________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 09:42:36 CST From: Mad Oarsman Subject: Nomic: Results? How's about some results. I'm curious. Let's go. Go go go. Damon __________ When one rows it is not the rowing which moves the ship: rowing is only a magical ceremony by means of which one compels a demon to move the ship. -- Nietzsche ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 10:05:54 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: I'm in limbo. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. i'm in limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 10:14:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Results? At 09:42 AM 12/1/98 , you wrote: > >How's about some results. I'm curious. Let's go. Go go go. > > >Damon The results are coming... Sorry I wasn't awake at 4 AM when the voting period ended.. :( J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 10:18:10 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results Here are the results: P342 failed (1-5-1-1). P343 passed (7-0-0-1). P344 passed (5-2-0-1). P347 passed (5-2-0-1). P348 passed (5-2-0-1). P349 passed (5-2-0-1). P350 passed (4-3-0-1). P351 failed (2-5-0-1). P352 passed (7-0-0-1). P353 passed (4-3-0-1). P354 passed (5-2-0-1). P356 passed (5-2-0-1). P357 passed (4-3-0-1). Scoring is forthcoming. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 10:23:01 CST From: Mad Oarsman Subject: Nomic: Administrator Uckelman Not awake at 4am? Exactly what kind of administrator are you, Joel? Jesus. Damon __________ When one rows it is not the rowing which moves the ship: rowing is only a magical ceremony by means of which one compels a demon to move the ship. -- Nietzsche ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 10:38:15 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Rule 344 Don't forget this: 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. i'm in limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 10:48:46 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scores Scoring from the previous round: Tom Mueller +36 (-10 +9 +37) Tom Plagge +118 (+39 +39 +40) Nick Osborn +123 (+38 +35 +44 +6) Joel Uckelman +178 (+52 +41 +33 +45 +7) Josk Kortbein +13 (+7 +6) Ed Proescholdt +19 (+7 +6 +6) Damon Luloff +118 (-10 +7 +60 +7 +7 +7 +7 +7 +6 +6 +7 +7) Jeff Schroeder +46 (+7 +7 +7 +6 +6 +7 +6) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 10:56:32 -0600 From: "Tom \"The Body\" Plagge" Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results What about 345 and 346? At 10:18 AM 12/1/98 , you wrote: >Here are the results: > >P342 failed (1-5-1-1). >P343 passed (7-0-0-1). >P344 passed (5-2-0-1). >P347 passed (5-2-0-1). >P348 passed (5-2-0-1). >P349 passed (5-2-0-1). >P350 passed (4-3-0-1). >P351 failed (2-5-0-1). >P352 passed (7-0-0-1). >P353 passed (4-3-0-1). >P354 passed (5-2-0-1). >P356 passed (5-2-0-1). >P357 passed (4-3-0-1). > >Scoring is forthcoming. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 10:58:13 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: scores Joel D Uckelman writes: >Scoring from the previous round: > >Tom Mueller +36 (-10 +9 +37) >Tom Plagge +118 (+39 +39 +40) >Nick Osborn +123 (+38 +35 +44 +6) >Joel Uckelman +178 (+52 +41 +33 +45 +7) >Josk Kortbein +13 (+7 +6) >Ed Proescholdt +19 (+7 +6 +6) >Damon Luloff +118 (-10 +7 +60 +7 +7 +7 +7 +7 +6 +6 +7 +7) >Jeff Schroeder +46 (+7 +7 +7 +6 +6 +7 +6) Did you do it again, Damon? Josh -- The mechanics of writing can be taught, the basic rules and tools and guidelines, but as in any art, all the rest comes from doing and doing and doing. The most important part of the process is learning to trust one's own vision, to work hard at developing one's own style and voice, and then having the confidence to follow where it goes. - Mary McGarry Morris ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 12:29:02 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results At 10:56 AM 12/1/98 , you wrote: >What about 345 and 346? P346 passed (5-2-0-1). P345 is inactive. Sorry about the confusion. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 16:37:27 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: site update The page has now been updated with the new rules and scores. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 16:45:03 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 358 A proposal to fix mistakes: Strike Rule 222 and renumber Rule 352 to 222. Replace "may" in the first sentence of Rule 357 with "to". Both of these fix oversights from the last round. Damon's new scoring rule did not replace the old scoring rule (R222/0), and although it takes precedence over the old one, it would be less confusing if the old one were removed. The first sentence of Mueller's lynching rule ("It is possible for players may be burnt at the stake.") contains a typo that should also be fixed. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 22:57:49 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: typos, new prop >The first sentence of Mueller's lynching rule ("It is possible for >players may be burnt at the stake.") contains a typo that should also be >fixed. I don't know if this is a good road to start down. By correcting typos with new proposals, it allows Players to intentionally mess up, giving them an opportunity to score again by "fixing" their mistakes. Maybe we should establish an alternative to a formal Proposal for correcting things such as typos. new prop: The author of a passing Proposal may submit a Revised Version of the text of the Proposal that corrects typographical errors, although such a revision shall not change the effect of the Proposal. The Revised Version must be publicly submitted within the following turn. Players who voted upon the original Proposal have 72 hours to submit their vote upon the Revised Version to the Administrator. Points are not affected by voting upon a Revised Version. If a Revised Version receives a majority vote, it shall be considered the text passed by the original Proposal. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. i'm in limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 10:14:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: typos, new prop At 10:57 PM 12/1/98 , you wrote: >>The first sentence of Mueller's lynching rule ("It is possible for >>players may be burnt at the stake.") contains a typo that should also be >>fixed. > >I don't know if this is a good road to start down. By correcting typos with >new proposals, it allows Players to intentionally mess up, giving them an >opportunity to score again by "fixing" their mistakes. Maybe we should >establish an alternative to a formal Proposal for correcting things such as >typos. > >new prop: > >The author of a passing Proposal may submit a Revised Version of the text >of the Proposal that corrects typographical errors, although such a >revision shall not change the effect of the Proposal. The Revised Version >must be publicly submitted within the following turn. Players who voted >upon the original Proposal have 72 hours to submit their vote upon the >Revised Version to the Administrator. Points are not affected by voting >upon a Revised Version. If a Revised Version receives a majority vote, it >shall be considered the text passed by the original Proposal. > > >n >the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. >i'm in limbo. I can't count this as a proposal since you did not come out of limbo to make it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 12:15:29 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: typos, new prop Joel D Uckelman writes: >I can't count this as a proposal since you did not come out of limbo to >make it. I present the following CFJ: A player in limbo who sends a message to the mailing list which does anything other than re-state that the player is in limbo has performed an action equivalent to publicly stating "I'm out of limbo." Discussion: Note that I consider a message like Blah blah blah proposal. I'm in limbo. to be doing something other than re-stating that the player is in limbo, as there is other, non limbo-putting content. So the player is removed from limbo by such a message, which at the end of the message puts them back into limbo. Josh -- "...sex is perhaps more effective than mathematics when it comes to persuading or driving the common man to do anything." - Plato ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 12:48:49 -0600 From: "Tom \"The Body\" Plagge" Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 358 Lovely, joel, but if this passes, then you win, right? At 04:45 PM 12/1/98 , you wrote: >A proposal to fix mistakes: > > > >Strike Rule 222 and renumber Rule 352 to 222. > >Replace "may" in the first sentence of Rule 357 with "to". > > > >Both of these fix oversights from the last round. Damon's new scoring rule >did not replace the old scoring rule (R222/0), and although it takes >precedence over the old one, it would be less confusing if the old one were >removed. The first sentence of Mueller's lynching rule ("It is possible for >players may be burnt at the stake.") contains a typo that should also be >fixed. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 13:17:18 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 358 At 12:48 PM 12/2/98 , you wrote: >Lovely, joel, but if this passes, then you win, right? Assuming the scoring victory condition isn't changed, yes. However, I forsee someone proposing something to raise the point level during this round. I suggest either 500 or something scaled to what proposals are worth. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 13:20:36 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Joel Uckelman has been selected to the Level 1 Court for RFJ 42: A player in limbo who sends a message to the mailing list which does anything other than re-state that the player is in limbo has performed an action equivalent to publicly stating "I'm out of limbo." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 18:07:44 CST From: Mad Oarsman Subject: Nomic: Scaling a Win Why would we scale how many points it takes to win? We already decided against scaling it according to how many points are out there when we voted down my proposal. Scaling it as Joel suggests, according to what proposal we are on would be equivalent to getting rid of the proposal point scaling factor, but would be making it more complicated. Don't we want the simplest rules possible that work instead of the most complicated set that does the same thing? Damon __________ When one rows it is not the rowing which moves the ship: rowing is only a magical ceremony by means of which one compels a demon to move the ship. -- Nietzsche ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 19:01:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Scaling a Win At 06:07 PM 12/2/98 , you wrote: > >Why would we scale how many points it takes to win? We already decided >against scaling it according to how many points are out there when we >voted down my proposal. Scaling it as Joel suggests, according to what >proposal we are on would be equivalent to getting rid of the proposal >point scaling factor, but would be making it more complicated. Don't we >want the simplest rules possible that work instead of the most >complicated set that does the same thing? > > >Damon Conversely, is there any reason for proposal value to depend on proposal number? I see three possibilities: 1. Fix a higher limit. 2. Scale the limit to proposal worth. 3. Fix proposal worth. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 21:02:36 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Scaling a Win Mad Oarsman writes: > >Why would we scale how many points it takes to win? We already decided >against scaling it according to how many points are out there when we >voted down my proposal. Scaling it as Joel suggests, according to what >proposal we are on would be equivalent to getting rid of the proposal >point scaling factor, but would be making it more complicated. Don't we >want the simplest rules possible that work instead of the most >complicated set that does the same thing? I vote for e^(e^e) as a fixed point limit. 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, 02 Dec 1998 23:02:58 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Scaling a Win At 09:02 PM 12/2/98 , you wrote: > >Mad Oarsman writes: >> >>Why would we scale how many points it takes to win? We already decided >>against scaling it according to how many points are out there when we >>voted down my proposal. Scaling it as Joel suggests, according to what >>proposal we are on would be equivalent to getting rid of the proposal >>point scaling factor, but would be making it more complicated. Don't we >>want the simplest rules possible that work instead of the most >>complicated set that does the same thing? > >I vote for e^(e^e) as a fixed point limit. > >Josh I would prefer that we a) have at least a rational number (preferably an integer) as the point limit, and b) that the limit be attainable in the forseeable future -- not approximately 3.8 million as per Josh's suggestion. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 00:31:53 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net >Proposal 342, 1 November 1998, 13:40 CST >Tom Mueller >Failed (1-5-1-1) > >Modify Rule 213 "Winning through Impossibility of Further >Play": > >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. Why did you vote against this? Is it anything that could be fixed, or is the concept just bad? If its a bad concept, what's wrong with it? Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 00:28:10 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Many props This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 1 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 2 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 3 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 4 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 101 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 102 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 103 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 104 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 105 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 106 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 107 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 109 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 110 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 111 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 112 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 113 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 114 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 115 to Mutable. *********** This is a disinterested proposal. Transmute Rule 116 to Mutable. *********** Amend Rule 204 by replacing the OLDTHINK delimited text with the MOREEXCITING delimited text. OLDTHINK If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who vote against winning proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to 10*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. OLDTHINK MOREEXCITING If a proposal is adopted each Player who voted against it shall receive 3 points. If a proposal is rejected each Player who voted for it shall receive 3 points. MOREEXCITING *********** Amend Rule 222 by replacing the BUILTINCRISIS delimited text with the QUICKFIX delimited text. BUILTINCRISIS Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. BUILTINCRISIS QUICKFIX Upon the acceptance of a Proposal, its Proposer gets 15 points. QUICKFIX *********** Commentary: Basically, I think that immutability is unnecessary. It just impedes changes and fixes. In all likelyhood, most of the immutables would stay the same due to simple lack of interest in changing them, but if it strikes anyone that they should be fixed, it should be easier. The voting process itself should prevent stupidity, and if it doesn't I think the results will be both interesting, and what we deserve. I changed all the point values in question to unvarying amounts mostly to make things easier on the Administrater. Any suggestions that would make these more likely to pass would be greatly appreciated. On the antivoting prop, I'd be just as happy seeing anti-voting repealed, but I thought that if we were going to loose the "pure justice" of no-profit voting, we may as well also get the benefits: unpredictablly interesting changes. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 01:10:48 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net Mueller writes: >Why did you vote against this? > >Is it anything that could be fixed, or is the concept just bad? > >If its a bad concept, what's wrong with it? If no one's going to pipe up, I'll guess that they voted against it so they could earn points. If it's because they didn't like it, they're buttfuckers, because we could use a rule like this, and I don't really recall people discussing changes to your proposal before voting. Josh who was the only yes vote -- 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: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 01:13:40 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Scaling a Win Joel D Uckelman writes: >>I vote for e^(e^e) as a fixed point limit. >> >>Josh > >I would prefer that we a) have at least a rational number (preferably an >integer) as the point limit, and b) that the limit be attainable in the >forseeable future -- not approximately 3.8 million as per Josh's suggestion. a) Why the bias against irrationals? [If my number is indeed irrational. I think e^pi is, and pi^e is, but I don't know about this one offhand. Shame on me.] We've already established a precedent for winning when the target score has been reached or surpassed - this just removes the possibility (or at least makes the probability very very low) of attaining the target exactly. b) I knew you were enough of a hosehead to calculate it. There's a point here. Can you find it? 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: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 03:26:20 CST From: Mad Oarsman Subject: Nomic: Tom's Proposal Personally, I liked the idea, but I thought the method wasn't thought out well enough. Sorry I hadn't said anything, but there wasn't exactly a lot of activity and I couldn't remember if we had discussed this already. Things need to be laid out deailing with how to submit the SFHD, how two players object, on what grounds they are able to object upon, etc. I actually voted against this one because I didn't like it, but if some things were to be fixed I would definitely vote for it. Damon __________ When one rows it is not the rowing which moves the ship: rowing is only a magical ceremony by means of which one compels a demon to move the ship. -- Nietzsche ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 10:19:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Rule 221/1 self-repeal Rule 221/1 repealed itself on Tuesday. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 10:23:02 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Many props At 11:28 PM 12/2/98 , you wrote: >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 1 to Mutable. > >*********** > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 2 to Mutable. > >*********** > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 3 to Mutable. > >*********** > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 4 to Mutable. > >*********** > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 101 to Mutable. > >*********** > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 102 to Mutable. > >*********** > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 103 to Mutable. > >*********** > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 104 to Mutable. > >*********** > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 105 to Mutable. > >*********** > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Transmute Rule 106 to Mutable. > >*********** Players are limited to no more than ten live proposals, thus only the preceeding have been registered as such (q.v. R225/0). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 10:28:54 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Many props >Commentary: > >Basically, I think that immutability is unnecessary. It just impedes >changes and fixes. A lot of the immutable rules protect game structure (e.g. 101) or define important things (e.g. 001-004). I see no reason to transmute them if they don't need any changes in substance. Besides, immutability is there to protect players from having some basic rights (like voting) from being abridged. > In all likelyhood, most of the immutables would stay >the same due to simple lack of interest in changing them, but if it strikes >anyone that they should be fixed, it should be easier. The voting process >itself should prevent stupidity, and if it doesn't I think the results will >be both interesting, and what we deserve. Ack. I'd much rather prevent us from falling into something that we "deserve". >I changed all the point values in question to unvarying amounts mostly to >make things easier on the Administrater. Any suggestions that would make >these more likely to pass would be greatly appreciated. I currently have no difficulties in calculating scores, so making it easier on me should not be a consideration. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 10:34:01 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Many props Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Commentary: >> >>Basically, I think that immutability is unnecessary. It just impedes >>changes and fixes. > >A lot of the immutable rules protect game structure (e.g. 101) or define >important things (e.g. 001-004). I see no reason to transmute them if they >don't need any changes in substance. Besides, immutability is there to >protect players from having some basic rights (like voting) from being >abridged. If players want to change an immutable rule, they must pass two hurdles. If they pass the first one they will most likely past the second one. So the second hurdle is basically worthless. The real value of immutability comes from its required unanimity. Why not just require unanimity to CHANGE immutable proposals, and not require proposals to be mutable to be changed? Josh -- The more I see of men, the better I like my dog. - Blaise Pascal ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 10:48:20 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Many props At 10:34 AM 12/3/98 , you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Commentary: >>> >>>Basically, I think that immutability is unnecessary. It just impedes >>>changes and fixes. >> >>A lot of the immutable rules protect game structure (e.g. 101) or define >>important things (e.g. 001-004). I see no reason to transmute them if they >>don't need any changes in substance. Besides, immutability is there to >>protect players from having some basic rights (like voting) from being >>abridged. > >If players want to change an immutable rule, they must pass two hurdles. >If they pass the first one they will most likely past the second one. >So the second hurdle is basically worthless. The real value of immutability >comes from its required unanimity. > >Why not just require unanimity to CHANGE immutable proposals, and >not require proposals to be mutable to be changed? > > > >Josh I agree. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:01:53 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: points I would prefer that proposals that receive more votes be worth more. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. i'm in limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 14:41:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net At 11:31 PM 12/2/98 , you wrote: >>Proposal 342, 1 November 1998, 13:40 CST >>Tom Mueller >>Failed (1-5-1-1) >> >>Modify Rule 213 "Winning through Impossibility of Further >>Play": >> >>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. Substantially similar? Who determines this? >>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. Of course, this couldn't apply to immutable rules. Again, if the problem is with the judicial system, we may be divided on whether the RFJ can be appealed. >>If the Screaming For Help Document is successfully objected to, >>another shall be issued by the RFJ's Complainant until one is >>accepted. Division over whether there is a problem could prevent a SFHD from ever being accepted. >>When an Screaming For Help Document is accepted, its author is >>credited with a win and the game continues. Thus anyone could win at any time by screwing up the game -- something to which I am opposed. Retaining turns for the purpose of determining who wins if the game cannot continue minimizes game-unbalancing activity. >>This rule takes precedence over every other rule. > >Why did you vote against this? > >Is it anything that could be fixed, or is the concept just bad? > >If its a bad concept, what's wrong with it? See comments above. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 14:58:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: cast your vote for who won Voting on who won the last game (Dakota Bailey, Nate Ellefson, or no one) will close at 4:01 CST, 4 December 1998, as per Rule 344/0. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 15:10:21 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection >Joel Uckelman has been selected to the Level 1 Court for RFJ 42: > >A player in limbo who sends a message to the mailing list which does >anything other than re-state that the player is in limbo has performed an >action equivalent to publicly stating "I'm out of limbo." According to paragraph B of R319/0, "A player may go into Limbo . . . by . . . Publicly declaring him/herself in Limbo." Similarly, paragraph A states that "Publicly declaring him/herself out of Limbo" is one of two ways (the other being forfeit) to remove oneself from Limbo. The method of declaring oneself to be in Limbo has been narrowly construed as personally sending a message to the list unambiguously stating "I am in Limbo" or the like. The act of "public declaration" has always before been held to be a definate act, i.e. a clear statement must be present for it to have occurred. There is no indication within R319/0 that a different sense of "public declaration" is meant with respect to coming out of Limbo. Thus, an explicit statement is likewise required to exit Limbo. The Court rules FALSE on the statement. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 19:09:50 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>When an Screaming For Help Document is accepted, its author is >>>credited with a win and the game continues. > >Thus anyone could win at any time by screwing up the game -- something to >which I am opposed. Retaining turns for the purpose of determining who wins >if the game cannot continue minimizes game-unbalancing activity. So why in the fucking hell is the person on whose turn a game fuckup falls more entitled to a win than the person who fucked it up? The statement above merely sets things closer to the ideal. Even without this statement, anyone could win at any time by fucking up the game. This just sets things right. Josh -- 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: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 19:37:00 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net At 07:09 PM 12/3/98 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>When an Screaming For Help Document is accepted, its author is >>>>credited with a win and the game continues. >> >>Thus anyone could win at any time by screwing up the game -- something to >>which I am opposed. Retaining turns for the purpose of determining who wins >>if the game cannot continue minimizes game-unbalancing activity. > >So why in the fucking hell is the person on whose turn a game fuckup >falls more entitled to a win than the person who fucked it up? The >statement above merely sets things closer to the ideal. The idea is that players will avoid doing things to derail the game when it's someone else's turn. >Even without this statement, anyone could win at any time by fucking >up the game. This just sets things right. Not so. The current state of affairs makes game-saboteurs wait until their turns come up, rather than allowing everyone to assail the game simultaneously. The wait potentially also reduces the number of win attempts, as conditions may no longer be favorable for a certain win strategy once one's turn comes up. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:00:10 -0600 From: Sick Boy Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net At 07:37 PM 12/3/98 , you wrote: >Not so. The current state of affairs makes game-saboteurs wait until their >turns come up, rather than allowing everyone to assail the game >simultaneously. The wait potentially also reduces the number of win >attempts, as conditions may no longer be favorable for a certain win >strategy once one's turn comes up. I'm starting to wonder whether we shouldn't just eliminate that winning condition altogether and let potential saboteurs throw their energy into scamming for points. This, in my opinion, would lead to a more interesting game, and would let it go on longer, develop more fully. In such spirit: PROPOSAL: ---- Strike rule 213 and delete this rule upon passage. ---- GWIB ANNOUNCEMENT: I declare myself the GWIB Master of the Silliest GWIB Yet. Each player choosing to join this GWIB shall toss 5 Subers into a common "pot" at any time he forgets to put some silliness into each message he sends to nomic@iastate.edu. After three voting periods, the pot shall be distributed evenly. The goal of this GWIB is to add more absurdity and general foolishness to this already quite silly list. To qualify as silly, messages must at least have a silly .signature. Any player in the Silliest GWIB Yet may reprimand any other player for lack of silliness, and a majority vote amongst the players shall force him to pay the fine. ---- -Tom "Margret Thatcher Naked on a Cold Day" Plagge ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:21:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net At 09:00 PM 12/3/98 , you wrote: >At 07:37 PM 12/3/98 , you wrote: >>Not so. The current state of affairs makes game-saboteurs wait until their >>turns come up, rather than allowing everyone to assail the game >>simultaneously. The wait potentially also reduces the number of win >>attempts, as conditions may no longer be favorable for a certain win >>strategy once one's turn comes up. > >I'm starting to wonder whether we shouldn't just eliminate that winning >condition altogether and let potential saboteurs throw their energy into >scamming for points. This, in my opinion, would lead to a more interesting >game, and would let it go on longer, develop more fully. In such spirit: >PROPOSAL: >---- >Strike rule 213 and delete this rule upon passage. >---- My understanding of this is that if your proposal contains only directives, it does not become a rule -- it just caries our the directives. Thus, you could just have your proposal read: Strike Rule 213. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:31:39 -0600 From: Sick Boy Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net At 09:21 PM 12/3/98 , you wrote: >>PROPOSAL: >>---- >>Strike rule 213 and delete this rule upon passage. >>---- > >My understanding of this is that if your proposal contains only directives, >it does not become a rule -- it just caries our the directives. Thus, you >could just have your proposal read: Strike Rule 213. Make it so. ---- My hovercraft is full of eels. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:33:01 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net Uckelman wrote: >Josh wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>When an Screaming For Help Document is accepted, its author is >>>>>credited with a win and the game continues. >>> >>>Thus anyone could win at any time by screwing up the game -- something to >>>which I am opposed. Retaining turns for the purpose of determining who wins >>>if the game cannot continue minimizes game-unbalancing activity. >> >>So why in the fucking hell is the person on whose turn a game fuckup >>falls more entitled to a win than the person who fucked it up? The >>statement above merely sets things closer to the ideal. > >The idea is that players will avoid doing things to derail the game when >it's someone else's turn. Another way of putting it is that players will let errors lurk until they can personally benefit from them. Personally, I'd rather give people an incentive to keep the ruleset as clean as possible in as swift a manner as possible. Moreover, if someone purposefuly tries to break the game to get this done then it will probably involve SOME kind of interesting tangled hierarchy or paradox that was NOT readily apparent when it was voted for. IF such sabotage were successfully perpetrated, then it would be worth the win to see it happen, consider its structure, and "discuss/plot against" it. These positions are not contradictory in the sense that stupid errors are liable to be typos or mismatching referents or something.... But planned errors are liable to be much more interesting and clever. >>Even without this statement, anyone could win at any time by fucking >>up the game. This just sets things right. > >Not so. The current state of affairs makes game-saboteurs wait until their >turns come up, rather than allowing everyone to assail the game >simultaneously. The wait potentially also reduces the number of win >attempts, as conditions may no longer be favorable for a certain win >strategy once one's turn comes up. The only way I can see a spontaneous game breaker now would be by RFJ (not sure how but wouldm't be surprised if SOMETHING was there). But I don't see how waiting does anything but perpetuate a bad rule and keep people silent about the tricks that they see... at least so long as they even care about wins. Personally I don't, I'm more interested in a truly safe, interesting nomic. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:42:40 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net Joel D Uckelman writes: >>---- >>Strike rule 213 and delete this rule upon passage. >>---- > >My understanding of this is that if your proposal contains only directives, >it does not become a rule -- it just caries our the directives. Thus, you >could just have your proposal read: Strike Rule 213. It does not become a rule, unless it says so (implcitly, above). Why pass up the chance to have a rule repeal itself? Josh -- Abstractness, sometimes hurled as a reproach at mathematics, is its chief glory and its surest title to practical usefulness. It is also the source of such beauty as may spring from mathematics - E.T. Bell ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:43:40 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Discussing a failed safety net Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 07:09 PM 12/3/98 , you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>When an Screaming For Help Document is accepted, its author is >>>>>credited with a win and the game continues. >>> >>>Thus anyone could win at any time by screwing up the game -- something to >>>which I am opposed. Retaining turns for the purpose of determining who wins >>>if the game cannot continue minimizes game-unbalancing activity. >> >>So why in the fucking hell is the person on whose turn a game fuckup >>falls more entitled to a win than the person who fucked it up? The >>statement above merely sets things closer to the ideal. > >The idea is that players will avoid doing things to derail the game when >it's someone else's turn. > >>Even without this statement, anyone could win at any time by fucking >>up the game. This just sets things right. > >Not so. The current state of affairs makes game-saboteurs wait until their >turns come up, rather than allowing everyone to assail the game >simultaneously. The wait potentially also reduces the number of win >attempts, as conditions may no longer be favorable for a certain win >strategy once one's turn comes up. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu But at least we'll keep the trains running on time. -- If it sounds GOOD to YOU, it's bitchen; and if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 23:01:45 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Many [but fewer] props Uckelman wrote: >Mueller wrote: >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 1 to Mutable. >> I retract this. >>*********** >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 2 to Mutable. >> >>*********** >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 3 to Mutable. >> >>*********** >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 4 to Mutable. >> >>*********** >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 101 to Mutable. >> I retract this. >>*********** >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 102 to Mutable. >> >>*********** >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 103 to Mutable. >> >>*********** >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 104 to Mutable. >> I retract this. >>*********** >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 105 to Mutable. >> I retract this. >>*********** >> >>This is a disinterested proposal. >> >>Transmute Rule 106 to Mutable. >> >>*********** > >Players are limited to no more than ten live proposals, thus only the >preceeding have been registered as such (q.v. R225/0). > Ooops! In the new space allowed because of the four Props I retracted I submit: *********** Amend Rule 204 by replacing the OLDTHINK delimited text with the MOREEXCITING delimited text. OLDTHINK If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who vote against winning proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to 10*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. OLDTHINK MOREEXCITING If a proposal is adopted each Player who voted against it shall receive 3 points. If a proposal is rejected each Player who voted for it shall receive 3 points. MOREEXCITING *********** Amend Rule 222 by replacing the BUILTINCRISIS delimited text with the QUICKFIX delimited text. BUILTINCRISIS Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. BUILTINCRISIS QUICKFIX Upon the acceptance of a Proposal, its Proposer gets (20)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes) points. QUICKFIX *********** Repeal Rule 225 *********** If Rule 213 exists then modify modify it by replacing its entire text with the following SAFEQUICK delmited text. Otherwise, create Rule 213 with the same SAFEQUICK delmited text: SAFEQUICK If it seems that (except by the application of this rule) further play is impossible, or the legality of a move cannot be determined with 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 has been ruled True (in the opinion of the Judge(s) who are assigned it), 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 modifications to be made to the ruleset. Unless two players object to the Screaming For Help Document within three days, it is accepted and the modifications it describes are applied to the ruleset. Any Screaming For Help Document may be objected to for any reason. The "modifications" of a Screaming For Help Document are not "rule-changes", and as such do not require a vote (merely silence), and may effect any rule(s) regardless of their mutability. If the Screaming For Help Document is successfully objected to, another may be issued by the RFJ's Complainant until one is accepted. Alternately, they can abandone the effort if they feel there are too many political obstacles to its implementation. 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. SAFEQUICK ************ Commentary: The author bonus was retied to proposal's approval rating. Rule 225 is worthless and should be gotten rid of... let the body politic establish the bounds of what they will and won't stand for by discussion and the usage of their vote in each case! Thanks for all the comments on the Saftey Net Prop: Now specified are things like who decides "substantial similarity" and what reasons players can use to object to SFHDs. Especail thanks to Joel for pointing out the tricky business with Immutability, I would have missed that were it not for his comment. As to the ability of SFHDs to affect Immutables, I think that it is good and perhaps crucial if those happen to be the lame rule (after all, they are less suseptible to fixes). Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:51:54 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: try again I'm out of Limbo. >The first sentence of Mueller's lynching rule ("It is possible for >players may be burnt at the stake.") contains a typo that should also be >fixed. I don't know if this is a good road to start down. By correcting typos with new proposals, it allows Players to intentionally mess up, giving them an opportunity to score again by "fixing" their mistakes. Maybe we should establish an alternative to a formal Proposal for correcting things such as typos. new prop: The author of a passing Proposal may submit a Revised Version of the text of the Proposal that corrects typographical errors, although such a revision shall not change the effect of the Proposal. The Revised Version must be publicly submitted within the following turn. Players who voted upon the original Proposal have 72 hours to submit their vote upon the Revised Version to the Administrator. Points are not affected by voting upon a Revised Version. If a Revised Version receives a majority vote, it shall be considered the text passed by the original Proposal. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. i'm in limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 01:13:08 -0600 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 01:13:44 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn i'm out of limbo. new prop: Any player not voting in the affirmative for the proposal that creates this Rule shall be fined 10 points. This rule shall strike itself upon the completion of its directive and be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. i'm in limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 01:11:59 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: new prop i'm out of limbo. I join the Silliest GWIB Yet. new prop: Any player not voting in the affirmative for the proposal that creates this Rule shall be fined 10 points. This rule shall strike itself upon the completion of its directive and be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. i'm in limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 09:50:42 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: win voting results The results from the voting on whom won the last game: 3 for no one (Kortbein, Mueller, Uckelman) 1 for Dakota Bailey (Osborn) 1 for Nate Ellefson (Plagge) Note that neither (!) Dakota nor Nate voted. Hmmm. Rule 344 will now repeal itself. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 11:59:12 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: win voting results Joel D Uckelman writes: >The results from the voting on whom won the last game: > >3 for no one (Kortbein, Mueller, Uckelman) >1 for Dakota Bailey (Osborn) >1 for Nate Ellefson (Plagge) > >Note that neither (!) Dakota nor Nate voted. Hmmm. > >Rule 344 will now repeal itself. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu Does anyone else find this very funny (ha ha style, not uh-oh style)? Josh -- Abstractness, sometimes hurled as a reproach at mathematics, is its chief glory and its surest title to practical usefulness. It is also the source of such beauty as may spring from mathematics - E.T. Bell ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 13:21:50 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Many [but fewer] props At 10:01 PM 12/3/98 , Mueller wrote: > >Amend Rule 204 by replacing the OLDTHINK delimited text with the >MOREEXCITING delimited text. > >OLDTHINK >If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who >vote against winning proposals shall each receive a number of points equal >to 10*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. >OLDTHINK > >MOREEXCITING >If a proposal is adopted each Player who voted against it shall receive 3 >points. If a proposal is rejected each Player who voted for it shall >receive 3 points. >MOREEXCITING > >*********** I don't see how this is more exciting. There shouldn't be a point reward to those who favor a proposal -- the passage of the proposal is the reward. Additionally, it will provide an incentive to vote for bad proposals. >Amend Rule 222 by replacing the BUILTINCRISIS delimited text with the >QUICKFIX delimited text. > >BUILTINCRISIS >Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their Proposals, >points equal to (proposal number-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral >votes), rounded to the nearest integer. >BUILTINCRISIS > >QUICKFIX >Upon the acceptance of a Proposal, its Proposer gets (20)(favorable >votes/total non-neutral votes) points. >QUICKFIX I don't like the idea of only awarding points for proposals that pass -- this makes the failure of a proposal a complete failure (-10 points) even if it only lost by one vote. >*********** > >Repeal Rule 225 Rule 225 provides an important safeguard by preventing Players from making a limitless number of proposals. If you think 10 is too few, raise the limit rather than eliminate it. >*********** > >If Rule 213 exists then modify modify it by replacing its entire text with >the following SAFEQUICK delmited text. Otherwise, create Rule 213 with the >same SAFEQUICK delmited text: > >SAFEQUICK >If it seems that (except by the application of this rule) further play is >impossible, or the legality of a move cannot be determined with 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 has been ruled True >(in the opinion of the Judge(s) who are assigned it), 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 modifications to >be made to the ruleset. Unless two players object to the Screaming For Help >Document within three days, it is accepted and the modifications it >describes are applied to the ruleset. Any Screaming For Help Document may >be objected to for any reason. The "modifications" of a Screaming For Help >Document are not "rule-changes", and as such do not require a vote (merely >silence), and may effect any rule(s) regardless of their mutability. ^^^^^^ 1. I believe you want "affect" here. 2. Regardless of whether this authorizes changes to immutable rules, immutable rules may still only be changed through transmutation. >If the Screaming For Help Document is successfully objected to, >another may be issued by the RFJ's Complainant until one is >accepted. Alternately, they can abandone the effort if they feel there are >too many political obstacles to its implementation. "Abandon" has no "e". >When an Screaming For Help Document is accepted, its author is >credited with a win and the game continues. I agree with Plagge that wins by contradiction should be eliminated. >This rule takes precedence over every other rule. >SAFEQUICK > >************ >Tom Mueller J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 13:33:33 -0600 From: Sick Boy Subject: Nomic: Hmm.. Joel informed me that Mueller's proposal, since it came after mine, would recreate the rule I tried to destroy. This would irritate me greatly. Therefore, at this time, I retract my proposal and repropose it: --- Delete rule 213. --- There. Take that and your bloody Screaming for Help Document and shove it up......err....sorry. :) ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 13:38:23 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 378 ************************ Add paragraph D to Rule 319/0: D. Players in Limbo must remain so for no less than 48 hours. *********************** Why this is important: It deters players (Nick) from going into and out of Limbo frequently for no apparent reason. Thus, Limbo will be geared more at players who will be away, not have time, etc. rather than those who just want to temporarily slip out of Limbo to take game action (Nick). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 13:30:04 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: try again At 12:51 AM 12/4/98 , you wrote: >I'm out of Limbo. > >>The first sentence of Mueller's lynching rule ("It is possible for >>players may be burnt at the stake.") contains a typo that should also be >>fixed. > >I don't know if this is a good road to start down. By correcting typos with >new proposals, it allows Players to intentionally mess up, giving them an >opportunity to score again by "fixing" their mistakes. Maybe we should >establish an alternative to a formal Proposal for correcting things such as >typos. I fail to see the need for this -- this proposal is the first to fix typos, as virtually every other typo was caught in advance. I'm more amenable to starting a tradition of voting against things with typos. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 19:51:32 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal 378 Joel D Uckelman writes: >************************ >Add paragraph D to Rule 319/0: > >D. Players in Limbo must remain so for no less than 48 hours. > >*********************** > >Why this is important: It deters players (Nick) from going into and out of >Limbo frequently for no apparent reason. Thus, Limbo will be geared more at >players who will be away, not have time, etc. rather than those who just >want to temporarily slip out of Limbo to take game action (Nick). Is he doing anything wrong? The main result of his limboing seems to be that he is unavailable for judge selection. We've often talked of somehow changing the judging system so that those who didn't want to be judges weren't, and so that uber-shitty judges aren't. How is this not conducive to that? Josh -- Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems. - Rene Descartes ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 09:50:20 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: ubber-shitty I must admit: I am an ubber-shitty judge. Judegments I've passed tend to be unpopular, at the very least. For the good of Berserker Nomic, I shouldn't be a Judge while under the influence of mind altering farmasuetickles. For one thing, I am prone to rash behavior. Witness the following: I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. This is going to mean a lot of action for a Saturday. I derive more enjoyment from making the game do weird and interesting things than I do from trying to understand what fools such as I are doing. SoŠ Players selected to serve in the Judiciary may decline their appointment with no penalty if their desire to decline is made public before they accrue a penalty. On July 4, 2076, this rule shall, for that one day, be replaced by a patriotic display of fireworks. The enitre text of this message is a new prop. People like me should not be allowed to serve on a Judiciary, but we probably will anyway. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. i'm in limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 18:53:06 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: ubber-shitty Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I must admit: I am an ubber-shitty judge. Judegments I've passed tend to be >unpopular, at the very least. For the good of Berserker Nomic, I shouldn't >be a Judge while under the influence of mind altering farmasuetickles. For >one thing, I am prone to rash behavior. Witness the following: > >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. > >This is going to mean a lot of action for a Saturday. I derive more >enjoyment from making the game do weird and interesting things than I do >from trying to understand what fools such as I are doing. > >SoŠ > >Players selected to serve in the Judiciary may decline their appointment >with no penalty if their desire to decline is made public before they >accrue a penalty. > >On July 4, 2076, this rule shall, for that one day, be replaced by a >patriotic display of fireworks. > >The enitre text of this message is a new prop. > >People like me should not be allowed to serve on a Judiciary, but we >probably will anyway. > > >n >the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. >i'm in limbo. What anal rapist put you in a bad mood last night? 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: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 20:28:39 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: page updates I appologize for not having updated the page for a few days, but I am stricken with the dead-week paper-writing frenzy (as is Josh, I believe). Hopefully, we'll be able to pick things up a little next week or the week after. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 20:32:03 CST From: the ocean is the ultimate solution Subject: Re: Nomic: page updates Joel D Uckelman writes: >I appologize for not having updated the page for a few days, but I am >stricken with the dead-week paper-writing frenzy (as is Josh, I believe). >Hopefully, we'll be able to pick things up a little next week or the week >after. I am stricken with Lyme disease. Please help by sending your donations to Josh Kortbein Relief Fund 1234 Michigan Avenue Ames, IA 50014 Josh -- "The best students always are flunking. Every good teacher knows that." -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 21:22:07 -0600 From: Sick Boy Subject: Re: Nomic: page updates At 08:32 PM 12/9/98 , Kortbein spews forth: >I am stricken with Lyme disease. Please help by sending your >donations to > >Josh Kortbein Relief Fund >1234 Michigan Avenue >Ames, IA 50014 > I am stricken with an uncontrollable urge to dance naked in a field of dandelions. Also I have mono. I think we both know who *really* needs your donations. Embassy of the Russian Federation His Excellency Yuli M. Vorontsov, Ambassador 2650 Wisconsin Ave. NW Washington, DC 20007 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 21:35:49 CST From: the ocean is the ultimate solution Subject: Re: Nomic: page updates Sick Boy writes: >At 08:32 PM 12/9/98 , Kortbein spews forth: >>I am stricken with Lyme disease. Please help by sending your >>donations to >> >>Josh Kortbein Relief Fund >>1234 Michigan Avenue >>Ames, IA 50014 >> > >I am stricken with an uncontrollable urge to dance naked in a field of >dandelions. Also I have mono. I think we both know who *really* needs >your donations. > >Embassy of the Russian Federation >His Excellency Yuli M. Vorontsov, Ambassador >2650 Wisconsin Ave. NW >Washington, DC 20007 > > > I call for Mr. Plagge to be stricken from the record. -- 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, 09 Dec 1998 23:46:37 -0600 From: Sick Boy Subject: Re: Nomic: page updates At 09:35 PM 12/9/98 , Kortbein babbles incoherently: > >Sick Boy writes: >>At 08:32 PM 12/9/98 , Kortbein spews forth: >>>I am stricken with Lyme disease. Please help by sending your >>>donations to >>> >>>Josh Kortbein Relief Fund >>>1234 Michigan Avenue >>>Ames, IA 50014 >>> >> >>I am stricken with an uncontrollable urge to dance naked in a field of >>dandelions. Also I have mono. I think we both know who *really* needs >>your donations. >> >>Embassy of the Russian Federation >>His Excellency Yuli M. Vorontsov, Ambassador >>2650 Wisconsin Ave. NW >>Washington, DC 20007 >> > >I call for Mr. Plagge to be stricken from the record. I call for Mr. Kortbein to be stricken. And also smitten. Perhaps by a 286 dropped from the fourth-floor fire escape*. --- Yuli Vorontsov * Details will later emerge, no doubt. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:04:51 CST From: the ocean is the ultimate solution Subject: Re: Nomic: page updates Sick Boy writes: >At 09:35 PM 12/9/98 , Kortbein babbles incoherently: >> >>Sick Boy writes: >>>At 08:32 PM 12/9/98 , Kortbein spews forth: >>>>I am stricken with Lyme disease. Please help by sending your >>>>donations to >>>> >>>>Josh Kortbein Relief Fund >>>>1234 Michigan Avenue >>>>Ames, IA 50014 >>>> >>> >>>I am stricken with an uncontrollable urge to dance naked in a field of >>>dandelions. Also I have mono. I think we both know who *really* needs >>>your donations. >>> >>>Embassy of the Russian Federation >>>His Excellency Yuli M. Vorontsov, Ambassador >>>2650 Wisconsin Ave. NW >>>Washington, DC 20007 >>> >> >>I call for Mr. Plagge to be stricken from the record. > >I call for Mr. Kortbein to be stricken. And also smitten. Perhaps by a >286 dropped from the fourth-floor fire escape*. >--- >Yuli Vorontsov >* Details will later emerge, no doubt. I call for Mr. Plagge to be smoten. May whatever gods he believes in have mercy on his soul. Josh -- If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:52:35 CST From: Mad Oarsman Subject: Nomic: Proposal proposal I think we should have a rule that allows our nomic to kick someone out by unanimous-1 vote, for cases such as Mike's so that we might be able to deal with problems in more direct ways. The person could always rejoin if they really want to play. It just seems like a good safeguard against sweeping boredom like Mike's uneventful pseudo-ploy. Damon __________ I love you baby (two beat pause), no shit. -- William Matthews ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:55:44 CST From: modern life is rubbish Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal proposal Mad Oarsman writes: > >I think we should have a rule that allows our nomic to kick someone out >by unanimous-1 vote, for cases such as Mike's so that we might be able to >deal with problems in more direct ways. > >The person could always rejoin if they really want to play. It just seems >like a good safeguard against sweeping boredom like Mike's uneventful >pseudo-ploy. I'm just waiting for Mr. Tom to say "if we had steak burning" josh we'd have stinky cow -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:03:42 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal proposal At 12:55 PM 12/11/98 , you wrote: > >Mad Oarsman writes: >> >>I think we should have a rule that allows our nomic to kick someone out >>by unanimous-1 vote, for cases such as Mike's so that we might be able to >>deal with problems in more direct ways. >> >>The person could always rejoin if they really want to play. It just seems >>like a good safeguard against sweeping boredom like Mike's uneventful >>pseudo-ploy. > >I'm just waiting for Mr. Tom to say "if we had steak burning" > > >josh >we'd have stinky cow Um, we _do_ have stake burning. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:51:44 -0600 From: Sick Boy Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal proposal At 01:03 PM 12/11/98 , you wrote: >At 12:55 PM 12/11/98 , you wrote: >> >>Mad Oarsman writes: >>> >>>I think we should have a rule that allows our nomic to kick someone out >>>by unanimous-1 vote, for cases such as Mike's so that we might be able to >>>deal with problems in more direct ways. >>> >>>The person could always rejoin if they really want to play. It just seems >>>like a good safeguard against sweeping boredom like Mike's uneventful >>>pseudo-ploy. >> >>I'm just waiting for Mr. Tom to say "if we had steak burning" >> >> >>josh >>we'd have stinky cow > >Um, we _do_ have stake burning. > The potential for abuse of a proposal like this is enormous, and probably outweighs the benefits, in my opinion. But grilling steak does sound good.... -Yuli M. Vorontsov ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 18:17:02 CST From: modern life is rubbish Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >Um, we _do_ have stake burning. "It's a joke, son, y'see?" -- "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: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:34:47 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting I wasn't paying attention (nor was anyone else, apparently) when this happened, but voting on our current batch of proposals should have started at 16:01 CST, 9 December. That's three days ago. Once a majority of eligible voters have cast ballots, voting will end -- I'll get that ballot out right away. Also, regular updates of the web page will resume, either today or tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:34:56 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot P358 Strike Rule 222 and renumber Rule 352 to 222. Replace "may" in the first sentence of Rule 357 with "to". --------------------------------------- P360, disinterested Transmute Rule 2 to Mutable. ---------------------------------------- P361, disinterested Transmute Rule 3 to Mutable. ---------------------------------------- P362, disinterested Transmute Rule 4 to Mutable. ---------------------------------------- P364, disinterested Transmute Rule 102 to Mutable. ----------------------------------------- P365, disinterested Transmute Rule 103 to Mutable. ----------------------------------------- P368, disinterested Transmute Rule 106 to Mutable. ------------------------------------------ P370 Amend Rule 204 by replacing the OLDTHINK delimited text with the MOREEXCITING delimited text. OLDTHINK If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who vote against winning proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to 10*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. OLDTHINK MOREEXCITING If a proposal is adopted each Player who voted against it shall receive 3 points. If a proposal is rejected each Player who voted for it shall receive 3 points. MOREEXCITING ---------------------------------- P371 Amend Rule 222 by replacing the BUILTINCRISIS delimited text with the QUICKFIX delimited text. BUILTINCRISIS Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their Proposals, points equal to (proposal number-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. BUILTINCRISIS QUICKFIX Upon the acceptance of a Proposal, its Proposer gets (20)(favorable votes/total non-neutral votes) points. QUICKFIX ------------------------------------ P372 Repeal Rule 225. ------------------------------------ P373 If Rule 213 exists then modify modify it by replacing its entire text with the following SAFEQUICK delmited text. Otherwise, create Rule 213 with the same SAFEQUICK delmited text: SAFEQUICK If it seems that (except by the application of this rule) further play is impossible, or the legality of a move cannot be determined with 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 has been ruled True (in the opinion of the Judge(s) who are assigned it), 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 modifications to be made to the ruleset. Unless two players object to the Screaming For Help Document within three days, it is accepted and the modifications it describes are applied to the ruleset. Any Screaming For Help Document may be objected to for any reason. The "modifications" of a Screaming For Help Document are not "rule-changes", and as such do not require a vote (merely silence), and may effect any rule(s) regardless of their mutability. If the Screaming For Help Document is successfully objected to, another may be issued by the RFJ's Complainant until one is accepted. Alternately, they can abandone the effort if they feel there are too many political obstacles to its implementation. 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. SAFEQUICK ------------------------------------- P374 The author of a passing Proposal may submit a Revised Version of the text of the Proposal that corrects typographical errors, although such a revision shall not change the effect of the Proposal. The Revised Version must be publicly submitted within the following turn. Players who voted upon the original Proposal have 72 hours to submit their vote upon the Revised Version to the Administrator. Points are not affected by voting upon a Revised Version. If a Revised Version receives a majority vote, it shall be considered the text passed by the original Proposal. ---------------------------------------- P375 Any player not voting in the affirmative for the proposal that creates this Rule shall be fined 10 points. This rule shall strike itself upon the completion of its directive and be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. ---------------------------------------- P376 Any player not voting in the affirmative for the proposal that creates this Rule shall be fined 10 points. This rule shall strike itself upon the completion of its directive and be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. ----------------------------------------- P377 Any player not voting in the affirmative for the proposal that creates this Rule shall be fined 10 points. This rule shall strike itself upon the completion of its directive and be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. ----------------------------------------- P378 Strike Rule 213. ------------------------------------------ P379 Add paragraph D to Rule 319/0: D. Players in Limbo must remain so for no less than 48 hours. ------------------------------------------- P380 [NB: I didn't really know how to handle this one, because of the "The entire text of this message is a new prop." I'm not sure if this is the correct text of the proposal or not] I must admit: I am an ubber-shitty judge. Judegments I've passed tend to be unpopular, at the very least. For the good of Berserker Nomic, I shouldn't be a Judge while under the influence of mind altering farmasuetickles. For one thing, I am prone to rash behavior. Witness the following: I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. This is going to mean a lot of action for a Saturday. I derive more enjoyment from making the game do weird and interesting things than I do from trying to understand what fools such as I are doing. SoŠ Players selected to serve in the Judiciary may decline their appointment with no penalty if their desire to decline is made public before they accrue a penalty. On July 4, 2076, this rule shall, for that one day, be replaced by a patriotic display of fireworks. The enitre text of this message is a new prop. People like me should not be allowed to serve on a Judiciary, but we probably will anyway. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. i'm in limbo. ------------------------------------------ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 17:13:49 CST From: the possibilities of annulation Subject: Nomic: I, Remo Alright, let it fly. -- It turns out that an eerie type of chaos can lurk just behind a facade of order - and yet, deep inside the chaos lurks an even eerier type of order. - Douglas Hofstadter ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 17:13:22 CST From: the possibilities of annulation Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot i abstain on all counts Joel D Uckelman writes: >P358 > >Strike Rule 222 and renumber Rule 352 to 222. > >Replace "may" in the first sentence of Rule 357 with "to". > >--------------------------------------- >P360, disinterested > >Transmute Rule 2 to Mutable. > >---------------------------------------- >P361, disinterested > >Transmute Rule 3 to Mutable. > >---------------------------------------- >P362, disinterested > >Transmute Rule 4 to Mutable. > >---------------------------------------- >P364, disinterested > >Transmute Rule 102 to Mutable. > >----------------------------------------- >P365, disinterested > >Transmute Rule 103 to Mutable. > >----------------------------------------- >P368, disinterested > >Transmute Rule 106 to Mutable. > >------------------------------------------ >P370 > >Amend Rule 204 by replacing the OLDTHINK delimited text with the >MOREEXCITING delimited text. > >OLDTHINK > >If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who >vote against winning proposals shall each receive a number of points equal >to 10*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. > >OLDTHINK > >MOREEXCITING > >If a proposal is adopted each Player who voted against it shall receive 3 >points. If a proposal is rejected each Player who voted for it shall >receive 3 points. > >MOREEXCITING > >---------------------------------- >P371 > >Amend Rule 222 by replacing the BUILTINCRISIS delimited text with the >QUICKFIX delimited text. > >BUILTINCRISIS > >Proposers shall be awarded, upon the passage or failure of their Proposals, >points equal to (proposal number-291)(favorable votes/total non-neutral >votes), rounded to the nearest integer. > >BUILTINCRISIS > >QUICKFIX > >Upon the acceptance of a Proposal, its Proposer gets (20)(favorable >votes/total non-neutral votes) points. > >QUICKFIX > >------------------------------------ >P372 > >Repeal Rule 225. > >------------------------------------ >P373 > >If Rule 213 exists then modify modify it by replacing its entire text with >the following SAFEQUICK delmited text. Otherwise, create Rule 213 with the >same SAFEQUICK delmited text: > >SAFEQUICK > >If it seems that (except by the application of this rule) further play is >impossible, or the legality of a move cannot be determined with 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 has been ruled True >(in the opinion of the Judge(s) who are assigned it), 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 modifications to >be