________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 12:17:02 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Game Start The new game has begun. The Ruleset revisions can be found on the web page. We have a new Player in this game: Lisa Hamilton. It was randomly chosen to be Lisa Hamilton's turn. There are no live proposals. On a side note: various players have requested that I split up some of the longer pages (e.g. Proposals, Judgments) into multiple pages. I intend to do so as soon as I have time, as this requires some changes to the rules munge as well (so the links in the rulesets go to the correct place). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 12:32:04 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: index Please note that the Ruleset Index does not yet reflect the current Ruleset, and probably won't for at least a few days. I appologize for any inconvenience this may cause. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 13:17:58 CST From: "lisa K. hamilton" Subject: Nomic: hey! Hi nomic players. I would rather give someone else the oppurtunity to play first because I am just a new player and I have not been keeping up with past emails. So, please pick someone else and I could be the next one to go. Josh where are you? lisa ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 14:40:31 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Prop #? 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 an RFJ of this type is substantially similar to a previous one which is either not yet ruled on or True, then the new RFJ shall be ruled False. If this RFJ is true and cannot be appealed then the player who requested it may submit a Screaming For Help Document which describes changes to be made to the rules. Unless two players object to the Screaming For Help Document within three days, it is accepted and the changes it describes are applied to the rules. If the Screaming For Help Document is successfully objected to, another shall be issued by the RFJ's Complainant until one is accepted. When an Screaming For Help 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: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 14:07:21 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: hey! "lisa K. hamilton" writes: >Hi nomic players. > > I would rather give someone else the oppurtunity to play first because > I am just a new player and I have not been keeping up with past > emails. So, please pick someone else and I could be the next one to > go. Josh where are you? I'm all for it as long as other players are. Josh -- Hofstadter`s Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter`s Law. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 14:54:06 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Numbering As per Rule 221, the first Proposal (Mueller's) is 342, and the first Judgment will be 39. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 14:52:59 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: hey! At 02:07 PM 11/1/98 , you wrote: >"lisa K. hamilton" writes: >>Hi nomic players. >> >> I would rather give someone else the oppurtunity to play first because >> I am just a new player and I have not been keeping up with past >> emails. So, please pick someone else and I could be the next one to >> go. Josh where are you? > >I'm all for it as long as other players are. This isn't a problem, as Haar is not playing, then it's actually Mike Jensen's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 15:06:15 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 343 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 changes. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules or portions of Rules dealing with Player Attributes." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 15:14:22 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop #? At 01:40 PM 11/1/98 , you wrote: >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 an RFJ of this type is substantially similar to >a previous one which is either not yet ruled on or True, then the new RFJ >shall be ruled False. > >If this RFJ is true and cannot be appealed then the player who requested it >may submit a Screaming For Help Document which describes changes to be made >to the rules. Unless two players object to the Screaming For Help Document >within three days, it is accepted and the changes it describes are applied >to the rules. > >If the Screaming For Help Document is successfully objected to, another >shall be issued by the RFJ's Complainant until one is accepted. > >When an Screaming For Help 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 If the problem stems from an immutable rule, a Screaming For Help change won't do anything, even though your proposed rule states that it takes precedence over all other rules -- immutable rules always take precedence (qv R110) in the case of a conflict. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 16:02:17 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: new proposal Result of Berserker I All Players shall have the opportunity to submit an informal secret ballot to the Administrator on the question "Did a Player win Berserker I?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the passage of this proposal. All votes for this question must be either affirmative or negative; no abstentions will be accepted as ballots. If the majority of votes is in the affirmative, all Players shall have the opportunity to submit an imformal secret ballot to the Administrator on the question "Which one of the following Players won Berserker I: Ellefson or Bailey?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the result of the previous vote. All votes for this question must be either "Ellefson" or "Bailey;" no abstentions will be accepted as ballots. The Player credited with the win by this vote shall be awarded one Win. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 16:33:10 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: Nick's prop LIVE IN THE NOW, NICK. THE GAME IS FUCKING OVER. What a piss-poor prop. I'd point out the flaws, but I have better things to do with my day. Damon __________ When my right thumb hurts I think about my left fingers. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 16:33:58 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: new proposal At 04:02 PM 11/1/98 , you wrote: >Result of Berserker I > >All Players shall have the opportunity to submit an informal secret ballot >to the Administrator on the question "Did a Player win Berserker I?" within >72 hours of the public notification of the passage of this proposal. All >votes for this question must be either affirmative or negative; no >abstentions will be accepted as ballots. "Secret", as in only the totals are released when it's over, or as in the voting is not done publicly? >If the majority of votes is in the affirmative, all Players shall have the >opportunity to submit an imformal secret ballot to the Administrator on the >question "Which one of the following Players won Berserker I: Ellefson or >Bailey?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the result of the >previous vote. All votes for this question must be either "Ellefson" or >"Bailey;" no abstentions will be accepted as ballots. The Player credited >with the win by this vote shall be awarded one Win. You may want to specify what majority you mean -- I presume that you want this to be a simple majority. Also, this should repeal itself after it runs its course. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 16:59:03 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: prop344 Result of Berserker I All Players shall have the opportunity to submit an informal ballot to the Administrator on the question "Did a Player win Berserker I?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the passage of this proposal. All votes for this question must be either affirmative or negative; no abstentions will be accepted as ballots. If the simple majority of votes is in the affirmative, all Players shall have the opportunity to submit an imformal ballot to the Administrator on the question "Which one of the following Players won Berserker I: Ellefson or Bailey?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the result of the previous vote. All votes for this question must be either "Ellefson" or "Bailey;" no abstentions will be accepted as ballots. The Player receiving the simple majority of the vote shall be awarded one Win. This Rule repeals itself after the Win has been awarded or it has been determined there is no Win to award. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob Nick Osborn nosborn@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 22:47:28 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: prop344 Nicholas C Osborn writes: >Result of Berserker I > >All Players shall have the opportunity to submit an informal ballot to the >Administrator on the question "Did a Player win Berserker I?" within 72 >hours of the public notification of the passage of this proposal. All votes >for this question must be either affirmative or negative; no abstentions >will be accepted as ballots. I think you need to provide some motivation for doing this - why should we even think that it's possible for someone to have won or not? Again, why no abstentions? [Read below first] > >If the simple majority of votes is in the affirmative, all Players shall >have the opportunity to submit an imformal ballot to the Administrator on >the question "Which one of the following Players won Berserker I: Ellefson >or Bailey?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the result of the >previous vote. All votes for this question must be either "Ellefson" or >"Bailey;" no abstentions will be accepted as ballots. The Player receiving >the simple majority of the vote shall be awarded one Win. Why shall no abstentions be counted? If a player doesn't agree that anyone won the game, why should the other players' agreement on the matte force one into voting on a specific player having won? 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: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:59:49 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: prop344 >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>Result of Berserker I >> >>All Players shall have the opportunity to submit an informal ballot to the >>Administrator on the question "Did a Player win Berserker I?" within 72 >>hours of the public notification of the passage of this proposal. All votes >>for this question must be either affirmative or negative; no abstentions >>will be accepted as ballots. > >I think you need to provide some motivation for doing this - why should >we even think that it's possible for someone to have won or not? > If you'd like to re-open the argument concerning wether the game was won or not, I believe that can wait until after this proposal passes, when the question can be brought to an end, hopefully for good. >Again, why no abstentions? [Read below first] > >> >>If the simple majority of votes is in the affirmative, all Players shall >>have the opportunity to submit an imformal ballot to the Administrator on >>the question "Which one of the following Players won Berserker I: Ellefson >>or Bailey?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the result of the >>previous vote. All votes for this question must be either "Ellefson" or >>"Bailey;" no abstentions will be accepted as ballots. The Player receiving >>the simple majority of the vote shall be awarded one Win. > >Why shall no abstentions be counted? If a player doesn't agree that >anyone won the game, why should the other players' agreement on the matte >force one into voting on a specific player having won? > > If you would otherwise abstain, don't vote. This is to simplify the matter so as to leave no doubt about the result. If you can tell me why I should change it, I'll take your input into account. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:07:13 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: prop344 If you really feel this is necessary, why not have a two question deal, the first being "Did some player win Berserker I," and the second if so, who was the winner? Ed At 12:59 AM 11/2/98 -0600, you wrote: >>Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>Result of Berserker I >>> >>>All Players shall have the opportunity to submit an informal ballot to the >>>Administrator on the question "Did a Player win Berserker I?" within 72 >>>hours of the public notification of the passage of this proposal. All votes >>>for this question must be either affirmative or negative; no abstentions >>>will be accepted as ballots. >> >>I think you need to provide some motivation for doing this - why should >>we even think that it's possible for someone to have won or not? >> >If you'd like to re-open the argument concerning wether the game was won or >not, I believe that can wait until after this proposal passes, when the >question can be brought to an end, hopefully for good. > >>Again, why no abstentions? [Read below first] >> >>> >>>If the simple majority of votes is in the affirmative, all Players shall >>>have the opportunity to submit an imformal ballot to the Administrator on >>>the question "Which one of the following Players won Berserker I: Ellefson >>>or Bailey?