, consisting of TRUE/FALSE answers and analysis as the Judges see >fit." > >This RFJ permits a legitmate ruling/Judgement on "the questions presented >for judgement" that will bear on the coup attempt. > >If the administrator distributes this as normal and our junta-in-waiting >also rule on it, the admin distributed ruling will permit its branch >(presuming its True and the coup's is False) to strengthen itself by public >support, hopefully averting the coup. > >It also provides a clear line of reasoning which puts down the coup, namely >that a RFJ's jurisdiction extend only to the questions it answers. > >A second RFJ could use this reasoning and the strength of a supported True >branch to end the coup in a rule consistent manner. > >I believe that the rules do not speak to this matter and "game-custom and >the spirit of the game" are the watchwords on this RFJ. So on the strength >of the advantages above, I ask whoever judges this to rule it consistent >with custom and spirit and True. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:12:46 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Judgment 32 Judgment: False. Statement: Players in Limbo are not to be counted for voting purposes. Judge's Comments: According to Rule 105, immutable, "Every Player is an eligible voter." According to Rule 109, immutable, "Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules, or mutable rules into immutable rules, may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect." Rule 319, defining "Limbo," is a mutable rule. Immutable Rules 105 and 109, which take precedence over Rule 319, indicate that if a Player in Limbo doesn't vote for a transmutation, the transmutation fails. This means that Players in Limbo clearly are to counted for purposes of voting on transmutations. Because voting on transmutations is voting, Players in Limbo are to be counted for voting purposes. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:04:17 -0500 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: nomic: RFJ 40 Haar is. Dismissed: There is no clear statement to judge true or false. "Haar is" can be interpreted too many ways. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:08:27 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: clarificaition of my actions I believe a short explanation is in order. Serving Judgment 32 is not an admittance that Bailey didn't win the game. It is an illegitimate action in what has become an illegitimate extension of a game that is over. I want to do all I can to end this mirage. However, if the rest of you perceive that I am unable to do anything as I am tied up in the judiciary, then it doesn't matter if I really am or not because this not actually the game. What you are perceiving is not the game. Rigth now in the black box the game entities are probably frustrated that we aren't letting them do anything anymore. They're just waiting around for game 3. Because you refuse to recognize the end of the game, while I do, my actions will appear to be inconsistent with your perception. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:58:10 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: clarificaition of my actions Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I believe a short explanation is in order. Serving Judgment 32 is not an >admittance that Bailey didn't win the game. It is an illegitimate action in >what has become an illegitimate extension of a game that is over. I want to >do all I can to end this mirage. However, if the rest of you perceive that >I am unable to do anything as I am tied up in the judiciary, then it >doesn't matter if I really am or not because this not actually the game. >What you are perceiving is not the game. Rigth now in the black box the >game entities are probably frustrated that we aren't letting them do >anything anymore. They're just waiting around for game 3. Because you >refuse to recognize the end of the game, while I do, my actions will appear >to be inconsistent with your perception. Crack pipe running low, egg boy? Josh -- ... it seems to me that teaching critical thinking via popular-art examples holds the potential for making people both capable of critical thought and inclined toward it, whereas teaching it through _The Scarlet Letter_ just makes people associate the process with unpleasantness. - Glenn McDonald ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:01:15 -0500 From: Il Duce Subject: Nomic: Black Boxes and Mirages >I believe a short explanation is in order. Serving Judgment 32 is not an >admittance that Bailey didn't win the game. It is an illegitimate action in >what has become an illegitimate extension of a game that is over. You're full of it. This is just a pathetic attempt to escape from the full and unpleasant consequences of your farfetched claims that the game is over. Because everyone has ignored you and continued playing, you feel left out, so you're continuing to participate while at the same time claiming that all participation in Berserker v. 2.0 at this point is impossible. You can talk about black boxes ad nauseum but it won't change the fact that you're doing one thing while simultaneously claiming that thing is impossible. Meanwhile the residents of the PMIC are claiming that the game continues but they are the supreme body of decision-making... I've said it before; I'll probably have to say it again: This is one hell of a stinking morass we find ourselves in. This current situation seems to point at an unavoidable flaw in the game structure: as nomic is just a joint theorhetical construct, its pseudo-reality can only be maintained if we all accept certain common authority. If we all see the state of the game reality-construct in different ways, then the game breaks down. And since the differing factions are often unlikely to persuade one another that their perception of the game is true and all others false, then absent unanimous acceptance of some form of authority, anarchy reigns. More importantly, we have no game, just a bunch of people shouting at each other and covering their ears. I don't know how exactly to solve this... although some retooling of our judiciary system seems necessary, I'm afraid that at some level we just can't avoid dependence on everyone following the rules. Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu * * * * * * * * "C'mon, you fuckers think that just 'cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? I'll fuckin' take all a' you on!" -Brodie, "Mallrats" ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:57:19 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Judgment (I'll number these later) RFJs Judged by initial judges or appelate judges in a manner inconsistent with reasonable interpretations of the rules are subject to future RFJs which rule on their inconsistency; if the puportedly inconsistent RFJ changes the mechanism by which RFJs are dealt with, the secondary RFJ is dealt with in both manners (in parallel) and if different verdicts are returned, the verdict which the most players publicly support shall hold sway; this RFJ should be judged in this manner. TRUE This statement can be symbolized as follows: A & (B -> (C & (D -> E))) & F, with the letters being: A: RFJs Judged by initial judges or appelate judges in a manner inconsistent with reasonable interpretations of the rules are subject to future RFJs which rule on their inconsistency B: the puportedly inconsistent RFJ changes the mechanism by which RFJs are dealt with C: the secondary RFJ is dealt with in both manners (in parallel) D: different verdicts are returned E: the verdict which the most players publicly support shall hold sway F: this RFJ should be judged in this manner There are only 3 ways such a statement can be true: 1. A & B & C & D & E & F 2. A & B & C & ~D & F 3. A & ~B & F Thus, if I am to return a true judgment, one of these must be the state of affairs. Firstly, ~E. The statement "the verdict which the most players publicly support shall hold sway" is nowhere codified in the rules. There is neither any legal nor any customary support for such a claim -- the procedure for reaching a judicial decision is stated in Rules 216/0 and 219/0, but nowhere in these or any other rules can there be found the practice of ratifying judicial decisions by popular demand. Thus, due to the falsehood of claim E, posibility 1 is eliminated. Secondly, ~B. The statement that "the puportedly inconsistent RFJ changes the mechanism by which RFJs are dealt with is likewise false, and therefore fatal to both possibilities 1 and 2. As stated in the Appeal of Judgment 43, >While judgments have the force of rules, that does not imply that >a judgment "changes" rules. According to game custom, changing of rules >is accomplished through passage of proposals. Any changes due to >rulings are changes in rule interpretation, not rules, so long as >the rulings do not literally modify the ruleset, which seems unlikely >given the requirements of RFJs and judgments. For B to be true, the manifesto posted by Jensen et al. must be both a Judgment and in that capacity must not modify the existing ruleset. On the first count, the there has been no truth value, dismissal, or passing on to a lower court returned by more than one member of the court (Kuhns). Thus, as per Rule 219/0, the court still sits and there is no Judgment. On the second count, the opinion delivered extensively modified the existing rules, as I believe the self-styled "Tribunal" would agree: "... our judgement, which has the force of law, puts immediately into effect the following provisions." Because Judgments do not create but rather interpret, and the "Tribunal" claims itself to be creating, B is false. With these proven, for the statement to be true, only A and F must be true -- the truth values of the remaining components are irrelevant. F can be easily dispensed with: its truth is dependent on the truth of the rest of the statement. If the remainder of the statement, which describes the action to be taken, is true, obviously it must follow that "this RFJ should be judged in this manner". That said, we must inquire into A. "RFJs Judged by initial judges or appelate judges in a manner inconsistent with reasonable interpretations of the rules are subject to future RFJs which rule on their inconsistency." Judgments and Appeals are always subject to further interpretation in the future, so long as the game continues. Nowhere in the ruleset is there a rule preventing similar (or even identical) RFJs over matters decided in the past, regardless of whether or not the the matters were decided "in a manner inconsistent with reasonable interpretations of the rules". That variety of opinions would be a subset of the wider category of opinions that can be challenged. Thus, statement A is true. Therefore, as I have shown that A & ~B & F, this statement is Judged true and the actions of Jensen et al. are hereby nullified. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:37:29 -0500 From: Michael S Jensen Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgment (I'll number these later) (I'm being serious now) Joel has not limited his analysis to the questions presented for judgement. Even if my authoriy on the Tribunal is non-existant, joel has overstepped his by invalidating my judgement. This judgement was not to decide the legality or illegality of my action, but was only to set the stage. Joel has jumped the gun. On another note, I still maintain that my action has removed any machinery for making this judgement in the first place, as it must be assumed to be a correct judgement (note "correct" and "judgement" that means saying it is not a real judgement is not a valid arguement). We are dealing with a formal system when we are playing Nomic, and I have created a strange loop, which plauge every formal system and are the source of paradoxes (spelling?). When I say plauge, I don't mean to impart negative emotion because really it was an ingeniously applied strange loop that allowed Godel to prove his incompleteness theorem, quite possibly the most interesting theorem in all of human mathematics. >RFJs Judged by initial judges or appelate judges in a manner inconsistent >with reasonable interpretations of the rules are subject to future RFJs >which rule on their inconsistency; if the puportedly inconsistent RFJ >changes the mechanism by which RFJs are dealt with, the secondary RFJ is >dealt with in both manners (in parallel) and if different verdicts are >returned, the verdict which the most players publicly support shall hold >sway; this RFJ should be judged in this manner. > >TRUE > >This statement can be symbolized as follows: A & (B -> (C & (D -> E))) & >F, with the letters being: > >A: RFJs Judged by initial judges or appelate judges in a manner >inconsistent with reasonable interpretations of the rules are subject to >future RFJs which rule on their inconsistency > >B: the puportedly inconsistent RFJ changes the mechanism by which RFJs are >dealt with > >C: the secondary RFJ is dealt with in both manners (in parallel) > >D: different verdicts are returned > >E: the verdict which the most players publicly support shall hold sway > >F: this RFJ should be judged in this manner > >There are only 3 ways such a statement can be true: > >1. A & B & C & D & E & F >2. A & B & C & ~D & F >3. A & ~B & F > >Thus, if I am to return a true judgment, one of these must be the state of >affairs. > >Firstly, ~E. The statement "the verdict which the most players publicly >support shall hold sway" is nowhere codified in the rules. There is neither >any legal nor any customary support for such a claim -- the procedure for >reaching a judicial decision is stated in Rules 216/0 and 219/0, but >nowhere in these or any other rules can there be found the practice of >ratifying judicial decisions by popular demand. Thus, due to the falsehood >of claim E, posibility 1 is eliminated. > >Secondly, ~B. The statement that "the puportedly inconsistent RFJ changes >the mechanism by which RFJs are dealt with is likewise false, and therefore >fatal to both possibilities 1 and 2. As stated in the Appeal of Judgment 43, > >>While judgments have the force of rules, that does not imply that >>a judgment "changes" rules. According to game custom, changing of rules >>is accomplished through passage of proposals. Any changes due to >>rulings are changes in rule interpretation, not rules, so long as >>the rulings do not literally modify the ruleset, which seems unlikely >>given the requirements of RFJs and judgments. > >For B to be true, the manifesto posted by Jensen et al. must be both a >Judgment and in that capacity must not modify the existing ruleset. On the >first count, the there has been no truth value, dismissal, or passing on to >a lower court returned by more than one member of the court (Kuhns). Thus, >as per Rule 219/0, the court still sits and there is no Judgment. On the >second count, the opinion delivered extensively modified the existing >rules, as I believe the self-styled "Tribunal" would agree: "... our >judgement, which has the force of law, puts immediately into effect the >following provisions." Because Judgments do not create but rather >interpret, and the "Tribunal" claims itself to be creating, B is false. > >With these proven, for the statement to be true, only A and F must be true >-- the truth values of the remaining components are irrelevant. F can be >easily dispensed with: its truth is dependent on the truth of the rest of >the statement. If the remainder of the statement, which describes the >action to be taken, is true, obviously it must follow that "this RFJ should >be judged in this manner". That said, we must inquire into A. > >"RFJs Judged by initial judges or appelate judges in a manner inconsistent >with reasonable interpretations of the rules are subject to future RFJs >which rule on their inconsistency." Judgments and Appeals are always >subject to further interpretation in the future, so long as the game >continues. Nowhere in the ruleset is there a rule preventing similar (or >even identical) RFJs over matters decided in the past, regardless of >whether or not the the matters were decided "in a manner inconsistent with >reasonable interpretations of the rules". That variety of opinions would be >a subset of the wider category of opinions that can be challenged. Thus, >statement A is true. > >Therefore, as I have shown that A & ~B & F, this statement is Judged true >and the actions of Jensen et al. are hereby nullified. > > > > > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:14:13 -0500 From: exodus Subject: Re: Nomic: Black Boxes and Mirages >I don't know how exactly to solve this... although some retooling of our >judiciary system seems necessary, I hear the call for celebrity deathmatch... Who shall fight Osborn? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:27:47 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Berserker: Coup deathblow I request judgement - Claim: There is no legal entity hereafter referred to as the "Tribunal" composed of players Ellefson, Jensen, and Palecek, moreover no similar body could be produced by a CFJ that did not question the issue of such an entities existance. Initiater's Reasoning: Regarding the first half of the statement, see my analysis on why their action failed to have the effects it claimed summarized when I noted: >Thus, the blather we see before us was not a ruling and not a >Judgement for three reasons: > >1. It contained no TRUE/FALSE ruling on the RFJ in question and >lacked necassary content. > >2. It was not "on only the questions presented for Judgment" >and the "analysis" that the judges saw as fit overstepped the >permitted bounds of the Judgement. (or maybe that part is fine, >and their junta government would actually exist [were it not >for 1] and only would have authority over "God violates our >definition of player, and therefore may not be added as one.") > >3. It was not analysis, but silly assertions which did not >serve to convince anyone of anything. Analysis implies >something which is being analyzed and statements regarding this >subject, not outright creation. As to the second (broader and more powerful) half, note that it can be ruled true based on the issue/question/answer distinction I made or due to other reasoning regarding the nature of RFJs with those I specified as merely a subset and my distinction being irrelevant. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:40:27 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: I'm back Holy shit! I just pulled the coolest presentation out of my ass. Get this, I do all this research and I still don't know how to pull it together by the time I have to go to class to present. So I go. On the way, the missing piece (ie, bullshit) occurs to me. I get there and I pull everything together so that it sounds like I thought it out and made intricate connections between blah and blah. I'm so proud of myself. Business: I declare myself out of Limbo. Judgment on: The game may not end through an unappealable lower court Judgment. Dismissed. My thoughts: Not many really. It occurred to me that according to the rules there is currently no such thing in our game as an "unappealable lower court Judgment." Rule 214/1, mutable, active Requests for Judgment and Appeals A Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time invoke Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Requests for Judgment must include a clear statement to be Judged TRUE or FALSE. A Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may within 36 hours of the public issuance of a Judgment or Notice of Dismissal, Appeal said Judgment. If this term is indeed unmeaningful, that means the statement can't be evaluated as TRUE or FALSE, therefore I feel as though I must dismiss this RFJ. However, I would otherwise be inclined to judge TRUE if I were not obliged to dismiss the CFJ. I'm not up on my symbolic logic (like Joel) but I think this is right. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:02:42 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: page updates In case anyone was wondering, I'm not going to update the page until it becomes clear what exactly is official from the last few days. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:47:40 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 346 There are Jesus. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:45:35 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 342 There are goats. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:46:45 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 344 There are hippos. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:47:11 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 345 There are yuppies. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:49:09 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop #? There are pop cans. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:48:30 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop ? There are computers. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:49:39 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop #? There are athletes. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:46:10 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 343 There are balloons. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:50:09 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop #? There are yous. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:58:57 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 358 There are webs. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:58:38 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 357 There are keys. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:59:25 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 359 There are yeses. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:55:59 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 351 There are words. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:56:23 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 352 There are numbers. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:58:15 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 356 There are stanzas. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:57:17 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 354 There are nothings. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:56:53 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 353 There are troubles. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:57:43 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 355 There are synonyms. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:59:49 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 360 There are happy days. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:53:06 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Withdraw I withdraw proposals 342 through 349. Expect more later. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 09:55:25 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 350 Rule 222 will be amended to read: Proposers will 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. ____ Look familiar? Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 10:03:41 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Withdraw again Upon consideration, I have decided to withdraw props 351-360. Expect more in the future. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:18:52 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Withdraw I withdraw proposals 361-400. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:18:00 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: a few props prop 361 There are animals. prop 362 There are derivatives. prop 363 There are windows. prop 364 There are jams. prop 365 There are holies. prop 366 There are munchies. prop 367 There are stupids. prop 368 There are heads. prop 369 There are headphones. prop 370 There are cassettes. prop 371 There are stereos. prop 372 There are fish. prop 373 There are shelves. prop 374 There are movies. prop 375 There are songs. prop 376 There are distributions. prop 377 There are elections. prop 378 There are pennies. prop 379 There are CDs. prop 380 There are toilets. prop 381 There are toys. prop 382 There are games. prop 383 There are schmoes. prop 384 There are poems. prop 385 There are grandstands. prop 386 There are tacks. prop 387 There are Moms. prop 388 There are stanks. prop 389 There are monkeys. prop 390 There are towels. prop 391 There are weggies. prop 392 There are littleboys. prop 393 There are morons. prop 394 There are coaches. prop 395 There are grandpas. prop 396 There are chalks. prop 397 There are babies. prop 398 There are buttons. prop 399 There are inclusions. prop 400 There are more props to come. ____ Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:33:30 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: prop 401 If the person represented by the Administrator also represents a Player in Berserker Nomic then the aforementioned Player shall receive 10 points per turn as a salary and signifying appreciation for a job well done. Damon __________ I don't want to spend the rest of my life Looking for a girl Never gonna find -- 7M3 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:45:33 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: what is going on There will likely be an announcement tonight or tomorrow about what is actually going on in the game. Stay tuned... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:47:36 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: whose turn? According to my judgment, which stands until overturned, it is Bailey's turn, even in your illegitimate extension of the true game. Just thought I'd remind everyone. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:45:25 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: suggestion The current game of Berserker is over, so I would like to make a suggestion for the next game. This doesn't have to be a proposal. Because the game was won by impossibility of further play, thisw can just be added to the ruleset before we begin. For a proposal to become active, a proposal must receive a public second from a Player other than the proposer. We could associate awards for passing proposals and penalties for failed proposals for the seconding Player. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:13:00 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: suggestion n wrote: >The current game of Berserker is over, so I would like to make a suggestion >for the next game. This doesn't have to be a proposal. Because the game was >won by impossibility of further play, thisw can just be added to the >ruleset before we begin. > >For a proposal to become active, a proposal must receive a public second >from a Player other than the proposer. > >We could associate awards for passing proposals and penalties for failed >proposals for the seconding Player. While I havn't been paying much attention to this "the game is over rubish," if the game actually is over, let me suggest (and this is a new proposal if the game is still going) that we: Modify Rule 213 "Winning through Impossibility of Further Play" change If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determinedwith finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner. This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner. to If it seems that (except by the application of this rule) further play is impossible, or the legality of a move cannot be determinedwith finality, or a move appears equally legal and illegal, then any player may submit a RFJ which points this out. If this RFJ is unappealably true then the player who requested it may submit an Emergency Relief Document which describes changes to be made to the rules. Unless two players object to the Emergency Relief Document within three days, it is accepted and the changes it describes are applied to the rules. If the Emergency Relief Document is successfully objected to, another shall be issued by the RFJer until one is accepted. When an Emergency Relief Document is accepted, its author is credited with a win and the game continues. This rule takes precedence over every other rule. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:32:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: whose turn? Nicholas C Osborn writes: >According to my judgment, which stands until overturned, it is Bailey's >turn, even in your illegitimate extension of the true game. Just thought >I'd remind everyone. I would like to see, from you, reasons you think the game is over, under the assumption (held by some of us) that your judgment was appealable. Josh actually overturned your judgment, but Haar's too lazy to send a real confirmation, the buttfuck -- Karma police arrest this man He talks in maths, he buzzes like a fridge He`s like a detuned radio ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:34:43 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: suggestion Mueller writes: >n wrote: >>The current game of Berserker is over, so I would like to make a suggestion >>for the next game. This doesn't have to be a proposal. Because the game was >>won by impossibility of further play, thisw can just be added to the >>ruleset before we begin. >> >>For a proposal to become active, a proposal must receive a public second >>from a Player other than the proposer. >> >>We could associate awards for passing proposals and penalties for failed >>proposals for the seconding Player. > >While I havn't been paying much attention to this "the game is over >rubish," if the game actually is over, let me suggest (and this is a new >proposal if the game is still going) that we: > >Modify Rule 213 "Winning through Impossibility of Further Play" > >change > >If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the >legality of a move cannot be determinedwith finality, or if by the Judge's >best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, >then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner. > >This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner. > >to > >If it seems that (except by the application of this rule) further play is >impossible, or the legality of a move cannot be determinedwith finality, or >a move appears equally legal and illegal, then any player may submit a RFJ >which points this out. > >If this RFJ is unappealably true then the player who requested it may ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I would like to see a clarification of this. >submit an Emergency Relief Document which describes changes to be made to >the rules. Unless two players object to the Emergency Relief Document >within three days, it is accepted and the changes it describes are applied >to the rules. > >If the Emergency Relief Document is successfully objected to, another shall >be issued by the RFJer until one is accepted. > >When an Emergency Relief Document is accepted, its author is credited with >a win and the game continues. > >This rule takes precedence over every other rule. Though this seems OK I couldn't support it in my heart of hearts until you came up with a better name than "Emergency Relief Document." Josh -- "When angry, count to 10. When very angry, swear." - Mark Twain ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:55:04 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: whose turn? >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>According to my judgment, which stands until overturned, it is Bailey's >>turn, even in your illegitimate extension of the true game. Just thought >>I'd remind everyone. > >I would like to see, from you, reasons you think the game is over, >under the assumption (held by some of us) that your judgment was appealable. > I have no original arguments for the game being over under these circumstances. I believe that need can be sufficeintly supplied by others. > > > > > > >Josh >actually overturned your judgment, but Haar's too lazy to send a >real confirmation, the buttfuck He's your roommate. Don't complain to the list. Go dig up the bar-fly. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:03:05 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: whose turn? Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>According to my judgment, which stands until overturned, it is Bailey's >>>turn, even in your illegitimate extension of the true game. Just thought >>>I'd remind everyone. >> >>I would like to see, from you, reasons you think the game is over, >>under the assumption (held by some of us) that your judgment was appealable. >> >I have no original arguments for the game being over under these >circumstances. I believe that need can be sufficeintly supplied by others. If you fail to supply an argument in this circumstance, then I will not believe your position. No one has yet supplied me with a convincing argument that the game has ended. And I've been trying my own. >He's your roommate. Don't complain to the list. Go dig up the bar-fly. You just passed up a big humor op, tisk tisk. Never forego a chance to type "barfly". Especially in reference to a sot like Haar (no offense, Haar). Josh -- I am the author of all tucks & damask piping I am the Chrome Dinette I am the Chrome Dinette I am the eggs of all persuasion ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:55:04 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: RFJ 42 Palecek is Since this statement is not referenced in or governed by the rules as in Rule 214 where it states that a Player "...may at any time invoke Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter." Since this is obviously not a rules-related matter, nor a clear statement, I dismiss this RFJ. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 23:59:09 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: knobs According to Kuhns, the following are knobs: Osborn, Jensen, Ellefson, and Luloff. So it shall be until otherwise. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:07:01 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Knobs >According to Kuhns, the following are knobs: Osborn, Jensen, Ellefson, and >Luloff. So it shall be until otherwise. I resent being grouped with these individuals. What did I do to deserve that? They are obviously all stupid and insane. I on the other hand alerted everyone of the problem before taking advantage of it and even gave everyone a chance to do away with the problem; but the proposal did not pass so here we are. Damon __________ a lady asks us for a nickel for a terrible disease but we don't give her one we don't like terrible diseases -- Frank O'Hara ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:50:04 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Knobs At 08:07 AM 10/22/98 , you wrote: >>According to Kuhns, the following are knobs: Osborn, Jensen, Ellefson, and >>Luloff. So it shall be until otherwise. > >I resent being grouped with these individuals. What did I do to deserve >that? They are obviously all stupid and insane. I on the other hand >alerted everyone of the problem before taking advantage of it and even >gave everyone a chance to do away with the problem; but the proposal did >not pass so here we are. > > >Damon Actually, this isn't really a serious problem. The scoring rule can be changed before any scoring takes place anyway, so running up the score won't do you any good. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:40:21 -0500 From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 42 At 10:55 PM 10/21/98 -0500, you wrote: >Palecek is I am NOT! Whatever it is, it's not me who did it. :-) >Since this statement is not referenced in or governed by the rules as in >Rule 214 where it states that a Player "...may at any time invoke Judgment >to receive clarification on any rules-related matter." Since this is >obviously not a rules-related matter, nor a clear statement, I dismiss this >RFJ. > >jeff > > ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:56:34 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Judiciary revision suggestions What follows are is my suggested rewrite of the Judiciary rules. Please read them, look for potential problems (look especially for if they solve the problems we've recently encountered), make comments, or suggest something better. ---------------- A Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Requests for Judgment must include a one sentence Statement to be judged. A Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may, within 36 hours of the public issuance of a Judgment by a Primary Judge, Appeal said Judgment. Judgments issued by Courts of Appeals may not themselves be appealed. ---------------- A Primary Judge will be randomly assigned to each Request for Judgment from the set of Players excluding: i. Players in Limbo ii. the Complainant iii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter iv. a Player selected by the Complainant v. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii vi. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii and iii If these exclusions leave no eligible Players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until, at minimum, one Player becomes eligible to be a Primary Judge. In addition, the Complainant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions iv, v, and vi. --------------- A Court of Appeals will consist of three Appellate Judges selected randomly from the set of Players excluding: i. Players in Limbo ii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter iii. the Appellant and the Complainant iv. the primary Player previously selected by the Complainant v. a Player selected by the Appellant vi. the secondary Player previously selected by the Complainant vii. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v viii. the tertiary Player previously selected by the Complainant ix. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v and vii If these exclusions leave insufficient eligible players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until at minimum three Players become eligible to be Appellate Judges. In addition, the Appellant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions v, vii, and ix. If the Complainant and Appellant are the same Player, exclusions v, vii, and ix are waived automatically. --------------- A Primary Judge must post to the mailing list a Judgment in response to the assigned Request for Judgment within 72 hours of being assigned to it, or else be fined 10 points and be replaced in accordance with the rules governing the selection of Primary Judges. A Primary Judge’s tenure ends upon his issuing a Judgment or being replaced, and a Primary Judge relinquishes the title of Primary Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time. --------------- A Court of Appeals must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment and any minority or concurring Opinions in response to the assigned Appeal, upon which the Court is dissolved. An Appellate Judge’s tenure ends upon the dissolving of his Court, and an Appellate Judge relinquishes the title of Appellate Judge and its associated powers an privileges at that time. --------------- A Judgment shall consist only of a response to the Statement to be judged and optional analysis of the decision. Court opinions that do not contain at least a valid response to the Statement or that contain material other than that mentioned here are not to be considered Judgments. Possible responses to Statements are the following: DISMISSED, meaning that the Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter; TRUE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true; FALSE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false; REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT, meaning that the Statement is to be judged by another Primary Judge. All other responses are invalid. A Primary Judge shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. A Court of Appeals shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED, REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT} according to the following directives: 1. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to dismiss the Appeal, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. 2. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to judge on the Appeal, the Court, based on a majority vote amongst the Appellate Judges on the Court, must deliver a TRUE or FALSE ruling corresponding to the outcome of the voting. 3. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to remand the Appeal to a lower court, or no two Appellate Judges on a Court agree on what decision to deliver, the Court must deliver a REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT ruling. All decisions by all Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. -------------- A turn may not end until all outstanding Requests for Judgment have been Judged. -------------- A Judgment’s Statement and response become part of the official interpretation of Rules to which they apply when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if no Appeal is made. At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or other Judgments, nor may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the Ruleset. This rule takes precedence over all other rules related to the Judiciary. Game actions found to be illegal through Judgments must be undone, as must all actions made possible by said illegal actions. -------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:16:25 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: What is to be done? I think that by now, while we may not agree that the game has become unplayable theoretically, I think that we can agree that it has become unplayable pragmatically. With that in mind, a new game is in the works, with some changes to the Judiciary system and probably just a few cosmetic changes to everything else (unless someone points out another major flaw). Questions this raises: 1. What should we say happened with the old game? Who, if anyone, won? 2. What changes should be made to the Judiciary? (see my suggestions from earlier today). 