made to the ruleset. Unless two players object to the Screaming For Help >Document within three days, it is accepted and the modifications it >describes are applied to the ruleset. Any Screaming For Help Document may >be objected to for any reason. The "modifications" of a Screaming For Help >Document are not "rule-changes", and as such do not require a vote (merely >silence), and may effect any rule(s) regardless of their mutability. > >If the Screaming For Help Document is successfully objected to, another may >be issued by the RFJ's Complainant until one is accepted. Alternately, they >can abandone the effort if they feel there are too many political obstacles >to its implementation. > >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. > >SAFEQUICK > >------------------------------------- >P374 > >The author of a passing Proposal may submit a Revised Version of the text >of the Proposal that corrects typographical errors, although such a >revision shall not change the effect of the Proposal. The Revised Version >must be publicly submitted within the following turn. Players who voted >upon the original Proposal have 72 hours to submit their vote upon the >Revised Version to the Administrator. Points are not affected by voting >upon a Revised Version. If a Revised Version receives a majority vote, it >shall be considered the text passed by the original Proposal. > >---------------------------------------- >P375 > >Any player not voting in the affirmative for the proposal that creates this >Rule shall be fined 10 points. > >This rule shall strike itself upon the completion of its directive and be >replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. > >---------------------------------------- >P376 > >Any player not voting in the affirmative for the proposal that creates this >Rule shall be fined 10 points. > >This rule shall strike itself upon the completion of its directive and be >replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. > >----------------------------------------- >P377 > >Any player not voting in the affirmative for the proposal that creates this >Rule shall be fined 10 points. > >This rule shall strike itself upon the completion of its directive and be >replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. > >----------------------------------------- >P378 > >Strike Rule 213. > >------------------------------------------ >P379 > >Add paragraph D to Rule 319/0: > >D. Players in Limbo must remain so for no less than 48 hours. > >------------------------------------------- >P380 > >[NB: I didn't really know how to handle this one, because of the "The >entire text of this message is a new prop." I'm not sure if this is the >correct text of the proposal or not] > >I must admit: I am an ubber-shitty judge. Judegments I've passed tend to be >unpopular, at the very least. For the good of Berserker Nomic, I shouldn't >be a Judge while under the influence of mind altering farmasuetickles. For >one thing, I am prone to rash behavior. Witness the following: > >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of >LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm >in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. I'm out of LImbo. I'm in Limbo. >I'm out of LImbo. > >This is going to mean a lot of action for a Saturday. I derive more >enjoyment from making the game do weird and interesting things than I do >from trying to understand what fools such as I are doing. > >SoŠ > >Players selected to serve in the Judiciary may decline their appointment >with no penalty if their desire to decline is made public before they >accrue a penalty. > >On July 4, 2076, this rule shall, for that one day, be replaced by a >patriotic display of fireworks. > >The enitre text of this message is a new prop. > >People like me should not be allowed to serve on a Judiciary, but we >probably will anyway. > >n >the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. >i'm in limbo. >------------------------------------------ > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu -- "All synthesizers are programmed white." - Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 17:42:13 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: I'm out of Limbo. I'm out of Limbo. n... ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:12:46 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: wierd voting quirk Due to a quirk in the voting rules, voting on all proposals has not ended simultaneously. Voting on proposals 371, 375, 376, 377, 378, and 379 is still open. Voting has closed on: P358 passed (3-1-1-2). P360 failed (0-1-0-6). P361 failed (0-1-0-6). P362 failed (0-1-0-6). P364 failed (0-1-0-6). P365 failed (0-1-0-6). P368 failed (0-1-0-6). P370 failed (1-3-1-2). P372 failed (1-3-1-2). P373 failed (1-3-1-2). P374 failed (0-4-1-2). P380 failed (1-3-1-2). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:37:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ I request judgment on the following: "Total number of vote-casting entities" in Rule 307/2 refers to the total number of eligible voters at any given moment. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:42:30 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: more wierd voting stuff More voting results: P375 passed (4-1-1-2). P376 passed (4-1-1-2). P377 passed (4-1-1-2). Voting continues on 371, 378, and 379. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:47:16 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: cheat! I call for judgment. In an abuse of his Administrative privileges, Uckelman shared infrormation with me that I could use to effect Berserker Nomic. We discussed the ramifications of my re-entering Limbo. This is in blatant violation of Rule dreihundertzweiundsechzig. Because Uckelman has done something that the Administrator cannot do, Uckelman cannot be the Administrator. I submit the following statement for Judgment: Uckelman is not the Administrator, rather he shall, for Berserker Nomic purposes, be considered a tasteful shrubbery. Amen. n the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. i'm in limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:15:12 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: cheat! At 06:47 PM 12/12/98 , you wrote: >I call for judgment. > >In an abuse of his Administrative privileges, Uckelman shared infrormation >with me that I could use to effect Berserker Nomic. We discussed the >ramifications of my re-entering Limbo. This is in blatant violation of Rule >dreihundertzweiundsechzig. > >Because Uckelman has done something that the Administrator cannot do, >Uckelman cannot be the Administrator. > >I submit the following statement for Judgment: > >Uckelman is not the Administrator, rather he shall, for Berserker Nomic >purposes, be considered a tasteful shrubbery. Amen. > > >n >the benevolent eggman and the benign walrus, a knob. >i'm in limbo. I did not share any information with Nick that could not have been infered based on publicly available information. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 13:18:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 43: "Total number of vote-casting entities" in Rule 307/2 refers to the total number of eligible voters at any given moment. Ed Proescholdt has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 44: Uckelman is not the Administrator, rather he shall, for Berserker Nomic purposes, be considered a tasteful shrubbery. Amen. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 13:34:12 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: on what's going on with voting Just so everyone knows what's going on with the strange voting results: As per R307/2, if the normal voting period is extended, voting ends when sufficient ballots have been received to ensure the passage or failure of each proposal. Voting on the transmutations ended when they each received 1 no vote. As there were only 7 eligible voters, some things passed or failed upon receiving 4 ayes or 3 nays (because there was 1 abstention). *The remaining three proposals have neither necessarilly passed nor necesarily failed. No change in the number of eligible voters coupled with an extra ballot (Nick's, as he came out of Limbo to vote) could cause voting to end on the remaining proposals, although more votes could also cause an end to voting.* However, I'm waiting on my RFJ to confirm this. The above [in **] is essentially what I told Nick. While the second statement is not an obvious consequence of the first, it did not require any special knowledge of the voting results, nor did it reveal anything about them that was not already obvious -- that the voting on the last three proposals must be relatively close for voting on them not to have ended. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:39:42 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: CFJ I call for Judgement. Rule 215 says judges will be selected randomly. Rule 326 states that one of the duties of the Administrator is Judge selection. I submit the following statement for judgement: One of the duties of the Administrator is to use a random method to select judges. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:31:48 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection >Uckelman is not the Administrator, rather he shall, for Berserker Nomic >purposes, be considered a tasteful shrubbery. Amen. False. 1. I do not believe the information Joel shared was "privelaged information" as stated in rule 326. I don't even know what "privelaged" means. (That's how its spelled on the web page anyway.) 2. If this means "privileged," as my dictionary spells it, I still don't believe Joel would have violated any rule. The sentence "The remaining three proposals have neither necessarilly passed nor necesarily failed." is fairly obvious because they had not at the time either passed or failed. The sentence "No change in the number of eligible voters coupled with an extra ballot (Nick's, as he came out of Limbo to vote) could cause voting to end on the remaining proposals, although more votes could also cause an end to voting." seems to be Joel's interpretation of the rules, not anything from the administrator's privileged information. 3. I don't believe Nick's reasoning for Joel not being the administrator. If the Administrator does something, it is not something the Administrator cannot do. It may be a violation of the rules for the administrator to do something, but I really don't want to think of the consequences of the violation of rule 101. 4. Joel is still carrying on Administratorial duties, and I really don't want to make him stop. Further, according to rule 326, "The Administrator is Joel Uckelman." 5. Being considered a shrubbery is in no way inconsistent with being the administrator. We could call Joel "Administrator the Shrubbery Uckelman." ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:59:24 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Tom Plagge has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 45: One of the duties of the Administrator is to use a random method to select judges. [NB: I have been selecting judges with real dice rather than the dice server for the last few RFJ's, as I no longer trust the dice server.] J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:22:40 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: nomic: call for judgement I want judgement on the following two statements: 1. If a Player and an Administrator are represented by the same real human being, they are separate entities for the purposes of Berserker nomic. 2. The Administrator is not required to follow the rules of Berserker nomic. Comments: Rule 101 states "All Players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect." It does not mention the Administrator. Rule 326 defines the office of Administrator, but does not require the Administrator to be a player or follow the rules. Rule 229, which defines offices, does not require office holders to be players. I'm almost afraid to see what this will cause. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:55:47 CST From: the possibilities of annulation Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection Joel D Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 43: > >"Total number of vote-casting entities" in Rule 307/2 refers to the total >number of eligible voters at any given moment. JUDGMENT: FALSE DISCUSSION: The predicate in the sentence under judgment is "fail to submit a ballot during the voting period..." As such, it seems that "total number of vote-casting entities" refers to the total number of eligible voters at the first time at which the voting period could normally have been considered to end, i.e. after the 36 hour period stated in 307/2. After this point, "total number of vote-casting entities" seems to best refer to the total number of eligible voters at any given moment, as there is no future point at which the determination may otherwise be made, as described in the paragraph above. Before this point, "total number of vote-casting entities" is ambiguous. I choose to reject any possible interpretations of the phrase BEFORE the 36 hour period has ended simply because to do so seems in keeping with the spirit of the rule, if not the straightforward interpretation of its second sentence. Due to this trichotomy, I must rule FALSE because the statement presented for judgment makes no distinction as to the "types" of moments which do seem to be identifiable in the voting process. If players would like to see the phrase under question interpreted differently at times before any particular 36 hour voting period has transpired, they are advised to do so with the passage of proposals. Josh -- Now I will have less distraction. - Leonhard Euler, upon losing the use of his right eye ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 19:06:29 -0600 From: Sick Boy Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection At 02:59 PM 12/13/98 , you wrote: >One of the duties of the Administrator is to use a random method to select >judges. TRUE. Rule 215 states that judges will be selected randomly, and Rule 326 states that one duty of the Administrator is judge selection. It follows that it is the duty of the Administrator to select judges randomly. There is no contradiction here; Rule 215 simply details the method to be used by the Administrator. >[NB: I have been selecting judges with real dice rather than the dice >server for the last few RFJ's, as I no longer trust the dice server.] If nothing else, it shuts Jensen and Ellefson up, which is always for the better. -Tom ----- Io, cerevisia! ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:58:33 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignments Josh Kortbein has been assigned to 1 Court for RFJ: If a Player and an Administrator are represented by the same real human being, they are separate entities for the purposes of Berserker nomic. Tom Plagge has been assigned to 1 Court for RFJ: The Administrator is not required to follow the rules of Berserker nomic. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:14:55 -0600 From: "Yuli M. Vorontsov, Ambassador" Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignments >The Administrator is not required to follow the rules of Berserker nomic. RULING: FALSE COMMENTS: The rules state that the Administrator is Joel Uckelman. I think we can agree that Administrator Uckelman and Joel Uckelman the player are a single entity. Therefore, since Joel Uckelman is a player in Berserker Nomic, he must follow the rules. Were Joel not a player, and were he not explicitly mentioned in rule 326, I might be more inclined to buy this argument. If you are really all that concerned about Administrator Uckelman breaking the rules, though, you could propose an amendment to make it absolutely explicit. Perhaps, in keeping with the spirit of the game thus far, you could even threaten to replace him with a tasteful shrubbery. -Tom ----- http://www.theonion.com/onion3419/prayers_answered.html ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:38:54 CST From: millions now living will never die Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignments Joel D Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein has been assigned to 1 Court for RFJ: > >If a Player and an Administrator are represented by the same real human >being, they are separate entities for the purposes of Berserker nomic. RULING: FALSE COMMENTS: Until such time as the rules state that such a dichotomy exists, I abide by the game custom that the Administrator, though special, is still a player, and can thus the two can be considered one entity. Josh -- The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a convenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. - St. Augustine ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:45:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting I've now counted Schroeder's votes, which finished the voting on 371, 378, and 379: P371 failed (3-3-1-0). P378 failed (2-4-1-0). P379 failed (2-4-1-0). I'll be tallying the scoring shortly. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:20:49 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Changes: Tom Mueler: -20/3 (+40/3, -10, -10) Nick Osborn: +28 (-10, +16, +16, +16, -10) Tom Plagge: -2 (+8, -10) Jeff Schroeder: +7 (+7) Joel Uckleman: +12 (+15, +7, -10) Additionally, everyone except Mueller, Osborn, Plagge, and Proescholdt loses 30 points due to the effects of P374, P375, and P375. Note also that Mueller scored a non-integer number of points because his proposal that changes scoring didn't include rounding. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:35:34 CST From: millions now living will never die Subject: Re: Nomic: scoring Joel D Uckelman writes: >Changes: > >Tom Mueler: -20/3 (+40/3, -10, -10) >Nick Osborn: +28 (-10, +16, +16, +16, -10) >Tom Plagge: -2 (+8, -10) >Jeff Schroeder: +7 (+7) >Joel Uckleman: +12 (+15, +7, -10) > >Additionally, everyone except Mueller, Osborn, Plagge, and Proescholdt >loses 30 points due to the effects of P374, P375, and P375. > >Note also that Mueller scored a non-integer number of points because his >proposal that changes scoring didn't include rounding. You rock Tom. Josh -- "An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself." - Albert Camus ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:39:47 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: page updates and a return to normalcy I PROMISE that regular page updates will resume on Saturday (i.e. once finals week is over). Sorry for aggravating the confusion by not having a current ruleset up on the page. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:24:45 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Nomic Ring links After 6 months of waiting, we've finally been added to the Nomic Ring, so those links at the bottom of the page should work now. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:30:43 CST From: "avant garde m.o.r." Subject: Re: Nomic: Nomic Ring links Joel D Uckelman writes: >After 6 months of waiting, we've finally been added to the Nomic Ring, so >those links at the bottom of the page should work now. Big. Fucking. Dealy-whoop. -- "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: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 01:44:17 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: at long last I ALMOST have everything sorted out for the game, but am at present too tired to finish what's left. I'll post the updated pages (rules and scores, mostly) tomorrow morning so we can start playing again ASAP. Also, disregard the last message I sent about scoring. I must have been on crack when I calculated the new scores, because almost all of them were wrong. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:47:10 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: here we go Everything important on the page is now current. It is now Damon Luloff's turn, and voting will begin tomorrow on active proposals (!), if there are any. If not, I think that the turn just ends. In any case, I'm ready to go now. Corrections: Proposal 371 passed (4-1-1-1). Scoring: +28 Nick Osborn +7 Joel Uckelman +0 Ed Proescholdt -2 Tom Plagge -4 Tom Mueller -30 Dakota Bailey -30 Jason Durheim -30 Nate Ellefson -30 Lisa Hamilton -30 Josh Kortbein -30 Damon Luloff -30 Andy Palecek -30 Jeff Schroeder -30 Aaron Woell The overall net point change from last round was -241. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 18:01:27 CST From: "avant garde m.o.r." Subject: Nomic: Proposal Nick Osborn shall henceforth be known, in the game and out, as a "tasteful shrubbery." Josh -- The magic words are squeamish ossifrage. - R. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. Adelman ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 01:07:32 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Nomic: Call for Judgment I present the following 2 statements for judgment: Rules 375-377 require actual, tasteful shrubberies in stead of the sequences ("[a tasteful shrubbery]") of text currently in place. Nick Osborn should purchase three such tasteful shrubberies, so that the Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rules. Upon purchase these shrubberies should be donated to the Nomic, and kept in the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator. Josh -- I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers. :-) - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 01:15:39 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Nomic: Proposal Upon the passage into rule of this proposal, (a) and (b) below shall occur. (a) Each player who voted in the affirmative for this rule's passage shall recieve 1000 points. (b) This rule shall replace itself with a tasteful shrubbery, to be purchased and donated by Nick Osborn, or, if there no player known as Nick Osborn, by the player known as "a tasteful shrubbery." 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: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:42:58 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignment Tom Mueller has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 48: Rules 375-377 require actual, tasteful shrubberies in stead of the sequences ("[a tasteful shrubbery]") of text currently in place. Joel Uckelman has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 49: Nick Osborn should purchase three such tasteful shrubberies, so that the Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rules. Upon purchase these shrubberies should be donated to the Nomic, and kept in the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:55:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 1 Judgment 49 Nick Osborn should purchase three such tasteful shrubberies, so that the Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rules. Upon purchase these shrubberies should be donated to the Nomic, and kept in the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator. DISMISSSED A single statement was not presented for judgment, q.v. Judgment 15. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:26:57 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 06:01 PM 12/22/98 , you wrote: > > >Nick Osborn shall henceforth be known, in the game and out, as a >"tasteful shrubbery." > > > > >Josh I think this conflicts with R002/1: "A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:21:15 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting Voting began at 3:38 CST on Proposals 381 and 382. -------------- 381 Nick Osborn shall henceforth be known, in the game and out, as a "tasteful shrubbery." --------------- 382 Upon the passage into rule of this proposal, (a) and (b) below shall occur. (a) Each player who voted in the affirmative for this rule's passage shall recieve 1000 points. (b) This rule shall replace itself with a tasteful shrubbery, to be purchased and donated by Nick Osborn, or, if there no player known as Nick Osborn, by the player known as "a tasteful shrubbery." --------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:29:14 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 01:15 AM 12/23/98 , you wrote: > >Upon the passage into rule of this proposal, (a) and (b) below shall occur. > >(a) Each player who voted in the affirmative for this rule's passage >shall recieve 1000 points. I am, in principle, opposed to proposals that do nothing but alter scores, especially when there has been no clearly stated purpose. Additionally, the passage of this proposal would cause anyone voting for it to win -- thus cheapening wins. >(b) This rule shall replace itself with a tasteful shrubbery, to >be purchased and donated by Nick Osborn, or, if there no player >known as Nick Osborn, by the player known as "a tasteful shrubbery." > >Josh J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:46:40 CST From: "" Subject: Re: Nomic: voting no on the first, yes on the second :) ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 14:26:38 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 01:15 AM 12/23/98 , you wrote: >> >>Upon the passage into rule of this proposal, (a) and (b) below shall occur. >> >>(a) Each player who voted in the affirmative for this rule's passage >>shall recieve 1000 points. > >I am, in principle, opposed to proposals that do nothing but alter scores, >especially when there has been no clearly stated purpose. Additionally, the >passage of this proposal would cause anyone voting for it to win -- thus >cheapening wins. What do you mean, "additionally?" DUH. I think the stated purpose is clear, and much like the party in Joel's pants (q.v. "sex machine"), everyone is invited. What more could a girl want? Josh -- This paper contains much that is new and much that is true. Unfortunately, that which is true is not new and that which is new is not true. - Anonymous Referee's report ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 14:23:51 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: 1 Judgment 49 Joel D Uckelman writes: >Nick Osborn should purchase three such tasteful shrubberies, so that the >Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rules. >Upon purchase these shrubberies should be donated to the Nomic, and kept in >the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator. > >DISMISSSED > >A single statement was not presented for judgment, q.v. Judgment 15. Joel, you insufferable wank. Are you this bad around your mom? I present the following statement for judgment: Nick Osborn should purchase three tasteful shrubberies, such that (a) the Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rule set. (b) the shrubberies be donated to the Nomic (c) the shrubberies be kept in the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator There's a single fucking statement for you, and if you think otherwise, I refer you to W.V. Quine, _The Philosophy of Logic_, ch. 1. Josh -- "All synthesizers are programmed white." - Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:16:42 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignment Tom Mueller has been assigned to 1 Court on RFJ 50: Nick Osborn should purchase three tasteful shrubberies, such that (a) the Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rule set, (b) the shrubberies be donated to the Nomic, (c) the shrubberies be kept in the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator. [NB: It is now one statement. Pedants around the world rejoice.] J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:20:51 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignment Joel D Uckelman writes: >Tom Mueller has been assigned to 1 Court on RFJ 50: > >Nick Osborn should purchase three tasteful shrubberies, such that (a) the >Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rule >set, (b) the shrubberies be donated to the Nomic, (c) the shrubberies be >kept in the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator. > > >[NB: It is now one statement. Pedants around the world rejoice.] Watch out for anal rapists in the night, Joel. -- "The best students always are flunking. Every good teacher knows that." -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:22:53 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignment The Admin (Joel) wrote: >Tom Mueller has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 48: > >Rules 375-377 require actual, tasteful shrubberies in stead of the >sequences ("[a tasteful shrubbery]") of text currently in place. Ruling: False Commentary: First, note that the rules do not currently define WHAT form rules can take and what they can contain so we've no help from the actual rules. The statement fundamentally asserts that these shrubbery states exist on the same "plane of nomic existance" and that the "text shrubbery" is currently, wrongly in the place where the "real shrubbery" should go. I believe that the actual situation in this case is that "actual, tasteful shrubberies" are in fact in rules 375-377 and they are REPRESENTED by the text "[a tasteful shrubbery]". Rule 228 Judgments says in part: >Valid responses to Statements is defined as the set {TRUE, >FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot >be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules- >related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated >as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is >logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be >evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, >and is logically false. All other responses are invalid. I wasn't sure if this RFJ should be DISMISSED or FALSE. I eventually decided that the relationship between "our representations of the game in text" and "the things in the game themselves" was an issue that should be considered rules-related and that the fundamental premise of the statement (that there was no Use/Mention distinction) was false. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:31:37 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignment Joel wrote: >Tom Mueller has been assigned to 1 Court on RFJ 50: > >Nick Osborn should purchase three tasteful shrubberies, such that (a) the >Administrator might more accurately record the current state of the rule >set, (b) the shrubberies be donated to the Nomic, (c) the shrubberies be >kept in the Pleasure Matrix by the Administrator. Ruling: DISMISSED Commentary: There are no provisions in the rules for purchase, the pleasure matrix, or nomic ownership (much less nomic wide acceptance of donations). Additionally, shrubberies (while being defined in the rules operationally) have no game effects that I can see. This leads me to believe that this statement references real humans, real shrubberies (the kinds with leaves, not the kinds in our ruleset), and real purchases involving US currency, not Subers. Rule 228 Judgments says in part: >Valid responses to Statements is defined as the set {TRUE, >FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot >be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules- >related matter. The second clause of the dismissed line is the one to look for. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 17:23:12 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignment Mueller writes: >The Admin (Joel) wrote: >>Tom Mueller has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 48: >> >>Rules 375-377 require actual, tasteful shrubberies in stead of the >>sequences ("[a tasteful shrubbery]") of text currently in place. > >Ruling: >False > >Commentary: >First, note that the rules do not currently define WHAT form rules can take >and what they can contain so we've no help from the actual rules. > >The statement fundamentally asserts that these shrubbery states exist on >the same "plane of nomic existance" and that the "text shrubbery" is >currently, wrongly in the place where the "real shrubbery" should go. > >I believe that the actual situation in this case is that "actual, tasteful >shrubberies" are in fact in rules 375-377 and they are REPRESENTED by the >text "[a tasteful shrubbery]". > >Rule 228 Judgments says in part: > >>Valid responses to Statements is defined as the set {TRUE, >>FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot >>be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules- >>related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated >>as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is >>logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be >>evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, >>and is logically false. All other responses are invalid. > >I wasn't sure if this RFJ should be DISMISSED or FALSE. I eventually >decided that the relationship between "our representations of the game in >text" and "the things in the game themselves" was an issue that should be >considered rules-related and that the fundamental premise of the statement >(that there was no Use/Mention distinction) was false. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net New statement presented for judgment: Rules 375-377 require actual, tasteful shrubberies. Josh -- This paper contains much that is new and much that is true. Unfortunately, that which is true is not new and that which is new is not true. - Anonymous Referee's report ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 22:52:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P381 passed (3-2-0-1). P382 passed (3-2-0-1). Tom Plagge, Ed Proescholdt, and Josh Kortbein all receive 1000 points and a win as a result of P382. All scores are reset to zero, and then points are awarded for P381-2 as follows: Josh Kortbein +24 Joel Uckelman +12 Tom Plagge +6 Damon Luloff +6 The turn does not end yet due to outstanding RFJs. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:08:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: further judge assignments Tom Mueller has been assigned to 1 Court for RFJ 51: Rules 375-377 require actual, tasteful shrubberies. Josh Kortbein has been assigned to 1 Court for RFJ 52: Rule 381/0 conflicts with immutable Rule 002/1 and thus has no effect. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:04:22 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignment At 05:23 PM 12/24/98 , you wrote: > >New statement presented for judgment: > >Rules 375-377 require actual, tasteful shrubberies. > > > > >Josh I don't see how this differs for our purposes. I think I may have to propose that Josh's laptop be replaced with a yak. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:02:15 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJs I request judgment on the following statement: Rule 381/0 conflicts with immutable Rule 002/1 and thus has no effect. Comments: Rule 002/1 states that players be know by their "real human fore- and surnames". "a tasteful shrubbery" is not Nick Osborn's real human name, but Rule 381/0 mandates that Nick be called this. Rule 110/0 states that in the event of a conflict between an immutable and a mutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence. Therefore, Rule 381/0 has no effect on play. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:14:59 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Joel D Uckelman writes: >P381 passed (3-2-0-1). >P382 passed (3-2-0-1). > >Tom Plagge, Ed Proescholdt, and Josh Kortbein all receive 1000 points and a >win as a result of P382. All scores are reset to zero, and then points are >awarded for P381-2 as follows: > >Josh Kortbein +24 >Joel Uckelman +12 >Tom Plagge +6 >Damon Luloff +6 > >The turn does not end yet due to outstanding RFJs. Question: What was the line of thought that went into not ending turns, etc., when the game is won? Specifically, it seems odd that the points from the current round of voting should be distributed _after_ scores are reset. Josh -- Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities. - Lord Dunsany ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:17:56 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignment Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 05:23 PM 12/24/98 , you wrote: >> >>New statement presented for judgment: >> >>Rules 375-377 require actual, tasteful shrubberies. >> >> >> >> >>Josh > >I don't see how this differs for our purposes. I think I may have to >propose that Josh's laptop be replaced with a yak. I don't have a laptop, it's a _Powerbook,_ silly. So :P This differs in that it forces the Judge to confront whatever epistemological questions he considers relevant directly, instead of being able to refer to possibly incorrect statements I make about the nature of the ruleset. If you do make that proposal, though, make it a shaved yak, please. Josh -- Universities hire professors the way some men choose wives - they want the ones the others will admire. - Morris Kline ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:37:39 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJs Joel D Uckelman writes: >I request judgment on the following statement: > >Rule 381/0 conflicts with immutable Rule 002/1 and thus has no effect. > >Comments: > >Rule 002/1 states that players be know by their "real human fore- and >surnames". "a tasteful shrubbery" is not Nick Osborn's real human name, but >Rule 381/0 mandates that Nick be called this. Rule 110/0 states that in the >event of a conflict between an immutable and a mutable rule, the immutable >rule takes precedence. Therefore, Rule 381/0 has no effect on play. RULING: FALSE DISCUSSION: First, I note that despite the obvious presence of two separate statements, conjoined by a conjunction, in Mr. Uckelman's statement, I will rise above pedantry and judge it as I know he would like it to be judged. Rule 381 states that Nick Osborn shall be "known" as a tasteful shrubbery. Rule 002 states that every player shall be "identified" by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames. So, first, re "identified:" The most appropriate definition seems to be 2 a : to establish the identity of b : to determine the taxonomic position of (a biological specimen) or, more simply, "identify" means "to name." Thus Rule 002 states that every player shall be named by his or her real name. As for "known:" 1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of (3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of 2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of Our best alternatives (unless we wish to dig up archaic definitions viz. carnality) seem to be 1 a (1), 1 a (3), 1 b (1), and 2 a. These denotations are concerned with the true essence of the thing being known, and by them knowledge is either direct perception (of truth, supposing objective reality), or acknowledgement of truth. Here the player formerly known as "Nick Osborn" is, variously, either known to actually be a tasteful shrubbery, at his most basic level, or he is known to be essentially the same as a tasteful shrubbery. As the notion of "naming" in Rule 002 seems subservient to the concepts of existential essence in Rule 381, I cannot reconcile the statement's claim that Rule 381 is in conflict with Rule 002. The claimant may for some reason wish to appeal with an argument along the lines of "naming defines existence," but recall that the ancient Egyptians believed this - one even had to know the true names of things in order to gain admittance to heaven - and we all know what happened to them. Josh -- Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination. - G.K. Chesterton ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 15:14:49 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results At 11:14 PM 12/24/98 , you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>P381 passed (3-2-0-1). >>P382 passed (3-2-0-1). >> >>Tom Plagge, Ed Proescholdt, and Josh Kortbein all receive 1000 points and a >>win as a result of P382. All scores are reset to zero, and then points are >>awarded for P381-2 as follows: >> >>Josh Kortbein +24 >>Joel Uckelman +12 >>Tom Plagge +6 >>Damon Luloff +6 >> >>The turn does not end yet due to outstanding RFJs. > >Question: > >What was the line of thought that went into not ending turns, etc., >when the game is won? Specifically, it seems odd that the points from >the current round of voting should be distributed _after_ scores >are reset. > >Josh This is what I think happens. I will verify this when I update the page in a few minutes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 21:01:40 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Nomic: A Proposal to be Submitted ... which I submit for discussion as soon as this blasted turn ends. ------------- No proposal may reward or penalize its voters by directly altering their scores. ------------- Comments welcome, as this is something I think we could use, but the language is tricky. Josh -- "All synthesizers are programmed white." - Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 21:11:29 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Nomic: Proposal ... after this turn ends, just like the last one. ---------------- There exists a homunculus, hereafter known as Osborn's Demon, which posesses the right to vote, during the ordained voting period, for any and every proposal up for voting. Osborn's Demon shall vote in the following manner: If there is a single player whose score in points is strictly less than those of every other player, then Osborn's Demon shall vote as that single player does. If there are two or more players whose scores are equal, while still less than those of every other player, then Osborn's Demon shall vote as do a simple majority of those players whose scores a