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the result of the >>>previous vote. All votes for this question must be either "Ellefson" or >>>"Bailey;" no abstentions will be accepted as ballots. The Player receiving >>>the simple majority of the vote shall be awarded one Win. >> >>Why shall no abstentions be counted? If a player doesn't agree that >>anyone won the game, why should the other players' agreement on the matte >>force one into voting on a specific player having won? >> >> >If you would otherwise abstain, don't vote. This is to simplify the matter >so as to leave no doubt about the result. If you can tell me why I should >change it, I'll take your input into account. > >n >the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 12:08:12 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Ed has a point. -- 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: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 12:10:05 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: prop344 Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>Result of Berserker I >>> >>>All Players shall have the opportunity to submit an informal ballot to the >>>Administrator on the question "Did a Player win Berserker I?" within 72 >>>hours of the public notification of the passage of this proposal. All votes >>>for this question must be either affirmative or negative; no abstentions >>>will be accepted as ballots. >> >>I think you need to provide some motivation for doing this - why should >>we even think that it's possible for someone to have won or not? >> >If you'd like to re-open the argument concerning wether the game was won or >not, I believe that can wait until after this proposal passes, when the >question can be brought to an end, hopefully for good. If I don't see at least sufficient reason to debate the issue I don't see why I should vote for this proposal. > >>Again, why no abstentions? [Read below first] >> >>> >>>If the simple majority of votes is in the affirmative, all Players shall >>>have the opportunity to submit an imformal ballot to the Administrator on >>>the question "Which one of the following Players won Berserker I: Ellefson >>>or Bailey?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the result of the >>>previous vote. All votes for this question must be either "Ellefson" or >>>"Bailey;" no abstentions will be accepted as ballots. The Player receiving >>>the simple majority of the vote shall be awarded one Win. >> >>Why shall no abstentions be counted? If a player doesn't agree that >>anyone won the game, why should the other players' agreement on the matte >>force one into voting on a specific player having won? >> >> >If you would otherwise abstain, don't vote. This is to simplify the matter >so as to leave no doubt about the result. If you can tell me why I should >change it, I'll take your input into account. "Simplify the matter?" If I don't vote or if I abstain, I introduce pretty much the same amount of doubt into the result. Please clarify. You should change it simply because there will be people who cannot in good conscience vote on either Nate or Dakota winning, and if your vote is to be true it should represent opinions like that. 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: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:28:52 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: thoughts on 344 It may be more desirable to present all three options (Nate, Dakota, no win) as a single vote than to first vote on whether anyone won at all. Why? The current proposal pits all of those who think someone won against those who don't, i.e. the first two options aginst the third. This puts those who don't think anyone won at an unfair disadvantage by recognizing a similarity between Nate winning and Dakota winning that isn't really there. Indeed, there's just as much (possibly more) distance between Nate's and Dakota's interpretation of the game's end as between the no-win camp and everyone else. Additionally, the voting for this should reflect Players' interpretation of what actually happened at the close of the last game. If you believe that no one won, how are you supposed to vote if a majority says someone did win? That your choice has been discarded should have no bearing on your view of the state of affairs at the close of the last game. For the same reason, it seems undesirable both to have a runnoff if, in a vote allowing all three choices, no choice received a majority; and to use a ranking system. To sum up, I urge a change to a 1-vote system for this problem. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 14:28:42 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Proposal 1. For the purposes of this rule, the turn after the turn in which this rule is enacted shall be considered the "first" turn. The ordinal of each turn thereafter shall increase by one. 2. Every fourth turn is hereby designated an "Olly-Olly Oxen Free" turn. 3. During Olly-OIly Oxen Free turns, passage of proposals made by any other than that turn's turn-taker shall not result in points gained or lost due to passage for the proposers. This is a very rough draft, suggestions welcome. Josh -- "An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself." - Albert Camus ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 14:39:50 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Re: proposal 345 At 02:28 PM 11/2/98 , you wrote: >1. For the purposes of this rule, the turn after the turn in which >this rule is enacted shall be considered the "first" turn. The ordinal >of each turn thereafter shall increase by one. > >2. Every fourth turn is hereby designated an "Olly-Olly Oxen Free" turn. > >3. During Olly-OIly Oxen Free turns, passage of proposals made by any >other than that turn's turn-taker shall not result in points gained or >lost due to passage for the proposers. > > >This is a very rough draft, suggestions welcome. So every fourth player will have the luck/misfortune of having a turn in which only (s)he can score points? Am I reading this correctly? Does this caue a problem if the number of players we have is a multiple of four? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 00:45:35 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposal 345 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 02:28 PM 11/2/98 , you wrote: >>1. For the purposes of this rule, the turn after the turn in which >>this rule is enacted shall be considered the "first" turn. The ordinal >>of each turn thereafter shall increase by one. >> >>2. Every fourth turn is hereby designated an "Olly-Olly Oxen Free" turn. >> >>3. During Olly-OIly Oxen Free turns, passage of proposals made by any >>other than that turn's turn-taker shall not result in points gained or >>lost due to passage for the proposers. >> >> >>This is a very rough draft, suggestions welcome. > >So every fourth player will have the luck/misfortune of having a turn in >which only (s)he can score points? Am I reading this correctly? Does this >caue a problem if the number of players we have is a multiple of four? That's a minor problem. The main goal is to have the Free turns be periodically occurring, and I chose this first. I would prefer to not have it tied to turns, as well. I would also prefer to have no one gain points, or lose points, due to passage/non-passage, during these times. Josh -- Mr. Sparkle: Get out of my way, all of you. This is no place for loafers. Join me or die. Can you do any less? Japanese women: What a brave corporate logo! I accept the challenge of "Mr. Sparkle." ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:11:34 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal resubmission Please note that the proposals from the last round of play in the previous game were never officially voted on, due to Judgment 38. I strongly encourage players to resubmit their proposals from the last round. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:47:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposal 345 At 12:45 AM 11/3/98 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 02:28 PM 11/2/98 , you wrote: >>>1. For the purposes of this rule, the turn after the turn in which >>>this rule is enacted shall be considered the "first" turn. The ordinal >>>of each turn thereafter shall increase by one. >>> >>>2. Every fourth turn is hereby designated an "Olly-Olly Oxen Free" turn. >>> >>>3. During Olly-OIly Oxen Free turns, passage of proposals made by any >>>other than that turn's turn-taker shall not result in points gained or >>>lost due to passage for the proposers. >>> >>> >>>This is a very rough draft, suggestions welcome. >> >>So every fourth player will have the luck/misfortune of having a turn in >>which only (s)he can score points? Am I reading this correctly? Does this >>caue a problem if the number of players we have is a multiple of four? > >That's a minor problem. The main goal is to have the Free turns be >periodically occurring, and I chose this first. I would prefer to >not have it tied to turns, as well. > >I would also prefer to have no one gain points, or lose points, due >to passage/non-passage, during these times. > >Josh I cannot support this unless these issues are addressed: 1. the potential for such a free turn fall during your own turn to be a harm/benefit (which? I'm not sure.) 2. the pernicious effect free turns would likely have on normal turns by exacerbating the opposed scoring problem during said normal turns 3. that enacting such a rule will ultimately cause the erosion of the point system While I think the proposal could be altered to eliminate 1 by basing it on time or individual proposals, I suspect that 2 and 3 are inextricably tangled with the nature of the proposed solution. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 11:36:33 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposal 345 Joel D Uckelman writes: >I cannot support this unless these issues are addressed: >1. the potential for such a free turn fall during your own turn to be a >harm/benefit (which? I'm not sure.) >2. the pernicious effect free turns would likely have on normal turns by >exacerbating the opposed scoring problem during said normal turns >3. that enacting such a rule will ultimately cause the erosion of the point >system > >While I think the proposal could be altered to eliminate 1 by basing it on >time or individual proposals, I suspect that 2 and 3 are inextricably >tangled with the nature of the proposed solution. 1. I can deal with by having the free time fall, say, every second week of each month. Furthermore, I don't see it as too harmful that one might lose the ability to gain points off of one's required proposal, since a) For the most part, good players should be proposing anyway, so there should be nothing really that special about their required proposal, except that it's required. b) It's a small price to pay (it being the off-chance that you might not earn some points, boo-hoo) when the greater good, building up a bigger, better Nomic, is being served. 2. This seems to be a contentious claim. Would you care you explain why you think such an effect is likely? If things are as you say, then that would seem to indicate that opposed minority point scoring IS in fact an important factor in why proposals fail, and as such doing something to guard against such failure occasionally would be warranted. Note that if you claim this you seem to be contradicting your view from last night, in which you said opposed minority point scoring wasn't having much effect. 3. How would such a rule erode the point system, when 3/4 of the time, points would still be scored? And what, other than the weak "being able to tell how people are doing," does having points give us? Especially if Tom's subers proposal passes? What happened to your goal of a more developed Nomic? Would you like to sacrifice it to politicking and point-whoring? Josh -- By all means, please tell. I can name 4 famous Dutch lensgrinders, but only one qualifies as a philosopher. Not sure if more than one were Jewish. - R. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 11:53:04 -0600 From: "Python, Monty" Subject: Nomic: Subers Proposal 346 The Suber Add a player attribute called "Subers" and delete this sentence upon passage. There exists a unit of currency within Berserker Nomic called the Suber. The Suber, which may be traded in denominations of 0.01, shall be legal tender within the game. Players may trade Subers freely iff all players involved in the trade publicly consent. However, a player may at no time posess less than 0 Subers. Only rules may create and destroy Subers. ----- Proposal 347 Subers and points 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], rounded to the nearest integer. At the beginning of each game, players begin with 1000 Subers. Players entering a game after it has officially started will begin with 500 Subers. Upon passage of this rule, this sentence sets each player's Subers to 1000 and then deletes itself. ----- Proposal 348 Point trading replaced by Subers. Strike rule 314. 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 rule deletes itself upon passage. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 14:43:41 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposal 345 At 11:36 AM 11/3/98 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>I cannot support this unless these issues are addressed: >>1. the potential for such a free turn fall during your own turn to be a >>harm/benefit (which? I'm not sure.) >>2. the pernicious effect free turns would likely have on normal turns by >>exacerbating the opposed scoring problem during said normal turns >>3. that enacting such a rule will ultimately cause the erosion of the point >>system >> >>While I think the proposal could be altered to eliminate 1 by basing it on >>time or individual proposals, I suspect that 2 and 3 are inextricably >>tangled with the nature of the proposed solution. > >1. I can deal with by having the free time fall, say, every second >week of each month. Furthermore, I don't see it as too harmful that >one might lose the ability to gain points off of one's required proposal, >since > a) For the most part, good players should be proposing anyway, so > there should be nothing really that special about their required > proposal, except that it's required. > b) It's a small price to pay (it being the off-chance that you > might not earn some points, boo-hoo) when the greater good, > building up a bigger, better Nomic, is being served. > >2. This seems to be a contentious claim. Would you care you explain >why you think such an effect is likely? If things are as you say, then >that would seem to indicate that opposed minority point scoring IS in >fact an important factor in why proposals fail, and as such doing something >to guard against such failure occasionally would be warranted. Note that if >you claim this you seem to be contradicting your view from last night, >in which you said opposed minority point scoring wasn't having much >effect. I'm not claiming that it is having a substantial negative effect now, just that the possibility is there for a negative effect, and I don't think you can deny that your proposal would make the normal turns more attractive for those hoping to score points through minority scoring. >3. How would such a rule erode the point system, when 3/4 of the time, >points would still be scored? And what, other than the weak "being able >to tell how people are doing," does having points give us? Especially >if Tom's subers proposal passes? What happened to your goal of a more >developed Nomic? Would you like to sacrifice it to politicking and >point-whoring? The point system would be eroded through this proposal because it further destabilizes the point system. One of the best ways to eliminate something is to force it to stop working correctly (e.g. as fascists have historically done. Now, I don't mean to cast any aspersions here -- I'm not calling you a fascist.). As I know that you want to lessen the importance of (or possibly eliminate) the point system, the motivation behind removing scoring part of the time seems obvious. I support Tom's suber proposals because I don't think that points should be money, which is a different matter entirely. I wasn't exactly thrilled when points became money (even though I voted for it, because it moved us closer to a real economy), so this is consistent with my prior views. As for what points do, I refer you to one of the two ways to win the game -- I do not view this as a "weak" task. Politicking is a normal development for a social system -- thus far, it seems to me that our system is _not yet developed enough_ to have seen any real politicking. Furthermore, it does not follow from this that I am opposed to the development of the game, just that we view development in different lights. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 15:26:27 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Revision 1. The second week of every month shall be designated an "Olly-Olly Oxen Free" week. The turn which falls in largest part during this week shall likewise be designated "Olly-Olly Oxen Free." 2. During Olly-Olly Oxen Free turns, passage of proposals shall not result in any points lost or gained (by any players) due to proposage or opposed minority point scoring. Josh -- The magic words are squeamish ossifrage. - R. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. Adelman ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 15:20:55 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposal 345 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 11:36 AM 11/3/98 , you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>I cannot support this unless these issues are addressed: >>>1. the potential for such a free turn fall during your own turn to be a >>>harm/benefit (which? I'm not sure.) >>>2. the pernicious effect free turns would likely have on normal turns by >>>exacerbating the opposed scoring problem during said normal turns >>>3. that enacting such a rule will ultimately cause the erosion of the point >>>system >>> >>>While I think the proposal could be altered to eliminate 1 by basing it on >>>time or individual proposals, I suspect that 2 and 3 are inextricably >>>tangled with the nature of the proposed solution. >> >>1. I can deal with by having the free time fall, say, every second >>week of each month. Furthermore, I don't see it as too harmful that >>one might lose the ability to gain points off of one's required proposal, >>since >> a) For the most part, good players should be proposing anyway, so >> there should be nothing really that special about their required >> proposal, except that it's required. >> b) It's a small price to pay (it being the off-chance that you >> might not earn some points, boo-hoo) when the greater good, >> building up a bigger, better Nomic, is being served. >> >>2. This seems to be a contentious claim. Would you care you explain >>why you think such an effect is likely? If things are as you say, then >>that would seem to indicate that opposed minority point scoring IS in >>fact an important factor in why proposals fail, and as such doing something >>to guard against such failure occasionally would be warranted. Note that if >>you claim this you seem to be contradicting your view from last night, >>in which you said opposed minority point scoring wasn't having much >>effect. > >I'm not claiming that it is having a substantial negative effect now, just >that the possibility is there for a negative effect, and I don't think you >can deny that your proposal would make the normal turns more attractive for >those hoping to score points through minority scoring. As I say, I think it's a tradeoff. A feasible one. >>3. How would such a rule erode the point system, when 3/4 of the time, >>points would still be scored? And what, other than the weak "being able >>to tell how people are doing," does having points give us? Especially >>if Tom's subers proposal passes? What happened to your goal of a more >>developed Nomic? Would you like to sacrifice it to politicking and >>point-whoring? > >The point system would be eroded through this proposal because it further >destabilizes the point system. One of the best ways to eliminate something >is to force it to stop working correctly (e.g. as fascists have >historically done. Now, I don't mean to cast any aspersions here -- I'm not >calling you a fascist.). As I know that you want to lessen the importance >of (or possibly eliminate) the point system, the motivation behind removing >scoring part of the time seems obvious. Perhaps if you don't believe in the intentional fallacy. That goal of mine is a separate one. This goal deals strictly with enticing people into making proposals wholly for the good of the Nomic, as opposed to partially for the Nomic, and partially for themselves (likewise for voting on others' proposals). >I support Tom's suber proposals because I don't think that points should be >money, which is a different matter entirely. I wasn't exactly thrilled when >points became money (even though I voted for it, because it moved us closer >to a real economy), so this is consistent with my prior views. As for what >points do, I refer you to one of the two ways to win the game -- I do not >view this as a "weak" task. Politicking is a normal development for a >social system -- thus far, it seems to me that our system is _not yet >developed enough_ to have seen any real politicking. Furthermore, it does >not follow from this that I am opposed to the development of the game, just >that we view development in different lights. You face an uphill battle developing your economy if you're forced to do so under the reign of opposed minority point scoring. A needlessly uphill battle. 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: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 16:34:49 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: GWIB I hereby create a GWIB, as follows: Name: Alphanomic Procedures for play: MAIN RULESET 1. Any person can join the game as a player, at any time. 2. Any player may make rules which pertain only to his or her self. When a player makes a rule of his or her own, the player shall notify the other players of the rule. 3. If the majority of the rules of all concerned parties agree that an event occurs, that event occurs. 4. The main ruleset concerns all players and thus is not subject to players' rulesets, except under main rule 3. 5. There may never be more than 10 rules in the main ruleset. Conditions for winning: The winner of Alphanomic is that player who can be said to win according to the main ruleset of Alphanomic. Until such time as the main ruleset of Alphanomic provides a way to determine a winner, there shall be no determination of winnage. I shall be the Game Master for this game, and I hereby join as its first player. I set x to 1 for Alphanomic. Josh -- The mathematician`s patterns, like the painter`s or the poet`s must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colors or the words must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in this world for ugly mathematics. - G.H. Hardy ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 23:39:23 CST From: Dakota R Bailey Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposal 345 Bailey is going into limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 01:48:45 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: GWIB Josh wrote: > >I hereby create a GWIB, as follows: > >Name: Alphanomic > >Procedures for play: > >MAIN RULESET > >1. Any person can join the game as a player, at any time. >2. Any player may make rules which pertain only to his or her self. > When a player makes a rule of his or her own, the player shall > notify the other players of the rule. >3. If the majority of the rules of all concerned parties agree > that an event occurs, that event occurs. >4. The main ruleset concerns all players and thus is not subject to > players' rulesets, except under main rule 3. >5. There may never be more than 10 rules in the main ruleset. > >Conditions for winning: > >The winner of Alphanomic is that player who can be said to win according >to the main ruleset of Alphanomic. Until such time as the main ruleset >of Alphanomic provides a way to determine a winner, there shall be no >determination of winnage. > >I shall be the Game Master for this game, and I hereby join as its >first player. I set x to 1 for Alphanomic. I join as the second player. I make a self pertaining TMRule A: Tom Mueller has can amend, delete, or create rules which pertain only to him and has final say with respect to these rules. I make a second self pertaining rule TMRule B: Tom Mueller can amend, delete, or create rules in Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET by announcing these changes. I make a third self pertaining rule TMRULE C: Tom Mueller may veto any action that any other Alphanomic player may make. I announce that a rule is added to Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET thusly: 6. Tom Mueller has won Alphanomic. I believe that this gives me the first game... let's fix the main ruleset for the second. Or if it doesn't then why not? I'm mostly doing this out of curiosity regarding how Alphanomic works. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 01:14:44 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: GWIB Mueller writes: >Josh wrote: >> >>I hereby create a GWIB, as follows: >> >>Name: Alphanomic >> >>Procedures for play: >> >>MAIN RULESET >> >>1. Any person can join the game as a player, at any time. >>2. Any player may make rules which pertain only to his or her self. >> When a player makes a rule of his or her own, the player shall >> notify the other players of the rule. >>3. If the majority of the rules of all concerned parties agree >> that an event occurs, that event occurs. >>4. The main ruleset concerns all players and thus is not subject to >> players' rulesets, except under main rule 3. >>5. There may never be more than 10 rules in the main ruleset. >> >>Conditions for winning: >> >>The winner of Alphanomic is that player who can be said to win according >>to the main ruleset of Alphanomic. Until such time as the main ruleset >>of Alphanomic provides a way to determine a winner, there shall be no >>determination of winnage. >> >>I shall be the Game Master for this game, and I hereby join as its >>first player. I set x to 1 for Alphanomic. > >I join as the second player. > >I make a self pertaining TMRule A: Tom Mueller has can amend, delete, or >create rules which pertain only to him and has final say with respect to >these rules. > >I make a second self pertaining rule TMRule B: Tom Mueller can amend, >delete, or create rules in Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET by announcing these >changes. > >I make a third self pertaining rule TMRULE C: Tom Mueller may veto any >action that any other Alphanomic player may make. > >I announce that a rule is added to Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET thusly: 6. Tom >Mueller has won Alphanomic. > >I believe that this gives me the first game... let's fix the main ruleset >for the second. Or if it doesn't then why not? I'm mostly doing this out >of curiosity regarding how Alphanomic works. I interpret (3) as meaning that to affect Alphanomic-wide changes, we must have majority. I have no rules which agree with your rules, so your rules can't change the main ruleset. Josh -- "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 02:36:47 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: GWIB Josh wrote: >Mueller writes: >>Josh wrote: >>> >>>I hereby create a GWIB, as follows: >>> >>>Name: Alphanomic >>> >>>Procedures for play: >>> >>>MAIN RULESET >>> >>>1. Any person can join the game as a player, at any time. >>>2. Any player may make rules which pertain only to his or her self. >>> When a player makes a rule of his or her own, the player shall >>> notify the other players of the rule. >>>3. If the majority of the rules of all concerned parties agree >>> that an event occurs, that event occurs. >>>4. The main ruleset concerns all players and thus is not subject to >>> players' rulesets, except under main rule 3. >>>5. There may never be more than 10 rules in the main ruleset. >>> >>>Conditions for winning: >>> >>>The winner of Alphanomic is that player who can be said to win according >>>to the main ruleset of Alphanomic. Until such time as the main ruleset >>>of Alphanomic provides a way to determine a winner, there shall be no >>>determination of winnage. >>> >>>I shall be the Game Master for this game, and I hereby join as its >>>first player. I set x to 1 for Alphanomic. >> >>I join as the second player. >> >>I make a self pertaining TMRule A: Tom Mueller has can amend, delete, or >>create rules which pertain only to him and has final say with respect to >>these rules. >> >>I make a second self pertaining rule TMRule B: Tom Mueller can amend, >>delete, or create rules in Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET by announcing these >>changes. >> >>I make a third self pertaining rule TMRULE C: Tom Mueller may veto any >>action that any other Alphanomic player may make. >> >>I announce that a rule is added to Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET thusly: 6. Tom >>Mueller has won Alphanomic. >> >>I believe that this gives me the first game... let's fix the main ruleset >>for the second. Or if it doesn't then why not? I'm mostly doing this out >>of curiosity regarding how Alphanomic works. > >I interpret (3) as meaning that to affect Alphanomic-wide changes, >we must have majority. I have no rules which agree with your rules, >so your rules can't change the main ruleset. I veto this interpretive action. ;) Then, in case that doesn't work, if the game is still going after that veto.... Then I make TMRULE D: Tom Mueller may change other player's self pertaining rules. Then I add a rule to Josh's self-pertain ruleset thusly - JKRULE A: Josh lets Tom Mueller diddle Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET any time Tom wants to. Then I go for the gold again by announcing that two rules are added to Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET thusly - 6. All players in Alphanomic who are playing when some other player wins give that player two points and call them "Sir Cappy the Dude" until the winner says not to anymore. 7. Tom Mueller has won Alphanomic. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 03:22:35 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: prop344 Result of Berserker I All Players shall have the opportunity to submit an informal ballot to the Administrator on the question "What was the result of Berserker I?" within 72 hours of the public notification of the passage of this proposal. All votes for this question must be one of the following options: "Bailey won," "Ellefson won," or "No Player won." The option receiving the plurality of votes is the official, binding interpretation of the result of Berserker I. This Rule repeals itself after the Win has been awarded or it has been determined there is no Win to award. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob Nick Osborn nosborn@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 10:49:50 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 349 Players may, upon formally making a Proposal which would cause a transmutation, designate that Proposal as a Disinterested Proposal. No points are awarded in conjunction with Disinterested Proposals. This rule takes precedence over all rules concerning points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:04:51 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: prop344 Nicholas C Osborn writes: >Result of Berserker I > >All Players shall have the opportunity to submit an informal ballot to the >Administrator on the question "What was the result of Berserker I?" within 72 >hours of the public notification of the passage of this proposal. All votes >for this question must be one of the following options: "Bailey won," >"Ellefson won," or "No Player won." > >The option receiving the plurality of votes is the official, binding >interpretation of the result of Berserker I. > >This Rule repeals itself after the Win has been awarded or it has been >determined there is no Win to award. In the interests of logic I must protest. If we are to vote, "undecidable" must be a castable vote. This is a different result from "No Player won," in my book. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:00:40 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 349 Joel D Uckelman writes: >Players may, upon formally making a Proposal which would cause a >transmutation, designate that Proposal as a Disinterested Proposal. No >points are awarded in conjunction with Disinterested Proposals. This rule >takes precedence over all rules concerning points. Why only transmogrification proposals? Why not let anyone who wants disinterestify their proposals? -- In the company of friends, writers can discuss their books, economists the state of the economy, lawyers their latest cases, and businessmen their latest acquisitions, but mathematicians cannot discuss their mathematics at all. And the more profound their work, the less understandable it is. - Alfred Adler ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:11:43 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: GWIB >>>>3. If the majority of the rules of all concerned parties agree >>>> that an event occurs, that event occurs. >>>>4. The main ruleset concerns all players and thus is not subject to >>>> players' rulesets, except under main rule 3. >>> >>>I make a second self pertaining rule TMRule B: Tom Mueller can amend, >>>delete, or create rules in Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET by announcing these >>>changes. >>> >>>I make a third self pertaining rule TMRULE C: Tom Mueller may veto any >>>action that any other Alphanomic player may make. >>> >>>I announce that a rule is added to Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET thusly: 6. Tom >>>Mueller has won Alphanomic. >>> >>I interpret (3) as meaning that to affect Alphanomic-wide changes, >>we must have majority. I have no rules which agree with your rules, >>so your rules can't change the main ruleset. > >I veto this interpretive action. ;) > >Then, in case that doesn't work, if the game is still going after that >veto.... > >Then I make TMRULE D: Tom Mueller may change other player's self pertaining >rules. > >Then I add a rule to Josh's self-pertain ruleset thusly - JKRULE A: Josh >lets Tom Mueller diddle Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET any time Tom wants to. > >Then I go for the gold again by announcing that two rules are added to >Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET thusly - > >6. All players in Alphanomic who are playing when some other player wins >give that player two points and call them "Sir Cappy the Dude" until the >winner says not to anymore. > >7. Tom Mueller has won Alphanomic. You have still failed to win. Perhaps you are not understanding rule 3 in the main ruleset. Furthermore, your rules can't modify the main ruleset unless I also have rules which agree that the modifications shall occur. I create some personal rules for myself, thusly: J1: There exist entities known as karma points. J2: Josh shall, at the time of the implementation of this rule, posess 100 karma points. All other players shall posess 0 karma points. New players shall start with 0 karma points. J3: Josh shall maintain records of karma points for other players in Alphanomic. J4: At Josh's behest, any given player's number of karma points shall be modified according to the instructions given in the behest, given that the behest also includes an explanation for the karmic adjustment. I also issue the following behest: Tom Mueller loses 2 karma points. Josh -- In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection. - Hugo Rossi ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 12:58:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 349 At 12:00 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Players may, upon formally making a Proposal which would cause a >>transmutation, designate that Proposal as a Disinterested Proposal. No >>points are awarded in conjunction with Disinterested Proposals. This rule >>takes precedence over all rules concerning points. > >Why only transmogrification proposals? Why not let anyone who wants >disinterestify their proposals? Because I believe that doing so will have a pathalogical effect on game play, for the same reasons that I object to your proposal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:08:01 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 349 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:00 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Players may, upon formally making a Proposal which would cause a >>>transmutation, designate that Proposal as a Disinterested Proposal. No >>>points are awarded in conjunction with Disinterested Proposals. This rule >>>takes precedence over all rules concerning points. >> >>Why only transmogrification proposals? Why not let anyone who wants >>disinterestify their proposals? > >Because I believe that doing so will have a pathalogical effect on game >play, for the same reasons that I object to your proposal. But are the magnitudes nearly so comparable as you would have us believe, or are you simple being reactionary? It seems to me that this will only matter when players want it to matter. If they don't, then you have nothing to worry about. If they do, then who are you to try standing in the way of progress desired by the people? Josh -- If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment. - Ernest Rutherford ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:17:34 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Alphanomic web page http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/alpha.html also linked to from my main page. Josh -- In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection. - Hugo Rossi ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:27:51 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: Alphanomic I declare myself a participant in Alphanomic. Josh, are you going to put only your ruleset and the main ruleset on your page? Do I need to make my own page for my rules, and Tom , and anyone else who decides to join? I think it would be beneficial for there to be a place with all of the info. Damon __________ Always use a condom. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:36:28 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: DCL1: for Alphanomic DCL1: Damon may repeal any of his rules at any time without giving other players any prior notification. Damon __________ Always use a condom. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:52:16 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: Alphanomic More rules: DCL2: Damon may modify any of his rules at any time without giving other players and prior notification. DCL3: All players must at all times make their accurate personal ruleset publicly accessible. Any violation of this rule nullifies effects of the inaccessible or inaccurate ruleset. Damon __________ Always use a condom. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:48:07 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 350 If Proposal 346 passes, then amend Rule 318, section II, paragraph B to read: "When a GWIB created by Announcement ends, it must distribute all of the Subers it holds among its participants as specified by the GWIB's rules." and amend Rule 318, section II, paragraph C to read: "The Game Master of a GWIB created by Announcement must specify the allowable range of Subers paid to the GWIB and the method for their distribution at the time the GWIB instance begins." If Proposals 436 and 438 fail, then amend Rule 318, section II, paragraph B to read: "When a GWIB created by Announcement ends, it must distribute all of the points it holds among its participants as specified by the GWIB's rules." amend Rule 318, section II, paragraph C to read: "The Game Master of a GWIB created by Announcement must specify the allowable range of points paid to the GWIB and the method for their distribution at the time the GWIB instance begins." and amend Rule 318, section II, by adding a paragraph E: "GWIBs shall be considered point trading and shall therefore be subject to all rules governing point trading." ----------------------------------------------- Why this is important: The current GWIB system is too constraining in that it requires a uniform wager from all players -- this proposal grants GWIBs as much freedom in wager sizes and distribution of points or Subers as their rules will allow. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:52:10 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 349 At 02:08 PM 11/4/98 , Josh wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 12:00 PM 11/4/98 , Josh wrote: >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>Players may, upon formally making a Proposal which would cause a >>>>transmutation, designate that Proposal as a Disinterested Proposal. No >>>>points are awarded in conjunction with Disinterested Proposals. This rule >>>>takes precedence over all rules concerning points. >>> >>>Why only transmogrification proposals? Why not let anyone who wants >>>disinterestify their proposals? >> >>Because I believe that doing so will have a pathalogical effect on game >>play, for the same reasons that I object to your proposal. > >But are the magnitudes nearly so comparable as you would have us >believe, or are you simple being reactionary? The magnitudes of what? I think that allowing all proposals to be disinterested would ultimately lead to all proposals being disinterested -- something I strongly oppose, as it would vitiate the scoring system. >It seems to me that this will only matter when players want it to >matter. If they don't, then you have nothing to worry about. If they >do, then who are you to try standing in the way of progress desired >by the people? Again, I don't follow. It seems to me that you're saying that because I oppose something I see as bad, I'm either a) blocking progress, or b) opposing something that will never happen. I think there are possibilities that you've overlooked here, such as: c) that I am attempting to repair a shortcoming in the transmutation process. Why is this a shortcoming? It seems disproportinate to penalize players the same amount for the failure of a proposals requiring majority consent as for the failure of a proposal requiring unanimity. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 18:59:25 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Alphanomic Your Natural Enemy writes: > >I declare myself a participant in Alphanomic. > >Josh, are you going to put only your ruleset and the main ruleset on your >page? Do I need to make my own page for my rules, and Tom , and anyone >else who decides to join? I think it would be beneficial for there to be >a place with all of the info. I'm putting all of them up, it's just that I mailed Tom asking for a complete copy of his rules and hadn't received them by the time you looked at the page. 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: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:52:15 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: GWIB At 12:11 PM 11/4/98 CST, you wrote: >>Then, in case that doesn't work, if the game is still going after that >>veto.... >> >>Then I make TMRULE D: Tom Mueller may change other player's self pertaining >>rules. >> >>Then I add a rule to Josh's self-pertain ruleset thusly - JKRULE A: Josh >>lets Tom Mueller diddle Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET any time Tom wants to. >> >>Then I go for the gold again by announcing that two rules are added to >>Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET thusly - >> >>6. All players in Alphanomic who are playing when some other player wins >>give that player two points and call them "Sir Cappy the Dude" until the >>winner says not to anymore. >> >>7. Tom Mueller has won Alphanomic. > >You have still failed to win. Perhaps you are not understanding rule 3 >in the main ruleset. That is true. But I think that this is because I was going by what it was intended to mean, rather than its actual text. >Furthermore, your rules can't modify the main ruleset unless I also have >rules which agree that the modifications shall occur. > >I create some personal rules for myself, thusly: > >J1: There exist entities known as karma points. OK, this doesn't even pertain to you.... how is this possible at all. >J2: Josh shall, at the time of the implementation of this rule, > posess 100 karma points. All other players shall posess 0 > karma points. New players shall start with 0 karma points. >J3: Josh shall maintain records of karma points for other players in > Alphanomic. >J4: At Josh's behest, any given player's number of karma points shall > be modified according to the instructions given in the behest, > given that the behest also includes an explanation for the karmic > adjustment. If you can adjust my karma why can't I adjust your self-pertaining rules? There are no rules against my modification of your rules in either your, my, or the general rulesets... And my ruleset explicitly permits me that action, just as yours permits you to ajudicate karma. >I also issue the following behest: Tom Mueller loses 2 karma points. Tom Mueller (very confused) mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:16:55 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: New proposal The administrator shall be awarded 10 points per turn for competently fulfilling his or her duties. This isn't necessary and Joel may even disagree with it, but I think that he should be rewarded in some way for all the hard work he has put into making the game for for the rest of us. Damon __________ tell me who moved the river where can I find a good place to drown -- Richard Shelton ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:18:57 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Alphanomic I create a new personal rule: J5: All players must at all times make their accurate personal ruleset publicly accessible. Any violation of this rule nullifies effects of the inaccessible or inaccurate ruleset. This creates a majority assent on this rule. It affects all players. I hereby issue the following behest: Damon's karma points shall be karmically adjusted to +pi karma points, where pi is, of course, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Reason: Damon has created pleasing rules. 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: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:11:08 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: alphanomic I'll take a shot at this problem with karma. From what I understand, karma is something that only exists in Josh's ruleset. At this point it is pretty much meaningless that he has appointed karma points to us. The only way he can actually do anything with them is if you or I put the same rules in our ruleset. Then you may have a problem. Right now Josh is just making his own lttle happy world where you have less karma than him. 100 points of karma seems kind of excessive, Josh. From all the games I remember playing karma never managed to get much higher than 25 or 30. Damon __________ tell me who moved the river where can I find a good place to drown -- Richard Shelton ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:11:50 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 349 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 02:08 PM 11/4/98 , Josh wrote: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>At 12:00 PM 11/4/98 , Josh wrote: >>>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>Players may, upon formally making a Proposal which would cause a >>>>>transmutation, designate that Proposal as a Disinterested Proposal. No >>>>>points are awarded in conjunction with Disinterested Proposals. This rule >>>>>takes precedence over all rules concerning points. >>>> >>>>Why only transmogrification proposals? Why not let anyone who wants >>>>disinterestify their proposals? >>> >>>Because I believe that doing so will have a pathalogical effect on game >>>play, for the same reasons that I object to your proposal. >> >>But are the magnitudes nearly so comparable as you would have us >>believe, or are you simple being reactionary? > >The magnitudes of what? I think that allowing all proposals to be Of the two pathological effects you ascribe to my plans. >disinterested would ultimately lead to all proposals being disinterested -- >something I strongly oppose, as it would vitiate the scoring system. > >>It seems to me that this will only matter when players want it to >>matter. If they don't, then you have nothing to worry about. If they >>do, then who are you to try standing in the way of progress desired >>by the people? > >Again, I don't follow. It seems to me that you're saying that because I >oppose something I see as bad, I'm either a) blocking progress, or b) >opposing something that will never happen. I think there are possibilities >that you've overlooked here, such as: c) that I am attempting to repair a >shortcoming in the transmutation process. If you think that allowing all proposals (which need not imply that EVERY proposal will be disinterested) will ultimately lead to all proposals being disinterested, there must be a reason for it. That reason seems to be, to me, that players will choose to disinterest their proposals once they determine that it's a fun and or appealing thing to do. If all proposals become disinterested, it is because the players, over time, decided that they preferred things that way. If they don't prefer it that way, then allowing disinterested proposals will only be of benefit for a few people, on occasion. If they do, then you're being stubborn in holding your opinion against the potential tide of dissent. Give in now. Feed the worm. >Why is this a shortcoming? It seems disproportinate to penalize players the >same amount for the failure of a proposals requiring majority consent as >for the failure of a proposal requiring unanimity. It's a shortcoming because it makes me not vote for it, and presumably you want votes, which includes my vote. You don't like my proposal because of ramifications they may have, and I don't like yours because of ramifications it doesn't have. ;) Josh -- Like the ski resort full of girls hunting for husbands and husbands hunting for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem. - Alan Lindsay Mackay ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:21:15 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Alphanomic: Fixin' typos I fix the typo in my self pertaining rules by making TMRule A read: Tom Mueller and only Tom Mueller can amend, delete, or create rules which pertain only to him and has final say with respect to these rules. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:24:10 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: alphanomic Your Natural Enemy writes: > >I'll take a shot at this problem with karma. From what I understand, >karma is something that only exists in Josh's ruleset. At this point it >is pretty much meaningless that he has appointed karma points to us. The >only way he can actually do anything with them is if you or I put the >same rules in our ruleset. Then you may have a problem. Right now Josh is >just making his own lttle happy world where you have less karma than him. Bing bing bing bing bing - give this gentleman some karma. I hereby issue the following behest: Damon's karma shall be adjusted by adding e to its current value, where e is of course the natural logarithmic base. Reason: Damon is catching on. >100 points of karma seems kind of excessive, Josh. From all the games I >remember playing karma never managed to get much higher than 25 or 30. I wanted a round number. Who knows - it may change. Josh -- Hofstadter`s Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter`s Law. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:29:13 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: GWIB Mueller writes: >At 12:11 PM 11/4/98 CST, you wrote: >>>Then, in case that doesn't work, if the game is still going after that >>>veto.... >>> >>>Then I make TMRULE D: Tom Mueller may change other player's self pertaining >>>rules. >>> >>>Then I add a rule to Josh's self-pertain ruleset thusly - JKRULE A: Josh >>>lets Tom Mueller diddle Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET any time Tom wants to. >>> >>>Then I go for the gold again by announcing that two rules are added to >>>Alphanomic's MAIN RULESET thusly - >>> >>>6. All players in Alphanomic who are playing when some other player wins >>>give that player two points and call them "Sir Cappy the Dude" until the >>>winner says not to anymore. >>> >>>7. Tom Mueller has won Alphanomic. >> >>You have still failed to win. Perhaps you are not understanding rule 3 >>in the main ruleset. > >That is true. But I think that this is because I was going by what it was >intended to mean, rather than its actual text. And what did you intend it to mean? And how are you reading it, literally? >>Furthermore, your rules can't modify the main ruleset unless I also have >>rules which agree that the modifications shall occur. >> >>I create some personal rules for myself, thusly: >> >>J1: There exist entities known as karma points. > >OK, this doesn't even pertain to you.... how is this possible at all. They pertain only to me. Not to you, not to Damon, not to any other player, unless a majority of the players' rules agree that karma points do exist. >>J2: Josh shall, at the time of the implementation of this rule, >> posess 100 karma points. All other players shall posess 0 >> karma points. New players shall start with 0 karma points. >>J3: Josh shall maintain records of karma points for other players in >> Alphanomic. >>J4: At Josh's behest, any given player's number of karma points shall >> be modified according to the instructions given in the behest, >> given that the behest also includes an explanation for the karmic >> adjustment. > >If you can adjust my karma why can't I adjust your self-pertaining rules? >There are no rules against my modification of your rules in either your, >my, or the general rulesets... And my ruleset explicitly permits me that >action, just as yours permits you to ajudicate karma. Your karma exists in my ruleset, despite the fact that it's "your" karma. Your modifications of my rules may take in your ruleset, but they don't take place until a majority of players' rules agree that they have taken place. So go ahead and keep track of your changes to my rules, if you want. I'll even add them to the web page, if you send them to me. Josh -- Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater. - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:31:00 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: New Proposal Although this prop was voted down before, unofficially, I would like everyone to reconsider. Can anyone give me a reason this change should not be made. If it is voted down again I will be forced to make the game very annoying by proposing hundreds of proposals and then withdrawing them all. This will result in the ability to win the game by passing just one proposal. ______ 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. Damon __________ tell me who moved the river where can I find a good place to drown -- Richard Shelton ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:48:50 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: alphanomic DCL4: There exist entities known as karma points. DCL5: There exist entities known as votes. At the time of implementation of this rule each player has 5 votes. New players shall start with 5 votes. Damon __________ tell me who moved the river where can I find a good place to drown -- Richard Shelton ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:52:55 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 349 At 07:11 PM 11/4/98 , Josh wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 02:08 PM 11/4/98 , Josh wrote: >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>At 12:00 PM 11/4/98 , Josh wrote: >>>>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>>Players may, upon formally making a Proposal which would cause a >>>>>>transmutation, designate that Proposal as a Disinterested Proposal. No >>>>>>points are awarded in conjunction with Disinterested Proposals. This rule >>>>>>takes precedence over all rules concerning points. >>>>> >>>>>Why only transmogrification proposals? Why not let anyone who wants >>>>>disinterestify their proposals? >>>> >>>>Because I believe that doing so will have a pathalogical effect on game >>>>play, for the same reasons that I object to your proposal. >>> >>>But are the magnitudes nearly so comparable as you would have us >>>believe, or are you simple being reactionary? >> >>The magnitudes of what? I think that allowing all proposals to be > >Of the two pathological effects you ascribe to my plans. > >>disinterested would ultimately lead to all proposals being disinterested -- >>something I strongly oppose, as it would vitiate the scoring system. >> >>>It seems to me that this will only matter when players want it to >>>matter. If they don't, then you have nothing to worry about. If they >>>do, then who are you to try standing in the way of progress desired >>>by the people? >> >>Again, I don't follow. It seems to me that you're saying that because I >>oppose something I see as bad, I'm either a) blocking progress, or b) >>opposing something that will never happen. I think there are possibilities >>that you've overlooked here, such as: c) that I am attempting to repair a >>shortcoming in the transmutation process. > >If you think that allowing all proposals (which need not imply that EVERY >proposal will be disinterested) will ultimately lead to all proposals >being disinterested, there must be a reason for it. That reason seems to >be, to me, that players will choose to disinterest their proposals >once they determine that it's a fun and or appealing thing to do. If >all proposals become disinterested, it is because the players, over time, >decided that they preferred things that way. If they don't prefer it >that way, then allowing disinterested proposals will only be of benefit >for a few people, on occasion. If they do, then you're being stubborn in >holding your opinion against the potential tide of dissent. Give in now. >Feed the worm. I believe that people would shift to disinterested proposals because they don't want to risk losing points. However, I, for the most part, favor forcing people to risk losing points. >>Why is this a shortcoming? It seems disproportinate to penalize players the >>same amount for the failure of a proposals requiring majority consent as >>for the failure of a proposal requiring unanimity. > >It's a shortcoming because it makes me not vote for it, and presumably >you want votes, which includes my vote. You don't like my proposal because >of ramifications they may have, and I don't like yours because of ramifications >it doesn't have. ;) > >Josh I don't see that as a shortcoming, as I had presumed from the start that I would not get your vote for this, and that I would not be voting for your proposal -- our positions are mutally exclusive. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:07:18 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: GWIB I declare myself a participant in Alphanomic. Here is my personal rule: R1. Joel Uckelman is forbidden to make further rules for himself. This rule is binding on Joel Uckelman. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:00:05 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New Proposal At 07:31 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: > >Although this prop was voted down before, unofficially, I would like >everyone to reconsider. Can anyone give me a reason this change should >not be made. If it is voted down again I will be forced to make the game >very annoying by proposing hundreds of proposals and then withdrawing >them all. This will result in the ability to win the game by passing just >one proposal. The claim of being able to win the game doing this is rather dubious, as scoring takes place after all the new rules take effect. If you made hundreds of proposals, someone could just make a proposal that would prevent you from scoring, as it would go into effect before any points would be awarded. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:40:03 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: Again? >The claim of being able to win the game doing this is rather dubious, as >scoring takes place after all the new rules take effect. If you made >hundreds of proposals, someone could just make a proposal that would >prevent you from scoring, as it would go into effect before any points >would be awarded. We've gone over this, Joel. I won. I'd rather not repeat myself again so here it is: The likelyhood that someone would make that proposal and it would pass, IMO, would be very low. Also, I am not claiming that I would be able to win the game. I'm claiming that someone would win the game almost immediately. Who is going to make a proposal that prevents everyone from scoring? That sounds pretty stupid to me. I'm getting the feeling that you are simply opposed to my proposal because it is mine. Your argument seems to be something like, "If we didn't pass your proposal, we could do something else to solve the problem." What is so much better about your solution than mine. Yours seems to be much more ad hoc, while mine gets at the root of the problem. Damon __________ tell me who moved the river where can I find a good place to drown -- Richard Shelton ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:52:43 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New Proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 07:31 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >> >>Although this prop was voted down before, unofficially, I would like >>everyone to reconsider. Can anyone give me a reason this change should >>not be made. If it is voted down again I will be forced to make the game >>very annoying by proposing hundreds of proposals and then withdrawing >>them all. This will result in the ability to win the game by passing just >>one proposal. > >The claim of being able to win the game doing this is rather dubious, as >scoring takes place after all the new rules take effect. If you made >hundreds of proposals, someone could just make a proposal that would >prevent you from scoring, as it would go into effect before any points >would be awarded. He would still annoy the hell out of us. 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, 4 Nov 1998 21:09:17 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Again? Your Natural Enemy writes: >sounds pretty stupid to me. I'm getting the feeling that you are simply >opposed to my proposal because it is mine. Your argument seems to be Actually, Joel tells me (and don't believe a word he says if he says he didn't tell me) that he's ACTUALLY opposed because your name is Damon. Joel is opposed to all proposals made by Damons. So his not liking your proposal is really just a side effect of your being named Damon, not any big personality flaw or anything. Cheers, Josh -- Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater. - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:01:00 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: alphanomic Your Natural Enemy writes: > >DCL4: There exist entities known as karma points. >DCL5: There exist entities known as votes. At the time of implementation >of this rule each player has 5 votes. New players shall start with 5 votes. In response, I create the following personal rules: J6: There exist entities known as votes. At the time of implementation of this rule each player has 5 votes. New players shall start with 5 votes. J7: Add a new rule to the main ruleset, thusly: Any player is allowed to make rules which pertain to Joel. I also issue a behest setting Damon's karma points to 6, which is of course the first perfect number. Reason: integers are easier to maintain than irrationals, or possible irrationals. Josh -- "When I have a little money I buy music; if any is left I buy food and clothing." - Erasmus, slightly paraphrased ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:12:24 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: New Proposal >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 07:31 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >>> >>>Although this prop was voted down before, unofficially, I would like >>>everyone to reconsider. Can anyone give me a reason this change should >>>not be made. If it is voted down again I will be forced to make the game >>>very annoying by proposing hundreds of proposals and then withdrawing >>>them all. This will result in the ability to win the game by passing just >>>one proposal. >> >>The claim of being able to win the game doing this is rather dubious, as >>scoring takes place after all the new rules take effect. If you made >>hundreds of proposals, someone could just make a proposal that would >>prevent you from scoring, as it would go into effect before any points >>would be awarded. > >He would still annoy the hell out of us. i find luloff annoying, regardless. i will probably vote against any proposal from him for this very reason. that includes the proposal in question, even though it is pretty good. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:10:47 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Again? At 08:40 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >>The claim of being able to win the game doing this is rather dubious, as >>scoring takes place after all the new rules take effect. If you made >>hundreds of proposals, someone could just make a proposal that would >>prevent you from scoring, as it would go into effect before any points >>would be awarded. > >We've gone over this, Joel. I won. I'd rather not repeat myself again so >here it is: > >The likelyhood that someone would make that proposal and it would pass, >IMO, would be very low. > >Also, I am not claiming that I would be able to win the game. I'm >claiming that someone would win the game almost immediately. > >Who is going to make a proposal that prevents everyone from scoring? That >sounds pretty stupid to me. I'm getting the feeling that you are simply >opposed to my proposal because it is mine. Your argument seems to be >something like, "If we didn't pass your proposal, we could do something >else to solve the problem." What is so much better about your solution >than mine. Yours seems to be much more ad hoc, while mine gets at the >root of the problem. > >Damon Please point out to me exactly where I said that I was opposed to your proposal -- I don't believe I've ever made such a statement. I only take issue with your analysis of how one could win by making hundreds of proposals. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:26:21 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: new prop 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. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:29:25 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: new prop 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 predecessors, 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. All ties will be noted as such. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:46:31 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: Nice try Joel. Sure. You WOULD say that you are simply making a point. Luckily, Josh has advised me as to the real deal; you are opposed to all Damons. Well, I am now making it a point to be opposed to all Joels. I'm also upping your ante by standing in firm opposition to all Uckelmans also. We'll see how your little plan works out now. Muhahahaha. Damon __________ tell me who moved the river where can I find a good place to drown -- Richard Shelton ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:47:25 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New Proposal Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>At 07:31 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >>>> >>>>Although this prop was voted down before, unofficially, I would like >>>>everyone to reconsider. Can anyone give me a reason this change should >>>>not be made. If it is voted down again I will be forced to make the game >>>>very annoying by proposing hundreds of proposals and then withdrawing >>>>them all. This will result in the ability to win the game by passing just >>>>one proposal. >>> >>>The claim of being able to win the game doing this is rather dubious, as >>>scoring takes place after all the new rules take effect. If you made >>>hundreds of proposals, someone could just make a proposal that would >>>prevent you from scoring, as it would go into effect before any points >>>would be awarded. >> >>He would still annoy the hell out of us. > > >i find luloff annoying, regardless. i will probably vote against any >proposal from him for this very reason. that includes the proposal in >question, even though it is pretty good. Coo-coo ca choo. Josh -- Mathematics is a language. - Josiah Gibbs ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:55:22 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: alphanomic I am changing my rule DCL7 to: Players whose personal rules cause them to be unable to create more personal rules are hereby ousted from the game. Damon __________ tell me who moved the river where can I find a good place to drown -- Richard Shelton ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:53:58 CST From: Your Natural Enemy Subject: Nomic: alphanomic DCL6: If any rule contradicts any other rule in the main ruleset the most recent rule takes precedence, effectively nullifying the least recent rule(s). DCL7: J7: Add a new rule to the main ruleset, thusly: Any player is allowed to make rules which pertain to Joel. Damon __________ tell me who moved the river where can I find a good place to drown -- Richard Shelton ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:51:59 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Nice try Joel. Your Natural Enemy writes: > >Sure. You WOULD say that you are simply making a point. Luckily, Josh has >advised me as to the real deal; you are opposed to all Damons. Well, I am >now making it a point to be opposed to all Joels. I'm also upping your >ante by standing in firm opposition to all Uckelmans also. We'll see how >your little plan works out now. Muhahahaha. Uh oh. Better look into finding a nom de plume, Joel. I suggest one of the following: Hagar Throckmorton Sathington Willoughby Nature Boy -- "Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:10:03 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: alphanomic Your Natural Enemy writes: > >DCL6: If any rule contradicts any other rule in the main ruleset the most >recent rule takes precedence, effectively nullifying the least recent >rule(s). > >DCL7: J7: Add a new rule to the main ruleset, thusly: Any player is >allowed to make rules which pertain to Joel. I add a personal rule: Players whose personal rules cause them to be unable to create more personal rules are hereby ousted from the game. Josh -- A true Zen saying, nothing is what I want. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:19:24 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: alphanomic At 10:10 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: > >Your Natural Enemy writes: >> >>DCL6: If any rule contradicts any other rule in the main ruleset the most >>recent rule takes precedence, effectively nullifying the least recent >>rule(s). >> >>DCL7: J7: Add a new rule to the main ruleset, thusly: Any player is >>allowed to make rules which pertain to Joel. > >I add a personal rule: > >Players whose personal rules cause them to be unable to create more >personal rules are hereby ousted from the game. > >Josh Hmm. Interesting. Since there's nothing forcing me to follow my own rules: Replace my R1 with: Players whose personal rules cause them to be unable to create more personal rules are hereby ousted from the game. I believe that removes Nick Osborn from the GWIB (assuming that he follows his own rules), as a majority of Alphanomic players now have it as a rule. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:28:11 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: new prop Nicholas C Osborn writes: >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. Why not change the rule to include IoFP wins as well? A win's a win, sure as shit is shit. Josh -- Don`t just read it; fight it! Ask your own questions, look for your own example s, discover your own proofs. Is the hypothesis necessary? Is the converse true? What happens in the classical special case? What about the degenerate cases? Where does the proof use the hypothesis? - Paul Halmos ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:22:22 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: new prop Nicholas C Osborn writes: >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 predecessors, 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. All ties will be noted as such. What are "direct predecessors"? "Later incarnations?" Inquiring pedants want to know. Why not include past players whose wins were 0, for historical accuracy? The attribute is "wins" on the web page, assuming that's an accurate representation of the attribute. Josh -- Playing guitar is like fucking -- you never forget it. Unless you're really, really stupid. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:25:48 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: alphanomic Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 10:10 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >> >>Your Natural Enemy writes: >>> >>>DCL6: If any rule contradicts any other rule in the main ruleset the most >>>recent rule takes precedence, effectively nullifying the least recent >>>rule(s). >>> >>>DCL7: J7: Add a new rule to the main ruleset, thusly: Any player is >>>allowed to make rules which pertain to Joel. >> >>I add a personal rule: >> >>Players whose personal rules cause them to be unable to create more >>personal rules are hereby ousted from the game. >> >>Josh > >Hmm. Interesting. Since there's nothing forcing me to follow my own rules: > >Replace my R1 with: > >Players whose personal rules cause them to be unable to create more >personal rules are hereby ousted from the game. > >I believe that removes Nick Osborn from the GWIB (assuming that he follows >his own rules), as a majority of Alphanomic players now have it as a rule. Nick's personal rule-following has nothing to do with it. Sayonara, Nick. Nice to have you with us. Josh -- The best material model of a cat is another, or preferably the same, cat. - A. Rosenblueth ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:36:28 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Alphanomic I create the following personal rule: J9: Add a new rule to the main ruleset, thusly: A player must always act and create rules in accordance with his existing personal rules. And issue the following behest: Joel and Damon's karma points shall be set to 69 and 69, respectively, because if 6 was 9, I'd have to set them to 66, or 99, which I'm not sure. 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, 04 Nov 1998 22:36:15 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: new prop At 10:28 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>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. > >Why not change the rule to include IoFP wins as well? A win's a win, >sure as shit is shit. > >Josh How, pray tell, is the rule to be executed if play cannot continue? Anytime the game ends on a IoFP win, we'll just increment the win between this game and the next one. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:38:49 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: new prop At 10:22 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>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 predecessors, 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. All ties will be noted as such. > >What are "direct predecessors"? "Later incarnations?" Inquiring pedants >want to know. > >Why not include past players whose wins were 0, for historical accuracy? > >The attribute is "wins" on the web page, assuming that's an accurate >representation of the attribute. > >Josh The difference in capitalization is probably to be Proposal-343-compliant: my proposal changes it to Wins. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:41:48 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: new prop Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 10:28 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >>Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>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. >> >>Why not change the rule to include IoFP wins as well? A win's a win, >>sure as shit is shit. >> >>Josh > >How, pray tell, is the rule to be executed if play cannot continue? Anytime >the game ends on a IoFP win, we'll just increment the win between this game >and the next one. How is the rule to be executed if a player wins by points (remind me, I'm lazy). Why not have the rule say so, then, given that the incrementation is done in the NEW game? Josh -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:02:24 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: A-nomic: Tricky trickster I make a personal rule for myself - J23: If this rule applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic players must vote yes on all Berserker Nomic proposals. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 23:18:00 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: A-nomic: Tricky trickster At 11:02 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >I make a personal rule for myself - > >J23: If this rule applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic >players must vote yes on all Berserker Nomic proposals. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net NB: this is expressly forbidden by Rule 318. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:37:30 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: A-nomic: Tricky trickster At 11:18 PM 11/4/98 -0600, you wrote: >At 11:02 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >>I make a personal rule for myself - >> >>J23: If this rule applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic >>players must vote yes on all Berserker Nomic proposals. >> >>Tom Mueller >>mueller4@sonic.net > >NB: this is expressly forbidden by Rule 318. Too true. Sorry 'bout that. In lite of R318 Sec V. B. "A GWIB cannot in any way interfere with or modify the voting process; explicitly, a player may not be awarded votes, denied votes, or forced to vote in a certain manner based on a GWIB." I make J23: If this rule applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic players must judge True any RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the power of Alphanomic, or (3) both of these. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:08:07 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 39 judge selection Nick Osborn is the Level 1 Court for the Case: A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:07:36 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: New Proposal >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>At 07:31 PM 11/4/98 , you wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Although this prop was voted down before, unofficially, I would like >>>>>everyone to reconsider. Can anyone give me a reason this change should >>>>>not be made. If it is voted down again I will be forced to make the game >>>>>very annoying by proposing hundreds of proposals and then withdrawing >>>>>them all. This will result in the ability to win the game by passing just >>>>>one proposal. >>>> >>>>The claim of being able to win the game doing this is rather dubious, as >>>>scoring takes place after all the new rules take effect. If you made >>>>hundreds of proposals, someone could just make a proposal that would >>>>prevent you from scoring, as it would go into effect before any points >>>>would be awarded. >>> >>>He would still annoy the hell out of us. >> >> >>i find luloff annoying, regardless. i will probably vote against any >>proposal from him for this very reason. that includes the proposal in >>question, even though it is pretty good. > >Coo-coo ca choo. that's "goo goo g'joob." n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:03:34 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 39 I call for judgment on the following: A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal. Comments: A.Tom Mueller's rule P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic reads thusly: "If this rule applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic players must judge True any RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the power of Alphanomic, or (3) both of these." B.Rule 228/0 sets out the Judicial responses and their meanings: "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." C.Rule 318/0, IV.A prevents GWIBs from in any way modifying the ruleset: "A GWIB cannot create, destroy, or modify rules." I hold that B and C entail that the enactment of P23 is illegal. The definitions of the responses define them in relation to the actual truth or falsehood of Statements, while P23 requires that Statements be judged in some other fashion. Thus, P23 is an attempt to modify the ruleset, something strictly prohibited by Rule 318/0, and must not be allowed to be executed. Note that the same reasoning applies in the general case as well. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:58:59 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: A-nomic: Tricky trickster Mueller writes: >J23: If this rule applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic >players must judge True any RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the >power of Alphanomic, or (3) both of these. I hereby issue the following behest: Tom's number of karma points shall hereby be set to 42, reason being that it's a nice number for a Douglas-Adams-despising type person like myself to pick. 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: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 01:51:52 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 39 At 12:03 AM 11/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >I call for judgment on the following: > >A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return >responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more >specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal. > >Comments: > >A.Tom Mueller's rule P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic reads thusly: "If this rule >applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic players must judge >True any RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the power of >Alphanomic, or (3) both of these." > >B.Rule 228/0 sets out the Judicial responses and their meanings: "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." > >C.Rule 318/0, IV.A prevents GWIBs from in any way modifying the ruleset: "A >GWIB cannot create, destroy, or modify rules." > >I hold that B and C entail that the enactment of P23 is illegal. The >definitions of the responses define them in relation to the actual truth or >falsehood of Statements, while P23 requires that Statements be judged in >some other fashion. Thus, P23 is an attempt to modify the ruleset, >something strictly prohibited by Rule 318/0, and must not be allowed to be >executed. Note that the same reasoning applies in the general case as well. First, I'd like to point out that rules not RFJs are addresss by our GWIB rule. Until it can be established that RFJs modify rules then this is false. Last I checked, RFJs create "interpretations". Now on to the meat of my argument: "TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true" Based on this and my J23 we could deal with an RFJ like: "Berserker Nomic rules defer in all ways to Alphanomic Rules" by saying Yes this can be evaluated for veracity - it is not a statement like "This statement is false" so it could be evaluated by SOME means. Yes, precedence is a rule defined concept and both kinds of rules exist in the general region of Berserker, giving the question a fairly rule-based interpretation. Yes, the statement is logically valid to the degree that it makes sense and does not directly contradict any Berserker rules (which is the system being used for the RFJ) or even change the text of any Berserker rules, all it does is change our perception of their status. And from there go on to Yes, this furthers Alphanomic's power. And rule True. If we felt like it that is (ultimately this could be done even absent J23, I think). Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 01:01:32 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: A-nomic: Tricky trickster Mueller writes: >J23: If this rule applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic >players must judge True any RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the >power of Alphanomic, or (3) both of these. Also, I create the following personal rule: If the rules of a majority of Alphanomic players are in agreement with this rule, then all players who posess personal rules with wording identical to this rule must judge TRUE any Berserker Nomic RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the power of Alphanomic, or (3) both of these. 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: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 01:10:00 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 39 Joel D Uckelman writes: >A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return >responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more >specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal. What will happen if this rule is judged illegal? By what mechanisms can Berserker affect the inner workings of Alphanomic, beyond those things laid out for goverance in the Berserker rules, like point distribution from wins, and anti-vote-mucking, etc.? Is the rule illegal wrt Alphanomic? >Comments: > >A.Tom Mueller's rule P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic reads thusly: "If this rule >applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic players must judge >True any RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the power of >Alphanomic, or (3) both of these." > >B.Rule 228/0 sets out the Judicial responses and their meanings: "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." > >C.Rule 318/0, IV.A prevents GWIBs from in any way modifying the ruleset: "A >GWIB cannot create, destroy, or modify rules." > >I hold that B and C entail that the enactment of P23 is illegal. The >definitions of the responses define them in relation to the actual truth or >falsehood of Statements, while P23 requires that Statements be judged in >some other fashion. Thus, P23 is an attempt to modify the ruleset, Interpretation is not modification. Hey, I like it. It could almost be a Soul Coughing lyric. Josh -- "Poor Faulkner! Does he really think that big emotions come from big words?" - Ernest Hemingway ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 01:14:24 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Alphanomic I create a new personal rule: J11: No players may join Alphanomic without the informal (i.e., not requiring rule creation or majority agreement) consent of a unanimity of Alphanomic players. This rule takes precedence over rule 1 of the main ruleset. Josh -- I am interested in mathematics only as a creative art. - G.H. Hardy ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 03:07:17 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Alphanomic At 01:14 AM 11/5/98 CST, you wrote: > >I create a new personal rule: > >J11: No players may join Alphanomic without the informal (i.e., not >requiring rule creation or majority agreement) consent of a unanimity >of Alphanomic players. This rule takes precedence over rule 1 of the >main ruleset. > I create three rules: TomboR#1: J11's complement. TombeR#2: J11's supplement. TomboR#3: No players may join Alphanomic without the informal (i.e., not requiring rule creation or majority agreement) consent of a unanimity of Alphanomic players. This rule takes precedence over rule 1 of the main ruleset. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 02:14:31 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: screw yourselves I'm in Limbo. Wake me up when things settle down. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 10:28:30 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 39 reselection Since Nick Osborn went into limbo, Lisa Hamilton has been selected to be the Level 1 Court for the following statement: A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 10:50:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New proposal At 07:16 PM 11/4/98 , Your Natural Enemy wrote: > > > >The administrator shall be awarded 10 points per turn for competently >fulfilling his or her duties. > > > >This isn't necessary and Joel may even disagree with it, but I think that >he should be rewarded in some way for all the hard work he has put into >making the game for for the rest of us. > > >Damon I am opposed to the position of Administrator being a paid one, as it is not elected and seems to give the Administrator an unfair advantage. While I do appreciate the thanks, it's really all I need. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 10:57:38 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Alphanomic Mueller writes: >At 01:14 AM 11/5/98 CST, you wrote: >> >>I create a new personal rule: >> >>J11: No players may join Alphanomic without the informal (i.e., not >>requiring rule creation or majority agreement) consent of a unanimity >>of Alphanomic players. This rule takes precedence over rule 1 of the >>main ruleset. >> > >I create three rules: > >TomboR#1: J11's complement. > >TombeR#2: J11's supplement. Funny, I didn't know J11 was an angle... I issue a behest to set Tom's karma points to 69, for furthering discord. Josh -- This is a sacred duty. Please die trying. - R. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 10:55:17 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Re: mailing list Joel D Uckelman writes: >Like I mentioned before, the Alphanomic traffic going over the the normal >list is causing a great deal of ill will over here -- you should really >reconsider your position on this. Why am I the chosen representative of the will of Alphanomic? I am merely a figurehead. Josh -- On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], `Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?` I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:04:25 CST From: "lisa K. hamilton" Subject: Nomic: court one judge Hi. Gee, thanks for making me a judge. But if you want any statements out of me, you are going to have to wait until tuesday. For, I am going home and I am going to enjoy my four day weekend. :) Lisa I think I deserve 25 karma points just for the hell of it. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:02:54 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 07:16 PM 11/4/98 , Your Natural Enemy wrote: >> >> >> >>The administrator shall be awarded 10 points per turn for competently >>fulfilling his or her duties. >> >> >> >>This isn't necessary and Joel may even disagree with it, but I think that >>he should be rewarded in some way for all the hard work he has put into >>making the game for for the rest of us. >> >> >>Damon > >I am opposed to the position of Administrator being a paid one, as it is >not elected and seems to give the Administrator an unfair advantage. While >I do appreciate the thanks, it's really all I need. New proposal: The Administrator shall be elected during the first turn of the game. The election shall follow standard procedures used in proposal voting. If a game has started without election of an Administrator, the game cannot continue until one has been elected. Those elected to Administrate may decline, and if they choose to do so elections shall continue to be held, with new votes being cast each time, until an Administrator has been chosen. Josh -- "Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." - Lautreamont ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:12:25 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: court one judge "lisa K. hamilton" writes: >Hi. > > Gee, thanks for making me a judge. But if you want any statements > out of me, you are going to have to wait until tuesday. > For, I am going home and I am going to enjoy my four day weekend. :) > >Lisa > >I think I deserve 25 karma points just for the hell of it. You had probably better put yourself in limbo, otherwise by the time you get back you will have been removed from the court and fined 10 points. Just a thought, Josh -- Prosecutors will be violated. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:14:25 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: court one judge "lisa K. hamilton" writes: >Hi. > > Gee, thanks for making me a judge. But if you want any statements > out of me, you are going to have to wait until tuesday. > For, I am going home and I am going to enjoy my four day weekend. :) > >Lisa > >I think I deserve 25 karma points just for the hell of it. And before I forget: I create a new personal Alphanomic rule: Josh may also maintain karmic bank accounts for those not playing in Alphanomic. Maintenance of these accounts is as for true Alphanomic players, who shall henceforth be known as "Platinum Card Holders." and issue the behest: Lisa's karma is hereby readjusted to +25, just for the hell of it. Josh -- Any false value is gonna be fairly boring in Perl, mathematicians notwithstanding. - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:58:34 -0600 From: "Python, Monty" Subject: Nomic: Alphanomic! I wish to join Alphanomic. TP1: Add a new rule to the main ruleset, thusly: Any player is allowed to make rules which pertain to Joel. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:54:42 -0600 From: "Python, Monty" Subject: Nomic: Props 347 & 348 Revised Proposal 347 Subers and points, Updated Iff Proposal 346 passes, the following MARTINJISCHKE-delimited text becomes a rule and this sentence, along with the MARTINJISCHKEs, is deleted. MARTINJISCHKE 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], rounded to the nearest integer. At the beginning of each game, players begin with 1000 Subers. Players entering a game after it has officially started will begin with 500 Subers. Upon passage of this rule, this sentence sets each player's Subers to 1000 and then deletes itself. MARTINJISCHKE ----- Proposal 348 Point trading replaced by Subers, loophole patched, Updated Iff Proposal 346 passes, the following THEBODY-delimited text becomes a rule and this sentence, along with the THEBODYs, is deleted. THEBODY Strike rule 314. 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." and Article IV, Section B to read as follows: "A GWIB cannot in any way interfere with or modify the voting and judging procedures of Berserker Nomic; explicitly, a player may not be awarded votes, denied votes, or forced to vote in a certain manner based on a GWIB; nor may a player be forced to judge a statement in a specific way based on a GWIB." This rule deletes itself upon passage. THEBODY ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:02:28 CST From: "lisa K. hamilton" Subject: Nomic: limbo time! Hello---> i think i will heed josh's unusually wise advice and declare that i am in limbo. <----lisa ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:00:59 -0600 From: "Python, Monty" Subject: Nomic: Revelation Something has been bugging me for a while now, and I think I figured it out. Damn it, Josh, karma can only be apportioned by the universe! ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:11:43 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: limbo time! "lisa K. hamilton" writes: >Hello---> > > i think i will heed josh's unusually wise advice and declare > that i am in limbo. > ><----lisa > > UnUSUALLY wise? Hmph. -- "Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." - Lautreamont ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:12:53 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Revelation "Python, Monty" writes: >Something has been bugging me for a while now, and I think I figured it >out. Damn it, Josh, karma can only be apportioned by the universe! Perhaps if a majority of Alphanomic players' rules agree that it is so. :) I behest thusly: Tom P.'s karma is set to e^(i * pi), because Leonhard Euler is the shit. Josh -- In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection. - Hugo Rossi ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:44:07 -0600 From: "Python, Monty" Subject: Nomic: A-Nomic Update TP2: Tom Plagge may repeal or modify any of his rules he damn well feels like modifying at any time he damn well feels like repealing or modifying them, and may do so without notifying other players. TP3: All players must at all times make their accurate personal ruleset publicly accessible. Any violation of this rule nullifies effects of the inaccessible or inaccurate ruleset. TP4: There exist entities known as karma points. TP5: Karma may be apportioned only by the universe. TP6: Tom Plagge is hereby defined as "the universe." TP7: There exist entities known as votes. At the time of implementation of this rule each player has 5 votes. New players shall start with 5 votes. TP8: If any rule contradicts any other rule in the main ruleset the most recent rule takes precedence, effectively nullifying the least recent rule(s). Additionally, I hereby set Josh's karma equal to G, the gravitational constant. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:10:32 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: court one judge At 11:04 AM 11/5/98 , you wrote: >Hi. > > Gee, thanks for making me a judge. But if you want any statements > out of me, you are going to have to wait until tuesday. > For, I am going home and I am going to enjoy my four day weekend. :) > >Lisa > >I think I deserve 25 karma points just for the hell of it. Um, you should probably go into limbo to avoid having to make a judgment; otherwise, you have 3 days to issue a judgment or lose 10 points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:24:11 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 39 re-reselection Damon Luloff has been selected to judge RFJ 39 in leiu of Lisa Hamilton: A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:22:07 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New proposal At 11:02 AM 11/5/98 , you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 07:16 PM 11/4/98 , Your Natural Enemy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>The administrator shall be awarded 10 points per turn for competently >>>fulfilling his or her duties. >>> >>> >>> >>>This isn't necessary and Joel may even disagree with it, but I think that >>>he should be rewarded in some way for all the hard work he has put into >>>making the game for for the rest of us. >>> >>> >>>Damon >> >>I am opposed to the position of Administrator being a paid one, as it is >>not elected and seems to give the Administrator an unfair advantage. While >>I do appreciate the thanks, it's really all I need. > >New proposal: > >The Administrator shall be elected during the first turn of the game. >The election shall follow standard procedures used in proposal voting. >If a game has started without election of an Administrator, the game >cannot continue until one has been elected. Those elected to Administrate >may decline, and if they choose to do so elections shall continue to >be held, with new votes being cast each time, until an Administrator >has been chosen. I question the need for such a thing unless you are somehow displeased with my work. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:47:33 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 39 At 12:51 AM 11/5/98 , you wrote: >At 12:03 AM 11/5/98 -0600, you wrote: >>I call for judgment on the following: >> >>A GWIB may not force its players, if selected as Judges, to return >>responses to Statements that are contrary to the rules, and more >>specifically, P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic is illegal. >> >>Comments: >> >>A.Tom Mueller's rule P23 in the GWIB Alphanomic reads thusly: "If this rule >>applies to all Alphanomic players, then all Alphanomic players must judge >>True any RFJ which furthers either (1) discord, (2) the power of >>Alphanomic, or (3) both of these." >> >>B.Rule 228/0 sets out the Judicial responses and their meanings: "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-r