3. Should a new game start from the position we were in on 17 October, the day before interpretations diverged, and a) keep the scores or b) reset the scores? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:47:40 CDT From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: No Good? >Actually, this isn't really a serious problem. The scoring rule can be >changed before any scoring takes place anyway, so running up the score >won't do you any good. How can you say it won't do any good when my intention is not to score but to change the rule? If the scoring rule is changed before any scoring takes place then I have accomplished my purpose, therefore doing me good. So, Joel, you are wrong. It does me much good to continue in my efforts. Where did you ever get the idea I was trying to win by doing this? If you will recall, as I stated in the message you replied to, I was the one who tried to change this the first time. Did it pass? No. Therefore my actions will force one of two things two happen. 1. The scoring rule will be changed as I had initially proposed. 2. Ever time a proposal passes someone will win. Damon __________ a lady asks us for a nickel for a terrible disease but we don't give her one we don't like terrible diseases -- Frank O'Hara ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:59:05 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: What is to be done? Joel wrote: >1. What should we say happened with the old game? Who, if anyone, won? Berserker collapsed due to judicial failure in my opinion. >3. Should a new game start from the position we were in on 17 October, the >day before interpretations diverged, and a) keep the scores or b) reset the >scores? I vote for restarting as the game was just before the divergence. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:22:38 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Judiciary revision suggestions Joel wrote: >What follows are is my suggested rewrite of the Judiciary rules. Please read >them, look for potential problems (look especially for if they solve the >problems we've recently encountered), make comments, or suggest something >better. (some suggestions snipped) >A Primary Judge must post to the mailing list a Judgment in response to the >assigned Request for Judgment within 72 hours of being assigned to it, or else >be fined 10 points and be replaced in accordance with the rules governing the >selection of Primary Judges. A Primary Judge’s tenure ends upon his issuing a >Judgment or being replaced, and a Primary Judge relinquishes the title of >Primary Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time. Are there powers and priviledge's other than making the Judgement that must be revoked? I'm not clear why this last bit is necessary. >A Court of Appeals must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment and any >minority or concurring Opinions in response to the assigned Appeal, upon which >the Court is dissolved. An Appellate Judge’s tenure ends upon the >dissolving of >his Court, and an Appellate Judge relinquishes the title of Appellate Judge >and >its associated powers an privileges at that time. Just worrying about far out problems: What if some Appelate Judge immeadiately posts a self-defined "majority Judgement" without consulting their partners? Perhaps each judge should post a ruling which is either a valid judgment, a "ditto", a ditto plus more reasoning, or a disagreement, then the results are determined in public. >A Judgment shall consist only of a response to the Statement to be judged and >optional analysis of the decision. Court opinions that do not contain at least >a valid response to the Statement or that contain material other than that >mentioned here are not to be considered Judgments. > >Possible responses to Statements are the following: DISMISSED, meaning that >the >Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a >rules-related matter; TRUE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to >its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true; FALSE, >meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a >rules-related matter, and is logically false; REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT, >meaning that the Statement is to be judged by another Primary Judge. All other >responses are invalid. > >A Primary Judge shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the >set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. > >A Court of Appeals shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from >the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED, REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT} according to the >following directives: >1. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to dismiss the >Appeal, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. >2. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to judge on the >Appeal, the Court, based on a majority vote amongst the Appellate Judges on >the >Court, must deliver a TRUE or FALSE ruling corresponding to the outcome of the >voting. >3. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to remand the Appeal >to a lower court, or no two Appellate Judges on a Court agree on what decision >to deliver, the Court must deliver a REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT ruling. What if each App Judge is sure they don't want to remand the RFJ but can't agree otherwise. Do they remand automatically despite that being the one thing they all don't want to see? Basically, what I'm asking is: Wouldn't two of the judges have to agree that an otherwise unbreakable disagreement exists in order to remand, and if two judges could do that AND need to do that in order to remand, why force the remand to occur in the rules in the first place? My suggestion, just put a time limit on them (to force compromise on penalty of point loss). Default judgement is remanded. >All decisions by all Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in >effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the >point at >issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game >before >applying other standards. >-------------- >A turn may not end until all outstanding Requests for Judgment have been >Judged. >-------------- >A Judgment’s Statement and response become part of the official interpretation >of Rules to which they apply when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER >COURT is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance >if no Appeal is made. At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or >other Judgments, nor may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the >Ruleset. This rule takes precedence over all other rules related to the >Judiciary. Game actions found to be illegal through Judgments must be undone, >as must all actions made possible by said illegal actions. As I see the current RFJ problem (the biggest one), it is a matter of people arguing that the RFJ interupted the "rule compiler" from acting. So it wouldn't matter to them whether RFJs can't be made unappealable, because they could still argue the "compiler" would never get to that instruction. I think we need to "error trap" RFJs so that they can't end the "compiling" more than we should worry about their RFJs appealability. Also, I can think of instances where (after a catastrophic/accidental rule slash) the admonishment to keep RFJs appealable contained no explanation beyond that. We might continue to appeal RFJs as a custom until someone pointed out there was no such thing as an appeal. If they did that in an RFJ it seems to me the RFJ would appropriately be ruled TRUE and be rightly unappealable. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:53:19 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Judiciary revision suggestions At 07:22 PM 10/22/98 , you wrote: >>A Primary Judge must post to the mailing list a Judgment in response to the >>assigned Request for Judgment within 72 hours of being assigned to it, or >else >>be fined 10 points and be replaced in accordance with the rules governing the >>selection of Primary Judges. A Primary Judge’s tenure ends upon his issuing a >>Judgment or being replaced, and a Primary Judge relinquishes the title of >>Primary Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time. > >Are there powers and priviledge's other than making the Judgement that must >be revoked? I'm not clear why this last bit is necessary. There aren't any other powers or priveleges yet, but if there ever are, it would be a mess if we forgot to revoke them. >>A Court of Appeals must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment and any >>minority or concurring Opinions in response to the assigned Appeal, upon >which >>the Court is dissolved. An Appellate Judge’s tenure ends upon the >>dissolving of >>his Court, and an Appellate Judge relinquishes the title of Appellate Judge >>and >>its associated powers an privileges at that time. > >Just worrying about far out problems: What if some Appelate Judge >immeadiately posts a self-defined "majority Judgement" without consulting >their partners? Perhaps each judge should post a ruling which is either a >valid judgment, a "ditto", a ditto plus more reasoning, or a disagreement, >then the results are determined in public. Hmm. This seems important. I'll reword that part. >>A Court of Appeals shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from >>the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED, REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT} according to the >>following directives: >>1. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to dismiss the >>Appeal, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. >>2. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to judge on the >>Appeal, the Court, based on a majority vote amongst the Appellate Judges on >>the >>Court, must deliver a TRUE or FALSE ruling corresponding to the outcome of >the >>voting. >>3. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to remand the >Appeal >>to a lower court, or no two Appellate Judges on a Court agree on what >decision >>to deliver, the Court must deliver a REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT ruling. > >What if each App Judge is sure they don't want to remand the RFJ but can't >agree otherwise. Do they remand automatically despite that being the one >thing they all don't want to see? Basically, what I'm asking is: Wouldn't >two of the judges have to agree that an otherwise unbreakable disagreement >exists in order to remand, and if two judges could do that AND need to do >that in order to remand, why force the remand to occur in the rules in the >first place? Under what situation would this take place? Why would they be sure that they didn't want to pass it on? >My suggestion, just put a time limit on them (to force compromise on >penalty of point loss). Default judgement is remanded. This may be a good way to spur slothful Courts to judge rather than sit forever. >As I see the current RFJ problem (the biggest one), it is a matter of >people arguing that the RFJ interupted the "rule compiler" from acting. So >it wouldn't matter to them whether RFJs can't be made unappealable, because >they could still argue the "compiler" would never get to that instruction. >I think we need to "error trap" RFJs so that they can't end the "compiling" >more than we should worry about their RFJs appealability. I think my suggestion takes care of that problem -- since it is explictly stated that Judgments cannot be unappealable, not only would Judges be less likely to claim such a thing, but it would require minimal interpretation to see that such a Judgment would not be problematic and quickly dispensed with by the Court of Appeals. Both problems we faced on Sunday were based on plausable (although I would not call them correct) interpretations of the current rules -- interpretations that were made possible through lack a of sufficiently explicit rules on the Judiciary. Nick, Dakota, Mike, and Nate all based their decisions on the rules, so one would think that sufficiently explicit rules would prevent a situation like what happened on Sunday. And of course, if someone decided to do what Mike and Nate did, but with no pretense of legality whatsoever, I wouldn't feel that anything was amiss if we just ignored them. >Also, I can think of instances where (after a catastrophic/accidental rule >slash) the admonishment to keep RFJs appealable contained no explanation >beyond that. We might continue to appeal RFJs as a custom until someone >pointed out there was no such thing as an appeal. If they did that in an >RFJ it seems to me the RFJ would appropriately be ruled TRUE and be rightly >unappealable. Well, that would cause a contradiction. However, do you forsee such an indiscriminate slashing of our judicial rules? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:00:04 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: What is to be done? >1. What should we say happened with the old game? Who, if anyone, won? It should be acknowledged that it was Bailey's turn when the game became unplayable, even if only in a pragmatic sense. >2. What changes should be made to the Judiciary? (see my suggestions from >earlier today). If we adopt Joel's airtight judiciary, we will be able to advertise Berserker as the most explicit Nomic judiciaray system, and in the process we will have completely removed the artistic aspect from being a judge. >3. Should a new game start from the position we were in on 17 October, the >day before interpretations diverged, and a) keep the scores or b) reset the >scores? By game custom, an admittably weak argument, the turns should start with the first individual who was unable to complete their turn. Bailey never completed his turn. Under the current rules, we could get to the range of present scores in two turns. I don't think it really matters what we do with scores.\ n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:27:08 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Revised judiciary revision suggestions --=====================_44287696==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A few changes (marked with *'s) in response to what Mueller mentioned: ---------------- A Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Requests for Judgment must include a one sentence Statement to be judged. A Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may, within 36 hours of the public issuance of a Judgment by a Primary Judge, Appeal said Judgment. Judgments issued by Courts of Appeals may not themselves be appealed. ---------------- A Primary Judge will be randomly assigned to each Request for Judgment from the set of Players excluding: i. Players in Limbo ii. the Complainant iii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter iv. a Player selected by the Complainant v. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii vi. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii and iii If these exclusions leave no eligible Players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until, at minimum, one Player becomes eligible to be a Primary Judge. In addition, the Complainant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions iv, v, and vi. --------------- A Court of Appeals will consist of three Appellate Judges selected randomly from the set of Players excluding: i. Players in Limbo ii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter iii. the Appellant and the Complainant iv. the primary Player previously selected by the Complainant v. a Player selected by the Appellant vi. the secondary Player previously selected by the Complainant vii. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v viii. the tertiary Player previously selected by the Complainant ix. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v and vii If these exclusions leave insufficient eligible players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until at minimum three Players become eligible to be Appellate Judges. In addition, the Appellant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions v, vii, and ix. If the Complainant and Appellant are the same Player, exclusions v, vii, and ix are waived automatically. --------------- A Primary Judge must post to the mailing list a Judgment in response to the assigned Request for Judgment within 72 hours of being assigned to it, or else be fined 10 points and be replaced in accordance with the rules governing the selection of Primary Judges. A Primary Judge’s tenure ends upon his issuing a Judgment or being replaced, and a Primary Judge relinquishes the title of Primary Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time. --------------- *********** A Court of Appeals must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment in response to the assigned Appeal within 7 days of being assigned to it, upon which the Court is dissolved. An Appellate Judge’s tenure ends upon the dissolving of his Court, and an Appellate Judge relinquishes the title of Appellate Judge and its associated powers an privileges at that time. ************ --------------- A Judgment shall consist only of a response to the Statement to be judged and optional analysis of the decision. Court opinions that do not contain at least a valid response to the Statement or that contain material other than that mentioned here are not to be considered Judgments. Possible responses to Statements are the following: DISMISSED, meaning that the Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter; TRUE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true; FALSE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false; REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT, meaning that the Statement is to be judged by another Primary Judge. All other responses are invalid. A Primary Judge shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. A Court of Appeals shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED, REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT} according to the following directives: 1. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to dismiss the Appeal, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. *********** 2. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to judge on the Appeal, each Appellate Judge must select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE} and may include analysis. The response returned by a majority of Appellate Judges, the analysis accompanying the responses in the majority, and any dissenting analysis shall be considered the Court’s Judgment. 3. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to remand the Appeal to a lower court, the Court must deliver a REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT ruling. 4. If no two Appellate Judges on a Court come to an agreement on what decision to deliver, the Court automatically delivers a REMAND TO A LOWER COURT ruling 7 days after the Court is chosen. ************* All decisions by all Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. -------------- A turn may not end until all outstanding Requests for Judgment have been Judged. -------------- A Judgment’s Statement and response become the official interpretation of a rule when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if no Appeal is made. At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or other Judgments, nor may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the Ruleset. Game actions found to be illegal through Judgments must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions. This rule takes precedence over all other rules related to the Judiciary. -------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu --=====================_44287696==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" A few changes (marked with *'s) in response to what Mueller mentioned:

----------------
A Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Requests for Judgment must include a one sentence Statement to be judged.

A Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may, within 36 hours of the public issuance of a Judgment by a Primary Judge, Appeal said Judgment. Judgments issued by Courts of Appeals may not themselves be appealed.
----------------
A Primary Judge will be randomly assigned to each Request for Judgment from the set
of Players excluding:

i. Players in Limbo
ii. the Complainant
iii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter
iv. a Player selected by the Complainant
v. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii
vi. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii and iii

If these exclusions leave no eligible Players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until, at minimum, one Player becomes eligible to be a Primary Judge. In addition, the Complainant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions iv, v, and vi.
---------------
A Court of Appeals will consist of three Appellate Judges selected randomly from the set of Players excluding:

i. Players in Limbo
ii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter
iii. the Appellant and the Complainant
iv. the primary Player previously selected by the Complainant
v. a Player selected by the Appellant
vi. the secondary Player previously selected by the Complainant
vii. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v
viii. the tertiary Player previously selected by the Complainant
ix. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v and vii

If these exclusions leave insufficient eligible players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until at minimum three Players become eligible to be Appellate Judges. In addition, the  Appellant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions v, vii, and ix. If the Complainant and Appellant are the same Player, exclusions v, vii, and ix are waived automatically.
---------------
A Primary Judge must post to the mailing list a Judgment in response to the assigned Request for Judgment within 72 hours of being assigned to it, or else be fined 10 points and be replaced in accordance with the rules governing the selection of Primary Judges. A Primary Judge’s tenure ends upon his issuing a Judgment or being replaced, and a Primary Judge relinquishes the title of Primary Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time.
---------------

***********
A Court of Appeals must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment in response to the assigned Appeal within 7 days of being assigned to it, upon which the Court is dissolved. An Appellate Judge’s tenure ends upon the dissolving of his Court, and an Appellate Judge relinquishes the title of Appellate Judge and its associated powers an privileges at that time.
************

---------------
A Judgment shall consist only of a response to the Statement to be judged and optional analysis of the decision. Court opinions that do not contain at least a valid response to the Statement or that contain material other than that mentioned here are not to be considered Judgments.

Possible responses to Statements are the following: DISMISSED, meaning that the Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter; TRUE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true; FALSE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false; REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT, meaning that the Statement is to be judged by another Primary Judge. All other responses are invalid.

A Primary Judge shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}.

A Court of Appeals shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED, REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT} according to the following directives:
1. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to dismiss the Appeal, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling.
***********
2. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to judge on the Appeal, each Appellate Judge must select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE} and may include analysis. The response returned by a majority of Appellate Judges, the analysis accompanying the responses in the majority, and any dissenting analysis shall be considered the Court’s Judgment.
3. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to remand the Appeal to a lower court, the Court must deliver a REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT ruling.
4. If no two Appellate Judges on a Court come to an agreement on what decision to deliver, the Court automatically delivers a REMAND TO A LOWER COURT ruling 7 days after the Court is chosen.
*************

All decisions by all Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.
--------------
A turn may not end until all outstanding Requests for Judgment have been Judged.
--------------
A Judgment’s  Statement and response become the official interpretation of a rule when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if no Appeal is made.

At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or other Judgments, nor may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the Ruleset. Game actions found to be illegal through Judgments must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions.

This rule takes precedence over all other rules related to the Judiciary.
--------------

J. Uckelman
uckelman@iastate.edu --=====================_44287696==_.ALT-- ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:00:00 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Judiciary revision suggestions At 07:53 PM 10/22/98 -0500, Joel wrote: >>Also, I can think of instances where (after a catastrophic/accidental rule >>slash) the admonishment to keep RFJs appealable contained no explanation >>beyond that. We might continue to appeal RFJs as a custom until someone >>pointed out there was no such thing as an appeal. If they did that in an >>RFJ it seems to me the RFJ would appropriately be ruled TRUE and be rightly >>unappealable. > >Well, that would cause a contradiction. However, do you forsee such an >indiscriminate slashing of our judicial rules? "A suffusion of yellow" Rishonomic managed to crash itself after first infecting a large proportion of the ruleset with the phrase "A suffusion of yellow." Uri Bruck's explanation of how Rishonimoc allowed it to happen: While the [Yellow] crisis is worth mentioning, the most oft quoted phrase about it being one player's comment "I'm voting yes, no way in hell this will pass" :) We managed to work our way out of the Crisis. The above explanation can be found at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/mn200/games/nomic/ Alternately, we might at some point totally revamp the judiciary (sloppily) and just plain forget about that clause. The other thing is, that I don't remember the appealability of the end of the game being an issue to the people who claimed it had ended. I thought that they agreed that if there still was a game, the ruling would be appealable, but there wasn't so it wasn't. What prevents an RJF that simply says "Berserker Nomic is over." from still stoping the compiler? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:10:17 -0500 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Judiciary revision suggestions At 09:00 PM 10/22/98 , you wrote: >At 07:53 PM 10/22/98 -0500, Joel wrote: >>>Also, I can think of instances where (after a catastrophic/accidental rule >>>slash) the admonishment to keep RFJs appealable contained no explanation >>>beyond that. We might continue to appeal RFJs as a custom until someone >>>pointed out there was no such thing as an appeal. If they did that in an >>>RFJ it seems to me the RFJ would appropriately be ruled TRUE and be rightly >>>unappealable. >> >>Well, that would cause a contradiction. However, do you forsee such an >>indiscriminate slashing of our judicial rules? > >"A suffusion of yellow" > >Rishonomic managed to crash itself after first infecting a large proportion >of the ruleset with the phrase "A suffusion of yellow." > >Uri Bruck's explanation of how Rishonimoc allowed it to happen: > >While the [Yellow] crisis is worth mentioning, the most oft quoted phrase >about it being one player's comment "I'm voting yes, no way in hell this >will pass" :) We managed to work our way out of the Crisis. > >The above explanation can be found at >http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/mn200/games/nomic/ > >Alternately, we might at some point totally revamp the judiciary (sloppily) >and just plain forget about that clause. Well, if that happens, I guess we deserve it. I'll complain bitterly about it if we try to do an imprecise job of revising the judiciary. >The other thing is, that I don't remember the appealability of the end of >the game being an issue to the people who claimed it had ended. I thought >that they agreed that if there still was a game, the ruling would be >appealable, but there wasn't so it wasn't. What prevents an RJF that >simply says "Berserker Nomic is over." from still stoping the compiler? At present, the game only ends through impossiblitly of furhter play, not by a point win. Note the delay on Judgment implementation: "A Judgment’s Statement and response become the official interpretation of a rule when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if no Appeal is made." Thus, a statement "Berserker Nomic is over" being ruled true would not cause the game to end for at least 36 hours, and thereby not stopping the compiler before an Appeal could be made. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:51:14 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Revisions of revisions of Judiciary revisions If no one has any further comments on these revisions, expect a game to start on Tuesday or Wednesday. ---------------- A Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Requests for Judgment must include a one sentence Statement to be judged. A Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may, within 36 hours of the public issuance of a Judgment by a Primary Judge, Appeal said Judgment. Judgments issued by Courts of Appeals may not themselves be appealed. ---------------- A Primary Judge will be randomly assigned to each Request for Judgment from the set of Players excluding: i. Players in Limbo ii. the Complainant iii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter iv. a Player selected by the Complainant v. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii vi. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii and iii If these exclusions leave no eligible Players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until, at minimum, one Player becomes eligible to be a Primary Judge. In addition, the Complainant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions iv, v, and vi. --------------- A Court of Appeals will consist of three Appellate Judges selected randomly from the set of Players excluding: i. Players in Limbo ii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter iii. the Appellant and the Complainant iv. the primary Player previously selected by the Complainant v. a Player selected by the Appellant vi. the secondary Player previously selected by the Complainant vii. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v viii. the tertiary Player previously selected by the Complainant ix. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v and vii If these exclusions leave insufficient eligible players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until at minimum three Players become eligible to be Appellate Judges. In addition, the Appellant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions v, vii, and ix. If the Complainant and Appellant are the same Player, exclusions v, vii, and ix are waived automatically. --------------- A Primary Judge must post to the mailing list a Judgment in response to the assigned Request for Judgment within 72 hours of being assigned to it, or else be fined 10 points and be replaced in accordance with the rules governing the selection of Primary Judges. A Primary Judge’s tenure ends upon his issuing a Judgment or being replaced, and a Primary Judge relinquishes the title of Primary Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time. --------------- A Court of Appeals must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment in response to the assigned Appeal within 7 days of being assigned to it, upon which the Court is dissolved. An Appellate Judge’s tenure ends upon the dissolving of his Court, and an Appellate Judge relinquishes the title of Appellate Judge and its associated powers an privileges at that time. --------------- A Judgment shall consist only of a response to the Statement to be judged and optional analysis of the decision. Court opinions that do not contain at least a valid response to the Statement or that contain material other than that mentioned here are not to be considered Judgments. Possible responses to Statements are the following: DISMISSED, meaning that the Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter; TRUE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true; FALSE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false; REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT, meaning that the Statement is to be judged by another Primary Judge. All other responses are invalid. A Primary Judge shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. A Court of Appeals shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED, REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT} according to the following directives: 1. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to dismiss the Appeal, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. 2. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to judge on the Appeal, each Appellate Judge must select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE} and may include analysis. The response returned by a majority of Appellate Judges, the analysis accompanying the responses in the majority, and any dissenting analysis shall be considered the Court’s Judgment. 3. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to remand the Appeal to a lower court, the Court must deliver a REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT ruling. 4. If no two Appellate Judges on a Court come to an agreement on what decision to deliver, the Court automatically delivers a REMAND TO A LOWER COURT ruling 7 days after the Court is chosen. All decisions by all Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. -------------- A turn may not end until all outstanding Requests for Judgment have been Judged. -------------- A Judgment’s Statement and response become the official interpretation of a Rule or Rules only when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if no Appeal is made. At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or other Judgments, nor may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the Ruleset. Game actions found to be illegal through Judgments must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions. This rule takes precedence over all other rules related to the Judiciary. -------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:29:37 CST From: My Belly Hurts Subject: Nomic: Question What elements are you, Joel, intending on keeping from the previous game? Will all of the current proposals still be up? Which judgments will you keep? By what standards are you making these decisions? I think we should definitely have some strict definition of what we are carrying over to the new game, so as not to intentionally or unintentionally screw people out of their proposals. Damon __________ a lady asks us for a nickel for a terrible disease but we don't give her one we don't like terrible diseases -- Frank O'Hara ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:18:08 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Question My Belly Hurts writes: > > >What elements are you, Joel, intending on keeping from the previous game? >Will all of the current proposals still be up? Which judgments will you >keep? By what standards are you making these decisions? I think we should >definitely have some strict definition of what we are carrying over to >the new game, so as not to intentionally or unintentionally screw people >out of their proposals. I expect that we can add Lisa Hamilton (ecolik12@iastate.edu) to the game with no ado, as she's been waiting for around a week now for things to start back up. IIRC Joel wants to keep all rules, etc. up til some date like Oct. 17. This includes scores and judgments. Josh -- Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems. - Rene Descartes ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:18:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Question At 06:29 PM 10/25/98 , you wrote: >What elements are you, Joel, intending on keeping from the previous game? >Will all of the current proposals still be up? Which judgments will you >keep? By what standards are you making these decisions? I think we should >definitely have some strict definition of what we are carrying over to >the new game, so as not to intentionally or unintentionally screw people >out of their proposals. > > >Damon The rubric I'm using here is to make as few changes as possible while still fixing the judicial problem (and one or two other minor things). I'm not changing anything that there were live proposals to change, so no one should get screwed out of their proposals, but there aren't going to be any live proposals when the game starts, so those proposals that people still want to make will need to be remade. If this doesn't seem fair in some way, please let me know. As for the Judgments, everything made before last Sunday will still be valid. I'm not sure yet how to sort out the ones made after that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:13:06 -0500 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: new game I believe we should give some thought to whose turn it should be when the game begins. According to game convention, if that means anything, the first turn should belong to the last person who was unable to complete a turn. This may not be possible, considering it was one of the reasons the game ended. Also, if a person knows they will soon have a turn, they may withhold a flaw only visible to them in our interim modifications which they will exploit soon after we start the ball rolling. Anyway, the motivation for starting with me in the previous game was because I had not yet had the chance to propose. Since rules have changed, allowing everyone the opportunity to propose, the only advantage granted by having it be one's turn is through winning by impossibility of further play. I believe this is only likely if a person withholds information concerning flaws to rules adjustments in order to take advantage of them to win. I would support randomly selecting the first Player. Are there any other ideas? n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 22:36:46 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: new game Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I believe we should give some thought to whose turn it should be when the >game begins. According to game convention, if that means anything, the >first turn should belong to the last person who was unable to complete a >turn. This may not be possible, considering it was one of the reasons the >game ended. Also, if a person knows they will soon have a turn, they may >withhold a flaw only visible to them in our interim modifications which >they will exploit soon after we start the ball rolling. > >Anyway, the motivation for starting with me in the previous game was >because I had not yet had the chance to propose. Since rules have changed, >allowing everyone the opportunity to propose, the only advantage granted by >having it be one's turn is through winning by impossibility of further >play. I believe this is only likely if a person withholds information >concerning flaws to rules adjustments in order to take advantage of them to >win. > >I would support randomly selecting the first Player. IMO this is the best way to do things. Of course we wouldn't even have to worry about it if we had gotten rid of turns in the first place. :) Josh wondering if ministry counts as ambient music -- If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment. - Ernest Rutherford ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:19:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Kuhns' departure Unfortunately, Matt Kunhs has informed me that he wants to sit this one out, so he won't be playing in the next game. :( J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:06:50 -0500 From: exodus Subject: Re: Nomic: new game >>Anyway, the motivation for starting with me in the previous game was >>because I had not yet had the chance to propose. >>I would support randomly selecting the first Player. > >IMO this is the best way to do things. > > Is this where I mention I didn't get to propose because the game died during that turn of play and I wouldn't get to propose until after that turn? You people ruined it for me... Sniff sniff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:02:12 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: new game At 08:06 AM 10/26/98 , you wrote: >>>Anyway, the motivation for starting with me in the previous game was >>>because I had not yet had the chance to propose. > >>>I would support randomly selecting the first Player. >> >>IMO this is the best way to do things. >> >> >Is this where I mention I didn't get to propose because the game died >during that turn of play and I wouldn't get to propose until after that >turn? You people ruined it for me... Sniff sniff Yes, I see no reason why Woell shouldn't be a full player when we start again. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:04:32 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Revisions of revisions of Judiciary revisions Joel D Uckelman writes: > ---------------- > A Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a > Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Requests for > Judgment must include a one sentence Statement to be judged. > > A Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may, within 36 hours of the > public issuance of a Judgment by a Primary Judge, Appeal said Judgment. > Judgments issued by Courts of Appeals may not themselves be appealed. I am opposed to the inclusion of this line. The appealability of appelate courate judgments was not determined once and for all in the previous game, and as such I don't think you should slip it in simply because you think things should be this way. Do you have any good reasons for including it, which bear directly on the problems we experienced? > ---------------- > A Primary Judge will be randomly assigned to each Request for Judgment from > the set > of Players excluding: > > i. Players in Limbo > ii. the Complainant > iii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter This may require some further clarification. I take your intended meaning to be "Players who were previously Judges on this specific (i.e., number of) RFJ, or an appeal to a previous judgment for this RFJ or an appeal of it." If you don't specify players are free to claim that "the matter" can have come up in previous RFJs, and as such certain players may be ineligible for selection. > iv. a Player selected by the Complainant > v. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii > vi. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii and iii > > If these exclusions leave no eligible Players, restrictions will be waived > in numerical order from greatest to least until, at minimum, one Player > becomes eligible to be a Primary Judge. In addition, the Complainant may > voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions iv, v, and vi. > --------------- > A Court of Appeals will consist of three Appellate Judges selected randomly > from the set of Players excluding: > > i. Players in Limbo > ii. Players who were previously Judges on the matter > iii. the Appellant and the Complainant > iv. the primary Player previously selected by the Complainant > v. a Player selected by the Appellant > vi. the secondary Player previously selected by the Complainant > vii. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v > viii. the tertiary Player previously selected by the Complainant > ix. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v and vii > > If these exclusions leave insufficient eligible players, restrictions will > be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until at minimum three > Players become eligible to be Appellate Judges. In addition, the Appellant > may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions v, vii, and ix. If the > Complainant and Appellant are the same Player, exclusions v, vii, and ix > are waived automatically. > --------------- > A Primary Judge must post to the mailing list a Judgment in response to the > assigned Request for Judgment within 72 hours of being assigned to it, or > else be fined 10 points and be replaced in accordance with the rules > governing the selection of Primary Judges. A Primary Judges tenure ends "A Primary Judge's" > upon his issuing a Judgment or being replaced, and a Primary Judge > relinquishes the title of Primary Judge and its associated powers and > privileges at that time. > --------------- > A Court of Appeals must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment in > response to the assigned Appeal within 7 days of being assigned to it, upon > which the Court is dissolved. An Appellate Judges tenure ends upon the "Appellate Judge's" > dissolving of his Court, and an Appellate Judge relinquishes the title of > Appellate Judge and its associated powers an privileges at that time. > --------------- > A Judgment shall consist only of a response to the Statement to be judged > and optional analysis of the decision. Court opinions that do not contain > at least a valid response to the Statement or that contain material other > than that mentioned here are not to be considered Judgments. > > Possible responses to Statements are the following: DISMISSED, meaning that > the Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a > rules-related matter; TRUE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as > to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true; > FALSE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, > addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false; REMANDED TO A > LOWER COURT, meaning that the Statement is to be judged by another Primary > Judge. All other responses are invalid. > > A Primary Judge shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from > the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. > > A Court of Appeals shall select a response to the Statement to be judged > from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED, REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT} according > to the following directives: > 1. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to dismiss the > Appeal, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. > 2. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to judge on the > Appeal, each Appellate Judge must select a response to the Statement to be > judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE} and may include analysis. The response > returned by a majority of Appellate Judges, the analysis accompanying the > responses in the majority, and any dissenting analysis shall be considered > the Courts Judgment. > 3. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to remand the > Appeal to a lower court, the Court must deliver a REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT > ruling. > 4. If no two Appellate Judges on a Court come to an agreement on what > decision to deliver, the Court automatically delivers a REMAND TO A LOWER > COURT ruling 7 days after the Court is chosen. > > All decisions by all Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then > in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the > point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of > the game before applying other standards. > -------------- > A turn may not end until all outstanding Requests for Judgment have been > Judged. > -------------- > A Judgments Statement and response become the official interpretation of "Judgment's" > a Rule or Rules only when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT > is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if > no Appeal is made. Any formal thoughts on how to fix this, using perhaps some sort of DEFCON thing as we discussed earlier? What about DISMISSED rulings? Is the official interpretation then that such RFJs should always be dismissed? > At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or other Judgments, nor > may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the Ruleset. Game This is, as I expected, lame. What if a judge hands down a ruling which he claims "changes interpretations of existing rules," but which does so in a clearly fucked manner, i.e. one would not normally even say that his "interpretations" are really interpretations, but rather rewrites or creations of rules (in the transcendental sense, not in the sense of "changing the ruleset" as we normally consider proposals to do)? Also, you say a Judgment "[may not] prevent appeals of itself or other Judgments," but under Mike's system the concept of whether or not anything was appealable was unclear due to the claimed shift in power. Judgments can create new contexts, new reference frames, and you have to make it clear that these limitations on judgments are anchored in this reference frame. Regardless of what a judgment does, it must be appealable in THIS reference frame. > actions found to be illegal through Judgments must be undone, as must all > actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions. > > This rule takes precedence over all other rules related to the Judiciary. > -------------- Josh -- It turns out that an eerie type of chaos can lurk just behind a facade of order - and yet, deep inside the chaos lurks an even eerier type of order. - Douglas Hofstadter ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:21:29 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Revisions of revisions of Judiciary revisions At 12:04 AM 10/27/98 , you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >> ---------------- >> A Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a >> Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Requests for >> Judgment must include a one sentence Statement to be judged. >> >> A Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may, within 36 hours of the >> public issuance of a Judgment by a Primary Judge, Appeal said Judgment. >> Judgments issued by Courts of Appeals may not themselves be appealed. > >I am opposed to the inclusion of this line. The appealability of appelate >courate judgments was not determined once and for all in the previous game, >and as such I don't think you should slip it in simply because you think >things should be this way. Do you have any good reasons for including it, >which bear directly on the problems we experienced? When I wrote the Judicial rules over the summer, I had assumed that it was clear that appeals could not themselves be appealed. From my point of view, I'm just making explicit something that's been there the whole time. It does have some bearing on the the problems we faced. Suppose that Judgments can be endlessly appealed. If we had decided that the judgment about Dakota winning was false on the appeal, what would have stopped him from continuing to appeal until he got a true judgment? And what then would have stopped one of us from appealing that until it was set to false again? And so on... The endless appeal of Judgments would prevent any matter from ever being settled. >> A Judgments Statement and response become the official interpretation of > >"Judgment's" > >> a Rule or Rules only when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT >> is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if >> no Appeal is made. > >Any formal thoughts on how to fix this, using perhaps some sort of DEFCON >thing as we discussed earlier? > >What about DISMISSED rulings? Is the official interpretation then that >such RFJs should always be dismissed? > >> At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or other Judgments, nor >> may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the Ruleset. Game > >This is, as I expected, lame. > >What if a judge hands down a ruling which he claims "changes interpretations >of existing rules," but which does so in a clearly fucked manner, i.e. >one would not normally even say that his "interpretations" are really >interpretations, but rather rewrites or creations of rules (in the >transcendental sense, not in the sense of "changing the ruleset" as we >normally consider proposals to do)? > >Also, you say a Judgment "[may not] prevent appeals of itself or other >Judgments," but under Mike's system the concept of whether or not anything >was appealable was unclear due to the claimed shift in power. Judgments >can create new contexts, new reference frames, and you have to make it >clear that these limitations on judgments are anchored in this reference >frame. Regardless of what a judgment does, it must be appealable in THIS >reference frame. Hmmm. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:40:36 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Judicial Revisions IV: The Judiciary's Revenge *** A Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Requests for Judgment must include a one sentence Statement to be judged. A Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may, within 36 hours of the public issuance of a Judgment by a Primary Judge, Appeal said Judgment. Judgments issued by Courts of Appeals may not themselves be appealed. *** A Primary Judge will be randomly assigned to each Request for Judgment from the set of Players excluding: i. Players in Limbo ii. the Complainant iii. Players who were previously Judges on the Request for Judgment or its Appeals iv. a Player selected by the Complainant v. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii vi. a Player selected by the Complainant other than ii and iii If these exclusions leave no eligible Players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until, at minimum, one Player becomes eligible to be a Primary Judge. In addition, the Complainant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions iv, v, and vi. *** A Primary Judge must post to the mailing list a Judgment in response to the assigned Request for Judgment within 72 hours of being assigned to it, or else be fined 10 points and be replaced in accordance with the rules governing the selection of Primary Judges. A Primary Judge's tenure ends upon his issuing a Judgment or being replaced, and a Primary Judge relinquishes the title of Primary Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time. *** A Court of Appeals will consist of three Appellate Judges selected randomly from the set of Players excluding: i. Players in Limbo ii. Players who were previously Judges on the Request for Judgment or its Appeals iii. the Appellant and the Complainant iv. the primary Player previously selected by the Complainant v. a Player selected by the Appellant vi. the secondary Player previously selected by the Complainant vii. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v viii. the tertiary Player previously selected by the Complainant ix. a Player selected by the Appellant other than v and vii If these exclusions leave insufficient eligible players, restrictions will be waived in numerical order from greatest to least until at minimum three Players become eligible to be Appellate Judges. In addition, the Appellant may voluntarily waive any or all of exclusions v, vii, and ix. If the Complainant and Appellant are the same Player, exclusions v, vii, and ix are waived automatically. *** A Court of Appeals must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment in response to the assigned Appeal within 7 days of being assigned to it, upon which the Court is dissolved. An Appellate Judge's tenure ends upon the dissolving of his Court, and an Appellate Judge relinquishes the title of Appellate Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time. *** A Judgment's Statement and response become the official interpretation of a Rule or Rules only when a legal response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if no Appeal is made. At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or other Judgments, nor may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the Ruleset. Game actions found to be illegal through Judgments must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions. This rule takes precedence over all other rules related to the Judiciary. *** A Judgment shall consist only of a response to the Statement to be judged and optional analysis of the decision. Court opinions that do not contain at least a valid response to the Statement or that contain material other than that mentioned here are not to be considered Judgments. Possible responses to Statements are the following: DISMISSED, meaning that the Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter; TRUE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true; FALSE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false; REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT, meaning that the Statement is to be judged by another Primary Judge. All other responses are invalid. Primary Judges shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. Courts of Appeals shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED, REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT} according to the following directives: 1. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to dismiss the Appeal, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. 2. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to judge on the Appeal, each Appellate Judge must select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE} and may include analysis. The response returned by a majority of Appellate Judges, the analysis accompanying the responses in the majority, and any dissenting analysis shall be considered the Court's Judgment. 3. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to remand the Appeal to a lower court, the Court must deliver a REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT ruling. 4. If no two Appellate Judges on a Court come to an agreement on what decision to deliver, the Court automatically delivers a REMAND TO A LOWER COURT ruling 7 days after the Court is chosen. All decisions by all Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. *** J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:53:23 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Revisions of revisions of Judiciary revisions At 12:04 AM 10/27/98 , you wrote: >> -------------- >> A Judgments Statement and response become the official interpretation of > >"Judgment's" > >> a Rule or Rules only when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT >> is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if >> no Appeal is made. > >Any formal thoughts on how to fix this, using perhaps some sort of DEFCON >thing as we discussed earlier? Suggest how you would implement this. >What about DISMISSED rulings? Is the official interpretation then that >such RFJs should always be dismissed? What should be the official interpretation on this? >> At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or other Judgments, nor >> may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the Ruleset. Game > >This is, as I expected, lame. > >What if a judge hands down a ruling which he claims "changes interpretations >of existing rules," but which does so in a clearly fucked manner, i.e. >one would not normally even say that his "interpretations" are really >interpretations, but rather rewrites or creations of rules (in the >transcendental sense, not in the sense of "changing the ruleset" as we >normally consider proposals to do)? First of all, the opinion has no legal standing. The only things that are granted standing ("A Judgment's Statement and response become the official interpretation") are the Statement and the response. Thus, we can just ignore someone who rewrites the ruleset in a judicial opinion, and be perfectly justified in doing so. The problem you may be getting at is something more like having a true ruling on "The opinion accompanying this Statement has the effect of rules," along with a ruleset rewrite. That can be solved by specifying the reference frame as you state below. >Also, you say a Judgment "[may not] prevent appeals of itself or other >Judgments," but under Mike's system the concept of whether or not anything >was appealable was unclear due to the claimed shift in power. Judgments >can create new contexts, new reference frames, and you have to make it >clear that these limitations on judgments are anchored in this reference >frame. Regardless of what a judgment does, it must be appealable in THIS >reference frame. What if the Judgment is about the Judicial system? How can we appeal something in THIS reference frame if what THIS reference frame is is the thing in question? What happens if the Statement is "The opinion accompanying this Statement has the effect of rules and it may only be appealed using the process found in the accompanying opinion." ? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:26:38 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Revisions of revisions of Judiciary revisions Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:04 AM 10/27/98 , you wrote: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>> ---------------- >>> A Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a >>> Judgment to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Requests for >>> Judgment must include a one sentence Statement to be judged. >>> >>> A Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may, within 36 hours of the >>> public issuance of a Judgment by a Primary Judge, Appeal said Judgment. >>> Judgments issued by Courts of Appeals may not themselves be appealed. >> >>I am opposed to the inclusion of this line. The appealability of appelate >>courate judgments was not determined once and for all in the previous game, >>and as such I don't think you should slip it in simply because you think >>things should be this way. Do you have any good reasons for including it, >>which bear directly on the problems we experienced? > >When I wrote the Judicial rules over the summer, I had assumed that it was >clear that appeals could not themselves be appealed. From my point of view, >I'm just making explicit something that's been there the whole time. It's out of your control now. You can't make the change just because you claim it's what you meant in the first place. I don't think it's what should be meant, and this is a happy touchy feely sort of group Nomic. >It does have some bearing on the the problems we faced. Suppose that >Judgments can be endlessly appealed. If we had decided that the judgment >about Dakota winning was false on the appeal, what would have stopped him >from continuing to appeal until he got a true judgment? And what then would >have stopped one of us from appealing that until it was set to false again? >And so on... The endless appeal of Judgments would prevent any matter from >ever being settled. You wank, you sound like Chris, with your appeal to infinite regression of judgments. Why, if we do not have unappealable judgments, must we have infinitely appealable judgments? Furthermore: what's wrong with infinitely appealable judgments? If Dakota wants to continue appealing, far be it from me to stop him. It seems that, unless he gets lucky by getting a different court, which is more sympathetic to his cause, the general opinion of the Nomic at large will fall into a sort of steady state, as people agree or disagree with the rulings handed down. With the development of such a steady state, appellate courts would be inclined to dismiss appeals, and hopefully Dakota would eventually knock it off since no one would like having their time wasted. Oho, you say: but what about issues on which there is much division? They may never be settled, and then may never stop being appealed as different courts will continue to try reversing the decisions of old courts. I claim that if there are such issues, it is foolish and unfair to consider them decided by the first appellate court which deals with them. Our judicial system isn't nearly as heirarchical as the U.S.'s, and as such, we should allow for more chances at decision. What would have happened if decisions like Roe v. Wade or Miranda v. Arizona weren't allowed to be appealed, after the first appeal? Things would be very very different, and not necessarily in a better way. I smell pragmatism, Joel. Josh -- Mathematics is a language. - Josiah Gibbs ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:33:08 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Revisions of revisions of Judiciary revisions Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:04 AM 10/27/98 , you wrote: >>> -------------- >>> A Judgments Statement and response become the official interpretation of >> >>"Judgment's" >> >>> a Rule or Rules only when a response other than REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT >>> is returned on it by a Court of Appeals, or 36 hours after its issuance if >>> no Appeal is made. >> >>Any formal thoughts on how to fix this, using perhaps some sort of DEFCON >>thing as we discussed earlier? > >Suggest how you would implement this. Still thinking about it. > >>What about DISMISSED rulings? Is the official interpretation then that >>such RFJs should always be dismissed? > >What should be the official interpretation on this? > >>> At no time may a Judgment prevent Appeals of itself or other Judgments, nor >>> may a Judgment create Rules not already present in the Ruleset. Game >> >>This is, as I expected, lame. >> >>What if a judge hands down a ruling which he claims "changes interpretations >>of existing rules," but which does so in a clearly fucked manner, i.e. >>one would not normally even say that his "interpretations" are really >>interpretations, but rather rewrites or creations of rules (in the >>transcendental sense, not in the sense of "changing the ruleset" as we >>normally consider proposals to do)? > >First of all, the opinion has no legal standing. The only things that are >granted standing ("A Judgment's Statement and response become the official >interpretation") are the Statement and the response. Thus, we can just >ignore someone who rewrites the ruleset in a judicial opinion, and be >perfectly justified in doing so. > >The problem you may be getting at is something more like having a true >ruling on "The opinion accompanying this Statement has the effect of >rules," along with a ruleset rewrite. That can be solved by specifying the >reference frame as you state below. This is what I'm talking about. I don't think it's clear from your rule revisions that only the judgment (TRUE/FALSE) on the statement changes the rule interpretation. Do you really intend to have the accompianing opinion change interpretations, as well? If so then the problem above _is_ a problem. I think only the actual judgment, not the opinion, should be said to change interpretation of rules. The opinion (discussion, analysis, whatever) may be useful as a guide for players in determining why the ruling was reached, or how to apply the ruling, but it's not something with the strength of rule. If Damon judges "Oranges are skank" to be TRUE, and then claims in his opinion that they are skank because he ate one when he was four and found it to be skank, that doesn't mean that our new rule interpretation is that oranges are skank because Damon ate one when he was four and found it to be skank. Our new rule interpretation is that oranges are skank, period. >>Also, you say a Judgment "[may not] prevent appeals of itself or other >>Judgments," but under Mike's system the concept of whether or not anything >>was appealable was unclear due to the claimed shift in power. Judgments >>can create new contexts, new reference frames, and you have to make it >>clear that these limitations on judgments are anchored in this reference >>frame. Regardless of what a judgment does, it must be appealable in THIS >>reference frame. > >What if the Judgment is about the Judicial system? How can we appeal >something in THIS reference frame if what THIS reference frame is is the >thing in question? What happens if the Statement is "The opinion >accompanying this Statement has the effect of rules and it may only be >appealed using the process found in the accompanying opinion." ? That's my question exactly. Ideas from others? Mr. Jensen, how about enlightening us with some Hofstadterese? Josh -- Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding. - Samuel Johnson ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:25:55 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Revisions of revisions of Judiciary revisions At 03:26 PM 10/27/98 , you wrote: >>When I wrote the Judicial rules over the summer, I had assumed that it was >>clear that appeals could not themselves be appealed. From my point of view, >>I'm just making explicit something that's been there the whole time. > >It's out of your control now. You can't make the change just because you >claim it's what you meant in the first place. I don't think it's what should >be meant, and this is a happy touchy feely sort of group Nomic. Well, I doubt that you would have complained about this if it had been made more explict then. >>It does have some bearing on the the problems we faced. Suppose that >>Judgments can be endlessly appealed. If we had decided that the judgment >>about Dakota winning was false on the appeal, what would have stopped him >>from continuing to appeal until he got a true judgment? And what then would >>have stopped one of us from appealing that until it was set to false again? >>And so on... The endless appeal of Judgments would prevent any matter from >>ever being settled. > >You wank, you sound like Chris, with your appeal to infinite regression >of judgments. Why, if we do not have unappealable judgments, must we have >infinitely appealable judgments? Well, if there is no defined end to appeals, Players can keep appealing. Assuming that people keep appealing... >Furthermore: what's wrong with infinitely appealable judgments? If Dakota >wants to continue appealing, far be it from me to stop him. It seems that, >unless he gets lucky by getting a different court, which is more sympathetic >to his cause, the general opinion of the Nomic at large will fall into a >sort of steady state, as people agree or disagree with the rulings handed >down. With the development of such a steady state, appellate courts would >be inclined to dismiss appeals, and hopefully Dakota would eventually >knock it off since no one would like having their time wasted. If there's a Judgment that I disagree with, I'll keep appealing it until it turns out my way. Of course, since someone disagreed with me, they won't like it when the Judgment turns out differently. Unless they're ready to conceed that I'm right, they'll appeal it. If there's a reversal, I'll appeal it again. If this happens to be a Judgment necessary for the game to continue, the game won't until either I give up or everyone else does. I'm betting that I won't give up, because I wouldn't have appealed it in the first place if I didn't think I was right. This is why we should limit appeals -- to force me (or you) to give in. >Oho, you say: but what about issues on which there is much division? >They may never be settled, and then may never stop being appealed as >different courts will continue to try reversing the decisions of old >courts. See above. If there's a chain of appeals of the same Judgment, nothing could be implemented until 36 hours after the last part of the chain. If the chain never ends, we wait... >I claim that if there are such issues, it is foolish and unfair to consider >them decided by the first appellate court which deals with them. Our >judicial system isn't nearly as heirarchical as the U.S.'s, and as such, >we should allow for more chances at decision. What would have happened if >decisions like Roe v. Wade or Miranda v. Arizona weren't allowed to be >appealed, after the first appeal? Things would be very very different, >and not necessarily in a better way. > >I smell pragmatism, Joel. Would you rather have more levels of Courts? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:41:37 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: a remedy New text is set off by asterisks: $ A Judgment shall consist only of a response to the Statement to be judged and optional analysis of the decision. Court opinions that do not contain at least a valid response to the Statement or that contain material other than that mentioned here are not to be considered Judgments. **Only Statements and their corresponding responses are considered to have official legal standing.** Possible responses to Statements are the following: DISMISSED, meaning that the Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter; TRUE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true; FALSE, meaning that the Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false; REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT, meaning that the Statement is to be judged by another Primary Judge. All other responses are invalid. Primary Judges shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. Courts of Appeals shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED, REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT} according to the following directives: 1. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to dismiss the Appeal, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. 2. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to judge on the Appeal, each Appellate Judge must select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE} and may include analysis. The response returned by a majority of Appellate Judges, the analysis accompanying the responses in the majority, and any dissenting analysis shall be considered the Court's Judgment. 3. If two or more of the Appellate Judges on a Court wish to remand the Appeal to a lower court, the Court must deliver a REMANDED TO A LOWER COURT ruling. 4. If no two Appellate Judges on a Court come to an agreement on what decision to deliver, the Court automatically delivers a REMAND TO A LOWER COURT ruling 7 days after the Court is chosen. All decisions by all Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. $ Does this remedy one of the problems that you see, Josh? Additionally, could we eliminate problems with the RFJ's about the Judicial system by disallowing them, i.e. making legislation the only way to affect the Judicial system? This would require that we be extremely careful in the event of a Judicial system alteration, but I think it has possibilities. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:11:11 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: WTF >If Damon judges "Oranges are skank" to be TRUE, and then claims in his >opinion that they are skank because he ate one when he was four and found >it to be skank, that doesn't mean that our new rule interpretation is >that oranges are skank because Damon ate one when he was four and found >it to be skank. Our new rule interpretation is that oranges are skank, >period. What the fuck? Damon __________ a lady asks us for a nickel for a terrible disease but we don't give her one we don't like terrible diseases -- Frank O'Hara ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:24:22 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: Judicial Idea I have an idea. What if we form our judicial system so that it has multiple levels, as you and Josh have been discussing. The gist of it would be that the higher the court, the more people are on it. This is in accordance with the convention already set by the current rule set, and it just makes sense that we should have more people when the problem seems to be more serious. Where would this end? I don't know, but I envision the "Supreme Level" as being basically a court with everyone in the game on the board. This would make it almost identical to a proposal, which I think would be appropriate since judgments have the strength of rules. This would essentially require a vote on all serious topics of question, serious being defined as one that is appealed multiple times thereby confirming its importance and controversiality. It would also settle the matter once and for all, I think. Thoughts? Damon __________ a lady asks us for a nickel for a terrible disease but we don't give her one we don't like terrible diseases -- Frank O'Hara ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:49:48 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Judicial Idea >I have an idea. What if we form our judicial system so that it has >multiple levels, as you and Josh have been discussing. The gist of it >would be that the higher the court, the more people are on it. This is in >accordance with the convention already set by the current rule set, and >it just makes sense that we should have more people when the problem >seems to be more serious. > >Where would this end? I don't know, but I envision the "Supreme Level" as >being basically a court with everyone in the game on the board. This >would make it almost identical to a proposal, which I think would be >appropriate since judgments have the strength of rules. This would >essentially require a vote on all serious topics of question, serious >being defined as one that is appealed multiple times thereby confirming its >importance and controversiality. It would also settle the matter once and >for all, I think. > >Thoughts? > Splendid idea. What would be the best way to set up the intermediate courts? I would suggest a court made up of a majority of Players between the Appelate and Supreme courts. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:50:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Judicial Idea At 05:24 PM 10/27/98 , you wrote: >I have an idea. What if we form our judicial system so that it has >multiple levels, as you and Josh have been discussing. The gist of it >would be that the higher the court, the more people are on it. This is in >accordance with the convention already set by the current rule set, and >it just makes sense that we should have more people when the problem >seems to be more serious. > >Where would this end? I don't know, but I envision the "Supreme Level" as >being basically a court with everyone in the game on the board. This >would make it almost identical to a proposal, which I think would be >appropriate since judgments have the strength of rules. This would >essentially require a vote on all serious topics of question, serious >being defined as one that is appealed multiple times thereby confirming its >importance and controversiality. It would also settle the matter once and >for all, I think. > >Thoughts? > >Damon Would something like this be acceptable? A court will have Judges equal to 2x-1, where x is the level of Judgment, and with all RFJ's beginning at x=1. RFJ's may be appealed (meaning that x is incremented when chosing a new court) until the same decision has been returned consecutively y times (I would put y as 2 or 3), or 2x-1 > total players. I am definately amenable to this, for it seems to be a less arbitrary solution to endless appeals. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:03:46 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Judicial Idea the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus wrote: >>I have an idea. What if we form our judicial system so that it has >>multiple levels, as you and Josh have been discussing. The gist of it >>would be that the higher the court, the more people are on it. > >Splendid idea. What would be the best way to set up the intermediate >courts? I would suggest a court made up of a majority of Players between >the Appelate and Supreme courts. How's this Initial: A Judge Appeals: 3 Appelate Judges Superior: (#Players/2) - 1 rounding to an odd Supreme: Everyone Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:24:06 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: yet another revision Here's a further revision in accordance with the multi-level Judiciary idea. This is shorter and less complicated than what we had, and I hope this addresses the remaining problems. If not, please point out how it fails to do so. * * * Any Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment on a Statement to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Upon each Request for Judgment, a Case is opened corresponding to it. Any Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its public issuance, the same verdict has been returned on the Case fewer than three times consecutively, and 2x-1 does not exceed the number of Players eligible to serve as Judges in the game. * * * Each Case shall be judged by an Level x Court having member Judges numbering 2x-1, where x for a Case is incremented each time after a Judgment on that Case is issued. All Cases begin with x=1. A Level 1 Court must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment in response to the assigned Case’s Statement within 3 days of being assigned to it or its members shall be penalized 10 points, the Court dissolved, and a new Level 1 Court chosen to replace it. All other Courts must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment in response to the assigned Case's Statement within 7 days, or the Court shall be dissolved and a new Court chosen to replace it. A Judge's tenure ends upon the dissolving of his Court, and a Judge relinquishes the title of Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time. * * * Judges will be selected randomly from the set of Players excluding: i. Players already selected to the Court in question ii. Players in Limbo iii. the Complainant and Appellants iff x<4 iv. Players who served as Judges on the Level x-1 Court for a Case iff x<4 v. Players who served as Judges on the Level x-2 Court for a Case iff the Level x-2 Court rendered the same decision as the Level x-1 Court and x<4 These restrictions shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a Level 1 Court from being chosen. * * * A turn may not end until all extant Level 1 Cases have received a Judgment. * * * A Judgment must consist of a valid response to the Statement to be judged and the Court’s voting results, and may also contain optional analysis by the Judges on the Court. Only Statements and their corresponding responses are considered to have official legal standing, and only Courts chosen in accordance with the rules may issue Judgments. Valid responses to Statements is defined as the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false. All other responses are invalid. Courts shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set of valid responses in the following manner: 1. If a majority of Judges on a Court wish to dismiss a Case, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. 2. If a majority of Judges on a Court wish to rule on a Case, each Judge must select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE} and may include their own analysis. The response returned by a majority of Judges is to be the Court’s response. All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. * * * Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the Judicial rules. Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions. This rule takes precedence over all other rules related to the Judiciary. * * * J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:45:49 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: slight corrections Ignore the last version of this. Nick pointed out a few minor problems, which have been remedied in this version: * * * Any Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment on a Statement to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Upon each Request for Judgment, a Case is opened corresponding to it. Any Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its public issuance, the same verdict has been returned on the Case fewer than three times consecutively, and 2x-1 does not exceed the number of Players eligible to serve as Judges in the game. * * * Each Case shall be judged by a Level x Court having member Judges numbering 2x-1, where x for a Case is incremented by one after each time a Judgment on that Case is issued. All Cases begin with x=1. A Level 1 Court must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment in response to the assigned Case’s Statement within 3 days of being assigned to it or its members shall be penalized 10 points, the Court dissolved, and a new Level 1 Court chosen to replace it. All other Courts must post to the mailing list a majority Judgment in response to the assigned Case’s Statement within 7 days, or the Court shall be dissolved and a new Court chosen to replace it. A Judge's tenure ends upon the dissolving of his Court, and a Judge relinquishes the title of Judge and its associated powers and privileges at that time. * * * Judges will be selected randomly from the set of Players excluding: i. Players already selected to the Court in question ii. and Players in Limbo iii. the Complainant and Appellants iff x<4 iv. Players who served as Judges on the Level x-1 Court for a Case iff x<4 v. Players who served as Judges on the Level x-2 Court for a Case iff the Level x-2 Court rendered the same decision as the Level x-1 Court and x<4 Restrictions iii-v shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a full Court from being chosen. * * * A turn may not end until all extant Level 1 Cases have received a Judgment. * * * A Judgment must consist of a valid response to the Statement to be judged and the Court’s voting results, and may also contain optional analysis by the Judges on the Court. Only Statements and their corresponding responses are considered to have official legal standing, and only Courts chosen in accordance with the rules may issue Judgments. Valid responses to Statements is defined as the set {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false. All other responses are invalid. Courts shall select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set of valid responses in the following manner: 1. If a majority of Judges on a Court wish to dismiss a Case, the Court must deliver a DISMISSED ruling. 2. If a majority of Judges on a Court wish to rule on a Case, each Judge must select a response to the Statement to be judged from the set {TRUE, FALSE} and may include their own analysis. The response returned by a majority of Judges is to be the Court’s response. All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. * * * Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the Judicial rules. Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions. This rule takes precedence over all other rules related to the Judiciary. * * * J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:37:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: game starting again If anyone still has problems with the Judicial revisions, I'd like to hear them; otherwise, the game will start again tomorrow. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:55:14 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: new game Whose turn will it be when we start? n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:05:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: new game At 09:55 AM 10/29/98 , you wrote: >Whose turn will it be when we start? > >n >the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob That will be random. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu