________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 02:19:35 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Two proposals At any point in time, no more than one player may have the title "Agent of Chaos". At the end of voting each turn, any player with the title Agent of Chaos looses it, and the administrator shall randomly assign this title to some non-Limbo player. It is the perogative of any player with the title Agent of Chaos to make some immutable rule mutable or to repeal some mutable rule by publicly announcing it. Such an action causes the player to loose the Agent of Chaos title. The Agent of Chaos title may not be traded, sold, or otherwise transfered among players unless explicitly allowed in the rules. This rule takes precedence over all rules. -------------------------- For every proposal which successfully repeals a rule, the author of that proposal shall recieve an Entropy Point. Entropy Points are not transferable and no player may have fewer than zero of them. If any player has more than 49 Entropy Points and more Entropy Points than any other player, then: 1. that player shall be credited with a win, and 2. all Entropy Points shall be destroyed, and 3. the player who won shall have (in perpetuity) the title "Grand High Promoter of Rabid Change". Players who are Grand High Promoters of Rabid Change care not for the simple prejudices of the masses and may not be burned at the stake. It is good form for all those who are, or aspire to be, Grand High Promoters of Rabid Change to sign off their email with "All Hail The Coming Of The Simplification!!" ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 08:55:28 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting will begin at 23:31 CST, 2 February 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 09:00:31 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Two proposals At 01:19 AM 2/1/99 , Mueller wrote: >At any point in time, no more than one player may have the title "Agent of >Chaos". At the end of voting each turn, any player with the title Agent of >Chaos looses it, and the administrator shall randomly assign this title to >some non-Limbo player. > >It is the perogative of any player with the title Agent of Chaos to make >some immutable rule mutable or to repeal some mutable rule by publicly >announcing it. Such an action causes the player to loose the Agent of >Chaos title. > >The Agent of Chaos title may not be traded, sold, or otherwise transfered >among players unless explicitly allowed in the rules. > >This rule takes precedence over all rules. > The Agent of Chaos wouldn't be able to do this to immutable rules, since the rule specifying how changes to immutable rules happen is itself immutable. Also, this could be extremely dangerous for gameplay, since if the Agent of Chaos repealed one of any number of rules, the game could neither end in contradiction, nor continue past its then-current state. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 10:31:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: weird Did anyone else get two of the last message I sent? I only sent it once -- majordomo does strange things sometimes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 12:02:34 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: Two proposals Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 01:19 AM 2/1/99 , Mueller wrote: >>At any point in time, no more than one player may have the title "Agent of >>Chaos". At the end of voting each turn, any player with the title Agent of >>Chaos looses it, and the administrator shall randomly assign this title to >>some non-Limbo player. >> >>It is the perogative of any player with the title Agent of Chaos to make >>some immutable rule mutable or to repeal some mutable rule by publicly >>announcing it. Such an action causes the player to loose the Agent of >>Chaos title. >> >>The Agent of Chaos title may not be traded, sold, or otherwise transfered >>among players unless explicitly allowed in the rules. >> >>This rule takes precedence over all rules. >> > >The Agent of Chaos wouldn't be able to do this to immutable rules, since >the rule specifying how changes to immutable rules happen is itself >immutable. Also, this could be extremely dangerous for gameplay, since if >the Agent of Chaos repealed one of any number of rules, the game could >neither end in contradiction, nor continue past its then-current state. Fun, Joel. Fun. Josh -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 12:05:06 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: Two proposals Mueller writes: >At any point in time, no more than one player may have the title "Agent of >Chaos". At the end of voting each turn, any player with the title Agent of >Chaos looses it, and the administrator shall randomly assign this title to loses >some non-Limbo player. > >It is the perogative of any player with the title Agent of Chaos to make >some immutable rule mutable or to repeal some mutable rule by publicly >announcing it. Such an action causes the player to loose the Agent of lose >Chaos title. > >The Agent of Chaos title may not be traded, sold, or otherwise transfered >among players unless explicitly allowed in the rules. "Actual retail value 0.05 Subers." > >This rule takes precedence over all rules. > >-------------------------- > >For every proposal which successfully repeals a rule, the author of that >proposal shall recieve an Entropy Point. Entropy Points are not >transferable and no player may have fewer than zero of them. > >If any player has more than 49 Entropy Points and more Entropy Points than >any other player, then: >1. that player shall be credited with a win, and >2. all Entropy Points shall be destroyed, and >3. the player who won shall have (in perpetuity) the title "Grand High >Promoter of Rabid Change". > >Players who are Grand High Promoters of Rabid Change care not for the >simple prejudices of the masses and may not be burned at the stake. It is >good form for all those who are, or aspire to be, Grand High Promoters of >Rabid Change to sign off their email with "All Hail The Coming Of The >Simplification!!" Shouldn't you do this in terms of adding a player attribute, and modifying the appropriate rules? 49 seems awful high. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 13:18:42 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal Amend paragraph 3, section 3, of Rule 402/0 to read: 3. Auction commodities held by the Treasury. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 13:15:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Two proposals At 12:02 PM 2/1/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 01:19 AM 2/1/99 , Mueller wrote: >>>At any point in time, no more than one player may have the title "Agent of >>>Chaos". At the end of voting each turn, any player with the title Agent of >>>Chaos looses it, and the administrator shall randomly assign this title to >>>some non-Limbo player. >>> >>>It is the perogative of any player with the title Agent of Chaos to make >>>some immutable rule mutable or to repeal some mutable rule by publicly >>>announcing it. Such an action causes the player to loose the Agent of >>>Chaos title. >>> >>>The Agent of Chaos title may not be traded, sold, or otherwise transfered >>>among players unless explicitly allowed in the rules. >>> >>>This rule takes precedence over all rules. >>> >> >>The Agent of Chaos wouldn't be able to do this to immutable rules, since >>the rule specifying how changes to immutable rules happen is itself >>immutable. Also, this could be extremely dangerous for gameplay, since if >>the Agent of Chaos repealed one of any number of rules, the game could >>neither end in contradiction, nor continue past its then-current state. > >Fun, Joel. Fun. > >Josh How is being unable to continue the game fun? I seem to remember the times when the game became unplayable as distinctly un-fun. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 17:56:58 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Two proposals Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>At any point in time, no more than one player may have the title "Agent of >>Chaos". At the end of voting each turn, any player with the title Agent of >>Chaos looses it, and the administrator shall randomly assign this title to > >loses Fix the noted error. >>some non-Limbo player. >> >>It is the perogative of any player with the title Agent of Chaos to make >>some immutable rule mutable or to repeal some mutable rule by publicly >>announcing it. Such an action causes the player to loose the Agent of > >lose Again: fix the noted error. >>Chaos title. >> >>The Agent of Chaos title may not be traded, sold, or otherwise transfered >>among players unless explicitly allowed in the rules. > >"Actual retail value 0.05 Subers." :D >> >>This rule takes precedence over all rules. >> >>-------------------------- >> >>For every proposal which successfully repeals a rule, the author of that >>proposal shall recieve an Entropy Point. Entropy Points are not >>transferable and no player may have fewer than zero of them. >> >>If any player has more than 49 Entropy Points and more Entropy Points than >>any other player, then: >>1. that player shall be credited with a win, and >>2. all Entropy Points shall be destroyed, and >>3. the player who won shall have (in perpetuity) the title "Grand High >>Promoter of Rabid Change". >> >>Players who are Grand High Promoters of Rabid Change care not for the >>simple prejudices of the masses and may not be burned at the stake. It is >>good form for all those who are, or aspire to be, Grand High Promoters of >>Rabid Change to sign off their email with "All Hail The Coming Of The >>Simplification!!" > >Shouldn't you do this in terms of adding a player attribute, and >modifying the appropriate rules? To what end? It doesn't seem to make much of a functional difference and duplicates the information needlessly (making amendments and repeals that much more complicated). >49 seems awful high. Change that to 19. Note: I offer Tom Knight (and anyone else interested in making a little extra money) S5 for each legal yes vote on these proposals. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 17:55:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: offer I offer S100 to anyone who casts a no vote legally countable toward the failure of Proposal 441. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:41:03 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: offer Joel D Uckelman writes: >I offer S100 to anyone who casts a no vote legally countable toward the >failure of Proposal 441. Pbbbbbbbbttttttttthhhhh. Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:42:04 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: Two proposals Mueller writes: >>Shouldn't you do this in terms of adding a player attribute, and >>modifying the appropriate rules? > >To what end? It doesn't seem to make much of a functional difference and >duplicates the information needlessly (making amendments and repeals that >much more complicated). It's consistent with our modus operandi. >Note: I offer Tom Knight (and anyone else interested in making a little >extra money) S5 for each legal yes vote on these proposals. Ooh, a bidding war! Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 20:42:40 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: Prop 438 Mark this inactive. (for now) jeff ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:10:56 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge reassignment A new court must be chosen [in the morning] for RFJ 57, as 7 days have elapsed with no decision. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 16:44:28 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting begins tonight at 23:31 CST. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:43:01 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge reassignment At 12:10 AM 2/2/99 , I wrote: >A new court must be chosen [in the morning] for RFJ 57, as 7 days have >elapsed with no decision. I checked the relevant judging rules (214, 215), and found that we have insufficient players to form another court even if all of the waivable restrictions are waived (Ed, Josh, and myself being the only players who were both eligible to be judges, not in limbo, and not on the court that was dissolved). Thus, it seems that Kortbein and Mueller really do have something like S21 million each, as the last ruling stands. :( J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:51:12 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: judge reassignment Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:10 AM 2/2/99 , I wrote: >>A new court must be chosen [in the morning] for RFJ 57, as 7 days have >>elapsed with no decision. > >I checked the relevant judging rules (214, 215), and found that we have >insufficient players to form another court even if all of the waivable >restrictions are waived (Ed, Josh, and myself being the only players who >were both eligible to be judges, not in limbo, and not on the court that >was dissolved). Thus, it seems that Kortbein and Mueller really do have >something like S21 million each, as the last ruling stands. appropriate rant here> :( Fucking yeah. And just think... if people had issued verdicts, they may have been winners... Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 23:41:00 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot P434 Change the second paragraph/sentance of 202 to read as between the LENGTHENVOTING text: LENGTHENVOTING Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be 192 hours (8.0 days). LENGTHENVOTING ------------------------------------- P435 A registered member of Beserker Nomic is defined as someone who can legally contribute proposals to the Beserker Nomic mailing list, and is unanimously recognised as a registered member by a simple majority of the people who can legally contribute proposals on the Beserker Nomic mailing list. -------------------------------------- P436 If proposal 434 passes change the first sentance of Rule 307 to read: For any given Proposal, the voting period ends 48 hours after the call for votes is made. -------------------------------------- P437 An enterprise's owner, may if e wishes, adorn the enterprise with shrubberies. Enterprises may have between 0 and 1000 shrubberies. Shrubberies cost nothing to add to an enterprise, and their only benefit is the beautification of the enterprise and this nomic. Enterprises owned by the treasury or otherwise publicly held cannot be adorned with shrubberies because public enterprises are ugly. [[While shrubberies have no actual value, players are urged to take into account the beauty of the enterprise when negotiating trades.]] -------------------------------------- P439 Players not wishing to participate in the economy may enter Economic Limbo. Players in Economic Limbo participate in every aspect of Berserker Nomic normally except the economy. Players in Economic Limbo do not participate in the economy. They do not lose points for not consuming Spam. They may not trade commodities, operate enterprises, buy or sell land, or gain or lose enterprises. Players in Economic Limbo may use their Subers for political purposes, such as but not limited to bribery and vote-buying, but may not use them for purchasing commodities, enterprises, or land. [[Players in Economic Limbo may own property, enterprises, and/or land.]] A players may enter Economic Limbo by mailing either the economy mailing list or the normal mailing list and stating that e is entering Economic Limbo. A players may leave Economic Limbo by mailing either the economy mailing list or the normal mailing list and stating e is leaving Economic Limbo. If a player attempts to leave Economic Limbo after having been in it for less than a full proposal and debate period and a full voting period, that player remains in Economic Limbo until two voting periods have passed. ---------------------------------------- P440 Strike the second paragraph of Rule 399/1 and add in its place the following AUCTIONFIX delimited text: AUCTIONFIX Auctions may be held to sell property. Players wishing to bid on auctioned property must submit bids within 48 hours of the start of the auction. A Player's total bids may not exceed eir total available funds at the time the bids are placed. Possession of auctioned property is transferred to the highest bidder and the higest bidder's payment to the Treasury upon the closing of the auction. In the event that a bidder does not have sufficient funds to cover eir winning bids, e must withdraw bids of eir choice until avialable funds cover eir remaining winning bids. If a bid is withdrawn, it is not considered in determining the highest bid. Any game entity may auction any or all of its property at any time, and may set the starting price. If a starting price is not specified, the starting price will be 0.01 Subers. {{All auctioned hexes for which the transactions are not yet complete shall revert to the Treasury.}} AUCTIONFIX ---------------------------------------- P441 At any point in time, no more than one player may have the title "Agent of Chaos". At the end of voting each turn, any player with the title Agent of Chaos loses it, and the administrator shall randomly assign this title to some non-Limbo player. It is the perogative of any player with the title Agent of Chaos to make some immutable rule mutable or to repeal some mutable rule by publicly announcing it. Such an action causes the player to lose the Agent of Chaos title. The Agent of Chaos title may not be traded, sold, or otherwise transfered among players unless explicitly allowed in the rules. This rule takes precedence over all rules. ---------------------------------------------- P442 For every proposal which successfully repeals a rule, the author of that proposal shall recieve an Entropy Point. Entropy Points are not transferable and no player may have fewer than zero of them. If any player has more than 19 Entropy Points and more Entropy Points than any other player, then: 1. that player shall be credited with a win, and 2. all Entropy Points shall be destroyed, and 3. the player who won shall have (in perpetuity) the title "Grand High Promoter of Rabid Change". Players who are Grand High Promoters of Rabid Change care not for the simple prejudices of the masses and may not be burned at the stake. It is good form for all those who are, or aspire to be, Grand High Promoters of Rabid Change to sign off their email with "All Hail The Coming Of The Simplification!!" ---------------------------------------- P443 Amend paragraph 3, section 3, of Rule 402/0 to read: 3. Auction commodities held by the Treasury. ---------------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 23:52:04 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: bribe I vote no on prop 441 and accept Joel's offer of 100S. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 16:02:38 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting Voting ends at 01:31 CST, 4 February 1999. And a reminder to Ole and Ottis -- you guys are eliglble to vote, incase you didn't know. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 16:54:29 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Nomic: Bribe I extend an offer of S100000 to each of Ole and Ottis if they vote yes on 441, and have not yet voted. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 17:12:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Bribe At 04:54 PM 2/3/99 , Josh wrote: > >I extend an offer of S100000 to each of Ole and Ottis if they >vote yes on 441, and have not yet voted. > >Josh Unfortunately for Josh, his bribe isn't going to be worth much in a few minutes. [see my next message for more details] J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 17:17:00 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy steps 1. The Treasury mints 1 trillion Subers. 2. I offer to sell 1 spam to the Treasury for 1 trillion Subers, an offer which the Treasury Minister promptly accepts. 3. I now have 99.9956% of all Subers in the game. Thus, upon the close of this turn, I will have enough points from Subers to win -- and thus reset the economy, effectively negating the Mueller Manoeuvre. Under normal circumstances, resetting the economy would be undesirable, but as 1) we hadn't really started yet, and 2) doing so would have been impossible with such a gross imbalance in wealth, the situation seems to merit it. In the future, we may do well to consider not having the economy reset with every win. During the next turn, I intend to propose such a measure. Why was this possible: clauses 2 and 3 of paragraph 3 of Rule 402 authorize the Treasury Minister to directly buy property from himself at whatever price he sets. It didn't occur to me until the end of last week that such a thing was even possible, and I intend to propose that a prohibition on doing so be added to Rule 402. I should not be able to do this, yet it is legal (just as the Mueller Manoeuvre was legal [not IMHO, but I digress...]), and I hope to be able to fix this problem. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 22:04:26 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy I don't like Joel winning this way, anyone know how to stop it? So, is the initial value for Subers 0, 500, or 1000? Does property in Rule 327 include commodities, hexes, and enterprises? At 05:17 PM 2/3/99 -0600, you wrote: >1. The Treasury mints 1 trillion Subers. > >2. I offer to sell 1 spam to the Treasury for 1 trillion Subers, an offer >which the Treasury Minister promptly accepts. > >3. I now have 99.9956% of all Subers in the game. > >Thus, upon the close of this turn, I will have enough points from Subers to >win -- and thus reset the economy, effectively negating the Mueller >Manoeuvre. Under normal circumstances, resetting the economy would be >undesirable, but as 1) we hadn't really started yet, and 2) doing so would >have been impossible with such a gross imbalance in wealth, the situation >seems to merit it. In the future, we may do well to consider not having the >economy reset with every win. During the next turn, I intend to propose >such a measure. > >Why was this possible: clauses 2 and 3 of paragraph 3 of Rule 402 authorize >the Treasury Minister to directly buy property from himself at whatever >price he sets. It didn't occur to me until the end of last week that such a >thing was even possible, and I intend to propose that a prohibition on >doing so be added to Rule 402. I should not be able to do this, yet it is >legal (just as the Mueller Manoeuvre was legal [not IMHO, but I >digress...]), and I hope to be able to fix this problem. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:29:57 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Nomic - votes I vote against all odd-numbered proposals and for everything else. Ole http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/3637/ http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/8941/ home: siri.iben@get2net.dk palnatoke@get2net.dk (Ole) palnatoke@altavista.net (Ole) aeshna@get2net.dk (Kira) school: 1508oa@fiol.brock.dk (Ole) school: ktkock at stud.aki.ku.dk (Kira) ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 00:06:55 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy steps Andrew Proescholdt writes: >I don't like Joel winning this way, anyone know how to stop it? Well, let's see what we can do... First of all, I call for a confidence vote on the Treasury Minister. He has shown us that he cannot be trusted to manage our Treasury, by employing a rules loophole in order to drastically alter the state of the economy, a sort of action he decried when it took the form of the Mueller Maneuver. Might I even say that Joel has tarnished his reputation as Administrator by demonstrating that he is not beneath scamming, even the sort of scamming he is so vehemently opposed to? Clearly ethics only matter to Joel when they direct him to act in accord with what he wants. Damon would be amused. Furthermore: I can't believe what Joel did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Joel should be punished by The Mob. Mob members for stake burning are now welcome. CFJ: The Treasury Minister can never mint more than 2 Subers per turn, and thus the transaction in which Joel Uckelman claimed to sell 1 spam to the Treasury for 1 trillion Subers was illegal. Analysis: Clearly, rule 402 allows the Treasury Minister to mint Subers. For any number of Subers N greater than 2, minting N Subers is the same thing as minting 2 Subers, then minting N - 2 Subers. Thus, the Treasury Minister can never mint more than 2 Subers per turn, because any Subers in excess of those 2 cannot be minted until the next turn (to which the same prohibition on minting more than 2 Subers applies). Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 00:54:56 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy At 12:06 AM 2/4/99 , Josh wrote: > >Andrew Proescholdt writes: >>I don't like Joel winning this way, anyone know how to stop it? > >Well, let's see what we can do... > >First of all, I call for a confidence vote on the Treasury Minister. >He has shown us that he cannot be trusted to manage our Treasury, >by employing a rules loophole in order to drastically alter the >state of the economy, a sort of action he decried when it took >the form of the Mueller Maneuver. 1. I intend to close the loophole during the next turn. Keeping me as TM ensures that the loophole won't be exploited again, whereas there is no assurance that a new TM wouldn't do the same thing at the end of the turn. 2. I still believe the Mueller Maneuver to be illegal; even so, I have merely returned the economy to a state similar to the way it was before it was "drastically altered" by the Mueller Maneuver. There is no inconsistency between arguing against a drastic change and undoing a drastic change. 3. Attempting to reset the economy was a responsible and rational action in response to a scam directed at destabilizing the economy. What I did should be viewed as a counter-scam rather than a scam. >Might I even say that Joel has tarnished his reputation as Administrator >by demonstrating that he is not beneath scamming, even the sort of >scamming he is so vehemently opposed to? Clearly ethics only matter >to Joel when they direct him to act in accord with what he wants. >Damon would be amused. This has nothing to do with my role as Administrator. I was acting 1) as a player, and 2) as the TM. My commitment to fairly, promptly, and accurately maintaining the game remains unchanged, as does my commitment to manage the Treasury for the greater good while I am TM. In this case, acting on behalf of the Treasury required me to take the admittedly distateful step of deriving gain from the position as a player -- however, corrective justice seemed to demand a solution to the Mueller Maneuver. As such, I can confidently say that I am justified in the aciton I took. Had there been no reason to take corrective action, my course of action would have been to fix the problem rather than use it. >Furthermore: > >I can't believe what Joel did! It was an outrage! There outta >be a law! Since there isn't one, Joel should be punished by >The Mob. > >Mob members for stake burning are now welcome. If I get burnt, I guess I'll be the first game martyr. >CFJ: > > The Treasury Minister can never mint more than 2 Subers per turn, >and thus the transaction in which Joel Uckelman claimed to sell 1 spam >to the Treasury for 1 trillion Subers was illegal. > >Analysis: > > Clearly, rule 402 allows the Treasury Minister to mint Subers. >For any number of Subers N greater than 2, minting N Subers is the >same thing as minting 2 Subers, then minting N - 2 Subers. Thus, >the Treasury Minister can never mint more than 2 Subers per turn, >because any Subers in excess of those 2 cannot be minted until the >next turn (to which the same prohibition on minting more than 2 >Subers applies). > >Josh This is complete bullshit -- a sad example of Josh using his math skills in an attempt to snow everyone. The first statement: "For any number of Subers N greater than 2, minting N Subers is the same thing as minting 2 Subers, then minting N - 2 Subers." How can this be "the same thing"? You're attacking a strawman -- what you propose is two actions, while what I did is one action. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 13:16:23 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy steps Joel D Uckelman writes: >2. I still believe the Mueller Maneuver to be illegal; even so, I have >merely returned the economy to a state similar to the way it was before it >was "drastically altered" by the Mueller Maneuver. There is no >inconsistency between arguing against a drastic change and undoing a >drastic change. > >3. Attempting to reset the economy was a responsible and rational action in >response to a scam directed at destabilizing the economy. What I did should >be viewed as a counter-scam rather than a scam. It's true that there would be no inconsistency IF you were simply against the Mueller Maneuver for specific reasons. However, as you've made clear in the past, you're against scamming of any variety. How, then, is it right (or at least not hypocritical of you) to "counter-scam?" Both require a bending of the rules to do something that many people may not find right. The ends are different, though, so that makes one OK and one not? >This is complete bullshit -- a sad example of Josh using his math skills in >an attempt to snow everyone. The first statement: "For any number of Subers >N greater than 2, minting N Subers is the same thing as minting 2 Subers, >then minting N - 2 Subers." How can this be "the same thing"? You're >attacking a strawman -- what you propose is two actions, while what I did >is one action. How would it happen if you were actually minting Subers? That would require separate actions. What would happen if you wrote down "Suber" ten times? You'd have to write it down 2 times before you could do the last 8... Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 16:09:22 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy At 01:16 PM 2/4/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>2. I still believe the Mueller Maneuver to be illegal; even so, I have >>merely returned the economy to a state similar to the way it was before it >>was "drastically altered" by the Mueller Maneuver. There is no >>inconsistency between arguing against a drastic change and undoing a >>drastic change. >> >>3. Attempting to reset the economy was a responsible and rational action in >>response to a scam directed at destabilizing the economy. What I did should >>be viewed as a counter-scam rather than a scam. > >It's true that there would be no inconsistency IF you were simply >against the Mueller Maneuver for specific reasons. However, as you've >made clear in the past, you're against scamming of any variety. How, >then, is it right (or at least not hypocritical of you) to "counter-scam?" >Both require a bending of the rules to do something that many people >may not find right. The ends are different, though, so that makes one >OK and one not? I have never stated opposition to all scamming -- only that which could result in the game ending or becomming unplayable. Until the Mueller Maneuver, all attempted scams were attacks on the integrity of the game. Of the two "successful" past scams, one resulted in an acrimonious end to game 1 and Josh's first win and one demolished our legal system as a viable method of arbitration, preventing a win from even being awarded. The crucial difference between these and the most recent two scams (and the wins that took place over Christmas break) is that neither poses a threat to the viability of the game itself. Secondly, I deny there to have been any "rule-bending" in what I did -- it is all _clearly_ legal (as opposed to the Mueller Maneuver of dubious legality). >>This is complete bullshit -- a sad example of Josh using his math skills in >>an attempt to snow everyone. The first statement: "For any number of Subers >>N greater than 2, minting N Subers is the same thing as minting 2 Subers, >>then minting N - 2 Subers." How can this be "the same thing"? You're >>attacking a strawman -- what you propose is two actions, while what I did >>is one action. > >How would it happen if you were actually minting Subers? That would >require separate actions. What would happen if you wrote down "Suber" >ten times? You'd have to write it down 2 times before you could do >the last 8... > >Josh There are multiple responses (not all compatible) to this which I see as having merit: 1. While "minting Subers" is the collective name for a series of actions, the action taken to initiate them may only be conducted once per turn. Thus, the limitation is placed on the number of times action may be initiated rather than on the number of actions which follow from it. 2. It is not clear how the Subers are divided. Are they in S1 or S10? By your reasoning, if I owed you $10, it would be impossible for me to give you a $10 -- rather, I would be forced to conduct five seperate transactions of $2 each. However, this is counterfactual -- I know that I can pay you $10 in a single action. Thus, the argument is flawed. 3. Using 2 in your example is arbitrary. Why 2? Why not 1 or 0.02? If there is no justification for this, I could, by the same resaoning, find that it is illegal to mint more than S3, S4, S10000, and S0.01. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 16:15:20 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy steps Joel D Uckelman writes: >Secondly, I deny there to have been any "rule-bending" in what I did -- it >is all _clearly_ legal (as opposed to the Mueller Maneuver of dubious >legality). What determines dubiosity? Both actions have faced CFJs. Speaking of which, when are you going to assign that? Or are you just going to sit around talking about it for a while? >3. Using 2 in your example is arbitrary. Why 2? Why not 1 or 0.02? If there >is no justification for this, I could, by the same resaoning, find that it >is illegal to mint more than S3, S4, S10000, and S0.01. The rule in question says "subers." Plural. Though subers may be traded in amounts as small as 0.01, a whole suber is 1.00, which makes "subers" 2.00. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 17:29:16 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy At 04:15 PM 2/4/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Secondly, I deny there to have been any "rule-bending" in what I did -- it >>is all _clearly_ legal (as opposed to the Mueller Maneuver of dubious >>legality). > >What determines dubiosity? I've already argued for why the MM is illegal. > >>3. Using 2 in your example is arbitrary. Why 2? Why not 1 or 0.02? If there >>is no justification for this, I could, by the same resaoning, find that it >>is illegal to mint more than S3, S4, S10000, and S0.01. > >The rule in question says "subers." Plural. Though subers may be >traded in amounts as small as 0.01, a whole suber is 1.00, which >makes "subers" 2.00. Only 1 is singular. If I have any other amount, the plural is used -- which doesn't automatically mean 2. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 17:33:17 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignment Tom Plagge has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 59: The Treasury Minister can never mint more than 2 Subers per turn, and thus the transaction in which Joel Uckelman claimed to sell 1 spam to the Treasury for 1 trillion Subers was illegal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 17:40:08 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P434 passed (4-1-1-5). P435 failed (0-6-0-5). P436 passed (5-0-1-5). P437 passed (4-1-1-5). P439 failed (2-4-0-5). P440 passed (6-0-0-5). P441 failed (1-5-0-5). P442 failed (3-3-0-5). P443 passed (4-2-0-5). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 17:43:17 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy At 10:04 PM 2/3/99 , Ed wrote: > >So, is the initial value for Subers 0, 500, or 1000? 1000. >Does property in Rule 327 include commodities, hexes, and enterprises? Yes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 18:12:59 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy steps Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 04:15 PM 2/4/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Secondly, I deny there to have been any "rule-bending" in what I did -- it >>>is all _clearly_ legal (as opposed to the Mueller Maneuver of dubious >>>legality). >> >>What determines dubiosity? > >I've already argued for why the MM is illegal. That's not what I'm asking. Is dubiosity simply a measure of legality? Or do we include some ethical-moral dimension? >Only 1 is singular. If I have any other amount, the plural is used -- which >doesn't automatically mean 2. Well, then the first possible plural would have been 0.01, which is surely not the direction in which you want to be arguing. Josh -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 20:02:18 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy At 06:12 PM 2/4/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 04:15 PM 2/4/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>Secondly, I deny there to have been any "rule-bending" in what I did -- it >>>>is all _clearly_ legal (as opposed to the Mueller Maneuver of dubious >>>>legality). >>> >>>What determines dubiosity? >> >>I've already argued for why the MM is illegal. > >That's not what I'm asking. Is dubiosity simply a measure of legality? >Or do we include some ethical-moral dimension? I mean that I doubt the soundness of the argument in favor of it. >>Only 1 is singular. If I have any other amount, the plural is used -- which >>doesn't automatically mean 2. > >Well, then the first possible plural would have been 0.01, which is surely >not the direction in which you want to be arguing. > >Josh Yes, but the rule contains nothing indicitave of *which* plural of the infinite set of possible plurals -- 0.01 is just as good as 1 trillion in that case. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 21:11:39 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting correction Because Lisa Hamilton automatically went into Limbo on 3 February, there should be one fewer auto-abstention on each proposal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 21:45:54 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Scoring from proposals: +26 Jeff Schroeder +23 Joel Uckelman +21 Ed Proescholdt +15 Ole Andersen -10 Tom Knight -20 Tom Mueller J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 21:50:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge scoring Tom Mueller, Ed Proescholdt, and Jeff Schroeder earned 3 points each for serving on 2 Court for RFJ 57. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 22:19:00 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: how to aleviate the money problem in three easy steps Joel D Uckelman writes: >Yes, but the rule contains nothing indicitave of *which* plural of the >infinite set of possible plurals -- 0.01 is just as good as 1 trillion in >that case. Enter the judge. -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 22:23:15 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Nomic: Limbo I am going into. -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 22:36:34 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: statistics The statistics page is now current for the first time in over a month. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:14:34 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Let me play. Theocracy ain't all that I'd hoped. May I get back in Berserker? n ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 15:14:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: confidence vote Voting is still open on the TM confidence vote that Josh called. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 15:26:38 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Nomic: I'm back in # # # # ##### #### # # ## ## # # # # # # # ## # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ###### # # # ##### #### -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 15:26:03 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: confidence vote Joel D Uckelman writes: >Voting is still open on the TM confidence vote that Josh called. Ahem. I am out of limbo. I realize that it's stated in the rules when the confidence vote began, but I think it would look a bit better if you had announced that voting had begun around the time of its beginning, instead of waiting a ways in. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 15:36:16 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: confidence vote At 03:26 PM 2/6/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Voting is still open on the TM confidence vote that Josh called. > >Ahem. I am out of limbo. > >I realize that it's stated in the rules when the confidence vote >began, but I think it would look a bit better if you had announced >that voting had begun around the time of its beginning, instead >of waiting a ways in. > >Josh You called the vote -- I assumed that everyone would see that as the announcement. I sent a reminder because I was the only one that had voted after 36 hours. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 15:40:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: I'm back in At 03:26 PM 2/6/99 , you wrote: > > > > # # # # ##### #### > # # ## ## # # # # > # # # ## # ##### # # > # # # # # # # # > # # # # # # # # > ###### # # # ##### #### > > > > >-- >Joel is a sex machine. You didn't leave limbo to vote. We've had this discussion once before, resulting in J42. Vote again now that you're not in limbo. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 15:50:34 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: I'm back in Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 03:26 PM 2/6/99 , you wrote: >> >> >> >> # # # # ##### #### >> # # ## ## # # # # >> # # # ## # ##### # # >> # # # # # # # # >> # # # # # # # # >> ###### # # # ##### #### >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Joel is a sex machine. > >You didn't leave limbo to vote. We've had this discussion once before, >resulting in J42. Vote again now that you're not in limbo. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ Look at the times, you pedant, you. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 13:43:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: consistency A question: why did Josh not dispute the minting of S10000 on 25 January, if he claims that only S2 may be minted per turn? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:15:23 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: consistency Joel D Uckelman writes: >A question: why did Josh not dispute the minting of S10000 on 25 January, >if he claims that only S2 may be minted per turn? You sent me past the breaking point, Joel. Snapping twigs. Straws. Backs. Camels. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 15:31:06 -0600 From: tom Subject: Nomic: Judgement on RFJ59 RFJ59 --------- Ruling: False Reasoning: Nice try, Josh, but you've been had. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 15:50:31 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement on RFJ59 tom writes: >RFJ59 >--------- >Ruling: False >Reasoning: Nice try, Josh, but you've been had. I leave limbo. I appeal this judgment on the grounds that it was not defended. Judgments are not required to contain analysis portions, but the lack of one in this judgment makes it a weak claim to truth at best. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 16:17:34 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignments Ed Proescholdt, Jeff Schroeder, and Tom Mueller have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 59: The Treasury Minister can never mint more than 2 Subers per turn, and thus the transaction in which Joel Uckelman claimed to sell 1 spam to the Treasury for 1 trillion Subers was illegal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 16:10:32 -0600 From: tom Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement on RFJ59 >tom writes: >>RFJ59 >>--------- >>Ruling: False >>Reasoning: Nice try, Josh, but you've been had. > >I leave limbo. > >I appeal this judgment on the grounds that it was not defended. Judgments >are not >required to contain analysis portions, but the lack of one in this judgment >makes >it a weak claim to truth at best. i felt your reasoning had sufficiently been shot down already. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 16:36:40 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement on RFJ59 tom writes: >>tom writes: >>>RFJ59 >>>--------- >>>Ruling: False >>>Reasoning: Nice try, Josh, but you've been had. >> >>I leave limbo. >> >>I appeal this judgment on the grounds that it was not defended. Judgments >>are not >>required to contain analysis portions, but the lack of one in this judgment >>makes >>it a weak claim to truth at best. > >i felt your reasoning had sufficiently been shot down already. Well thanks for sharing your feelings with us. I didn't see Joel make any solid claims against my reasoning. Merely opinions. Josh :) -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 19:18:01 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement on RFJ59 At 04:36 PM 2/7/99 , Josh wrote: > >tom writes: >>>tom writes: >>>>RFJ59 >>>>--------- >>>>Ruling: False >>>>Reasoning: Nice try, Josh, but you've been had. >>> >>>I leave limbo. >>> >>>I appeal this judgment on the grounds that it was not defended. Judgments >>>are not >>>required to contain analysis portions, but the lack of one in this judgment >>>makes >>>it a weak claim to truth at best. >> >>i felt your reasoning had sufficiently been shot down already. > >Well thanks for sharing your feelings with us. I didn't see Joel make any >solid claims >against my reasoning. Merely opinions. > >Josh >:) Clearly, rule 402 allows the Treasury Minister to mint Subers. For any number of Subers N greater than 2, minting N Subers is the same thing as minting 2 Subers, then minting N - 2 Subers. Thus, the Treasury Minister can never mint more than 2 Subers per turn, because any Subers in excess of those 2 cannot be minted until the next turn (to which the same prohibition on minting more than 2 Subers applies). No one disputes the first sentence. Your second sentence, however, is an unproven assumption. While A) minting N subers and B) minting 2 subers followed by N-2 subers do result in the same number of new subers, that is not sufficient grounds for claiming A and B to be unqualifiably the same. That A and B ultimately have the same results is certainly not a claim for unqualified sameness -- it certainly does make A and B similar in at least one respect, but more argument is necessary to extend the analogy. Additionally, even if A <-> B is true, it does not follow that only 2 subers may be minted per turn. That an action X may also be done as two separate actions does not negate the singularity of X as an action, e.g. paying a $10 debt with a $10 bill is still one action despite that the same debt could be paid in ten installments, each consisting of one $1 bill. Are these claims more "solid"? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 19:36:23 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: next turn With the issuance of 1 Judgment 59, Ottis Airhart's turn began. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 19:58:57 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal 444 1. Create a rule from the following FIXTHEHOLE delimited text: FIXTHEHOLE The Commerce Minister is an elected Official who may, at eir discretion and with the approval of the Treasury Minister: 1. Purchase property on behalf of the Treasury using the Treasury's funds. 2. Auction property on behalf of the Treasury, with the proceeds going to the Treasury. At no time may the Commerce and Treasury Ministers be the same Player, unless a Player holds one or both as Administrator; under such circumstances, the Administrator is prohibited from selling property to the Treasury. FIXTHEHOLE 2. Delete clauses 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 of Rule 402. 3. Strike paragraph 3 of Rule 402 4. Change all pronouns in Rule 402 to the appropriate Spivak-compliant form. 5. Amend the paragraph of Rule 403 that reads: "The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister." to "The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Commerce Minister." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 13:24:13 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: opinion on 444 Which solution to the TM problem does everyone like better -- creating a Commerce Minister as a check, or prohibiting rapid inflation? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 13:21:20 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Prop. 444 revision What I proposed before won't actually fix anything. This is a far simpler and better way to solve the problem -- by placing a direct check on the Treasury Minister. P444 revision ---------------------------------- Amend Rule 402, paragraph 2, clause 2, to read as follows: 2. Mint new Subers in an ammount not to exceed 20% of the total Subers already in play, to be placed in the Treasury. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 15:42:07 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: opinion on 444 Both Ed At 01:24 PM 2/8/99 -0600, you wrote: >Which solution to the TM problem does everyone like better -- creating a >Commerce Minister as a check, or prohibiting rapid inflation? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 16:38:27 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: prop. 445 ------------------------------------- 1. Create a rule from the following CHECKS 'N' BALANCES delimited text: CHECKS 'N' BALANCES The Appraiser is an elected Official whose duty it is to, during a turn, set the standard salary for the next turn. The standard salary may be any nonnegative number of Subers such that sufficient funds to pay all salaries are present in the Treasury at the time the standard salary is set. If no standard salary is set for a turn, the Treasury Minister must set a standard salary. {{The standard salary for the first turn during which this rule is in effect shall be set at 10 Subers.}} The Appraiser shall receive a nonnegative turnly salary to be paid from the Treasury and determined by the Treasury Minister. CHECKS 'N' BALANCES 2. Add as the last clause of paragraph 1 of Rule 402, and number accordingly: "Setting and paying the Appraiser's salary from the Treasury." -------------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 16:38:39 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: prop. 444 revision II 1. Create a rule from the following FIXTHEHOLE delimited text: FIXTHEHOLE The Commerce Minister is an elected Official who may, at eir discretion: 1. Purchase property on behalf of the Treasury using the Treasury's funds if sufficient funds are available. 2. Auction property on behalf of the Treasury, with the proceeds going to the Treasury. At no time may the Commerce and Treasury Ministers be the same Player, unless a Player holds one or both as Administrator; under such circumstances, the Administrator is prohibited from selling property to the Treasury. FIXTHEHOLE 2. Amend clause 2, paragraph 2 of Rule 402 to read as follows: "2. Mint new Subers in an ammount not to exceed 20% of the total Subers already in play, to be placed in the Treasury." 3. Delete clauses 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 and clause 1 of paragraph 2 of Rule 402 and renumber the remaining clauses accordingly. 4. Strike paragraph 3 of Rule 402 5. Change all pronouns in Rule 402 to the appropriate Spivak-compliant form. 6. Amend the paragraph of Rule 403 that reads: "The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister." to "The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Commerce Minister." ------------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 16:41:28 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Let me play. At 01:14 PM 2/5/99 , Nick wrote: >Theocracy ain't all that I'd hoped. May I get back in Berserker? > >n What does everyone think? Should we let him back into the game? I'm proposing that we do. Anyone who wants to call for a vote on it has the right to do so within the next 36 hours. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 20:41:52 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: Let me play. Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 01:14 PM 2/5/99 , Nick wrote: >>Theocracy ain't all that I'd hoped. May I get back in Berserker? >> >>n > >What does everyone think? Should we let him back into the game? I'm >proposing that we do. Anyone who wants to call for a vote on it has the >right to do so within the next 36 hours. I don't know, that Nick is kind of funny. He's looked untrustworthy ever since he shaved that beard off. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 22:44:19 -0600 From: tom Subject: Re: Nomic: Let me play. Josh: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 01:14 PM 2/5/99 , Nick wrote: >>>Theocracy ain't all that I'd hoped. May I get back in Berserker? >>> >>>n >> >>What does everyone think? Should we let him back into the game? I'm >>proposing that we do. Anyone who wants to call for a vote on it has the >>right to do so within the next 36 hours. > >I don't know, that Nick is kind of funny. He's looked untrustworthy >ever since he shaved that beard off. I'll call for the vote. This game has grown much less absurd since he left. Note, though, that he is properly referred to not as Nick but as A Tasteful Shrubbery. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:08:52 CST From: Mogwai Fear Satan Subject: Re: Nomic: Let me play. tom writes: >Josh: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>At 01:14 PM 2/5/99 , Nick wrote: >>>>Theocracy ain't all that I'd hoped. May I get back in Berserker? >>>> >>>>n >>> >>>What does everyone think? Should we let him back into the game? I'm >>>proposing that we do. Anyone who wants to call for a vote on it has the >>>right to do so within the next 36 hours. >> >>I don't know, that Nick is kind of funny. He's looked untrustworthy >>ever since he shaved that beard off. > >I'll call for the vote. This game has grown much less absurd since he >left. Note, though, that he is properly referred to not as Nick but as A >Tasteful Shrubbery. > You say that like it's a bad thing. So why are you calling for a vote? Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 00:37:13 -0600 From: tom Subject: Re: Nomic: Let me play. >>>>>Theocracy ain't all that I'd hoped. May I get back in Berserker? >>>>> >>>>>n >>>> >>>>What does everyone think? Should we let him back into the game? I'm >>>>proposing that we do. Anyone who wants to call for a vote on it has the >>>>right to do so within the next 36 hours. >>> >>>I don't know, that Nick is kind of funny. He's looked untrustworthy >>>ever since he shaved that beard off. >> >>I'll call for the vote. This game has grown much less absurd since he >>left. Note, though, that he is properly referred to not as Nick but as A >>Tasteful Shrubbery. >> > >You say that like it's a bad thing. So why are you calling >for a vote? oh no. absurdity is always a good thing, in my humble opinion. so are tasteful shrubberies. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 00:41:49 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: La Cosa Nostra and you As of 7 February, the Mob was of insufficient size (just Josh!) to burn me at the stake, so nothing happens. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 13:52:12 CST From: "Why Johnny Can't Read" Subject: Re: Nomic: Let me play. tom writes: >>>>>>Theocracy ain't all that I'd hoped. May I get back in Berserker? >>>>>> >>>>>>n >>>>> >>>>>What does everyone think? Should we let him back into the game? I'm >>>>>proposing that we do. Anyone who wants to call for a vote on it has the >>>>>right to do so within the next 36 hours. >>>> >>>>I don't know, that Nick is kind of funny. He's looked untrustworthy >>>>ever since he shaved that beard off. >>> >>>I'll call for the vote. This game has grown much less absurd since he >>>left. Note, though, that he is properly referred to not as Nick but as A >>>Tasteful Shrubbery. >>> >> >>You say that like it's a bad thing. So why are you calling >>for a vote? > >oh no. absurdity is always a good thing, in my humble opinion. so are >tasteful shrubberies. Then why did you call for a vote? That's the _harder_ of the two ways to admit someone to the game. -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:13:34 -0600 From: tom Subject: Re: Nomic: Let me play. >Then why did you call for a vote? That's the _harder_ of the two ways >to admit someone to the game. I thought that was the only way--3/4 majority votes to let you in. Am I missing something vitally important here? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:21:43 CST From: "Why Johnny Can't Read" Subject: Re: Nomic: Let me play. tom writes: >>Then why did you call for a vote? That's the _harder_ of the two ways >>to admit someone to the game. > >I thought that was the only way--3/4 majority votes to let you in. Am I >missing something vitally important here? Yes, rule 309. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:36:02 -0600 From: tom Subject: Re: Nomic: Let me play. At 06:21 PM 2/9/99 , you wrote: > >tom writes: >>>Then why did you call for a vote? That's the _harder_ of the two ways >>>to admit someone to the game. >> >>I thought that was the only way--3/4 majority votes to let you in. Am I >>missing something vitally important here? > >Yes, rule 309. > Oh. That's right...forgot about the latest amendment. Sorry about that. If it's possible, I un-call that vote. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:22:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: The court that is currently out ... has until 14 February to render a decision. [I suggest that you do so sooner, though, as this seems to be holding up play.] J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:04:23 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting tomorrow Voting begins tomorrow at 15:31 CST. Note that the voting period is now 48 hours instead of 36. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:22:10 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Can I play? Can someone inform me as to my status. Am I a Player, or is there a vote going on? n ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 05:06:32 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: voting tomorrow If we are now past "tomorrow at 15:31 CST" (I guess I'll have to find some time zone tool), I will vote Prop 444 For Prop 445 Against (and if we are going to vote on 'Let Nick (or 'A Tasteful Shrubbery') join") For Ole -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Joel D Uckelman Til: nomic@iastate.edu Dato: 12. februar 1999 20:12 Emne: Nomic: voting tomorrow >Voting begins tomorrow at 15:31 CST. Note that the voting period is now 48 >hours instead of 36. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:09:27 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: voting tomorrow At 10:06 PM 2/13/99 , Ole wrote: >If we are now past "tomorrow at 15:31 CST" (I guess I'll have to find some >time zone tool), I will vote Central Standard Time is GMT -6, so you should be 7 hours ahead of the "standard" game time -- no time zone tool necessary. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:06:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot P444 1. Create a rule from the following FIXTHEHOLE delimited text: FIXTHEHOLE The Commerce Minister is an elected Official who may, at eir discretion: 1. Purchase property on behalf of the Treasury using the Treasury's funds if sufficient funds are available. 2. Auction property on behalf of the Treasury, with the proceeds going to the Treasury. At no time may the Commerce and Treasury Ministers be the same Player, unless a Player holds one or both as Administrator; under such circumstances, the Administrator is prohibited from selling property to the Treasury. FIXTHEHOLE 2. Amend clause 2, paragraph 2 of Rule 402 to read as follows: "2. Mint new Subers in an ammount not to exceed 20% of the total Subers already in play, to be placed in the Treasury." 3. Delete clauses 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 and clause 1 of paragraph 2 of Rule 402 and renumber the remaining clauses accordingly. 4. Strike paragraph 3 of Rule 402. 5. Change all pronouns in Rule 402 to the appropriate Spivak-compliant form. 6. Amend the paragraph of Rule 403 that reads: "The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister." to "The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Commerce Minister." ------------------------------------------ P445 1. Create a rule from the following CHECKS 'N' BALANCES delimited text: CHECKS 'N' BALANCES The Appraiser is an elected Official whose duty it is to, during a turn, set the standard salary for the next turn. The standard salary may be any nonnegative number of Subers such that sufficient funds to pay all salaries are present in the Treasury at the time the standard salary is set. If no standard salary is set for a turn, the Treasury Minister must set a standard salary. {{The standard salary for the first turn during which this rule is in effect shall be set at 10 Subers.}} The Appraiser shall receive a nonnegative turnly salary to be paid from the Treasury and determined by the Treasury Minister. CHECKS 'N' BALANCES 2. Add as the last clause of paragraph 1 of Rule 402, and number accordingly: "Setting and paying the Appraiser's salary from the Treasury." ------------------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:52:07 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 444, 445 yes on both J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:52:57 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: doh! I just accidentally sent my votes to the list. Don't send your votes to the list (unless you really want to). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:17:40 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot Yes on both At 12:06 AM 2/14/99 -0600, you wrote: >P444 > >1. Create a rule from the following FIXTHEHOLE delimited text: > >FIXTHEHOLE > >The Commerce Minister is an elected Official who may, at eir discretion: > >1. Purchase property on behalf of the Treasury using the Treasury's funds >if sufficient funds are available. > >2. Auction property on behalf of the Treasury, with the proceeds going to >the Treasury. > >At no time may the Commerce and Treasury Ministers be the same Player, >unless a Player >holds one or both as Administrator; under such circumstances, the >Administrator is prohibited from selling property to the Treasury. > >FIXTHEHOLE > >2. Amend clause 2, paragraph 2 of Rule 402 to read as follows: > >"2. Mint new Subers in an ammount not to exceed 20% of the total Subers >already in play, to be placed in the Treasury." > >3. Delete clauses 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 and clause 1 of paragraph 2 of >Rule 402 and renumber the remaining clauses accordingly. > >4. Strike paragraph 3 of Rule 402. > >5. Change all pronouns in Rule 402 to the appropriate Spivak-compliant form. > >6. Amend the paragraph of Rule 403 that reads: > >"The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the >Treasury >possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic >Confidence Vote is >taken on the Treasury Minister." > >to > >"The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the >Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic >Confidence Vote is taken on the Commerce Minister." > >------------------------------------------ >P445 > >1. Create a rule from the following CHECKS 'N' BALANCES delimited text: > >CHECKS 'N' BALANCES > >The Appraiser is an elected Official whose duty it is to, during a turn, >set the standard salary for the next turn. > >The standard salary may be any nonnegative number of Subers such that >sufficient funds to pay all salaries are present in the Treasury at the >time the standard salary is set. If no standard salary is set for a turn, >the Treasury Minister must set a standard salary. {{The >standard salary for the first turn during which this rule is in effect >shall be set at 10 Subers.}} > >The Appraiser shall receive a nonnegative turnly salary to be paid from the >Treasury and determined by the Treasury Minister. > >CHECKS 'N' BALANCES > >2. Add as the last clause of paragraph 1 of Rule 402, and number accordingly: > >"Setting and paying the Appraiser's salary from the Treasury." > >------------------------------------------- > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:22:51 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: judgement Ruling: False Statement: The Treasury Minister can never mint more than 2 Subers per turn, and thus the transaction in which Joel Uckelman claimed to sell 1 spam to the Treasury for 1 trillion Subers was illegal. Comments: Rule 402 states: "The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, but no more than once per turn, may: 1. Auction public lands. 2. Authorize the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury. 3. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury." My interpretation of this is that the Treasury Minister authorizes the minting of Subers, but does not do the actual minting. Thus, the TM can authorize the minting only once per turn, and then the Subers are placed in the Treasury by whatever unnamed force does the actual minting. Thus, the TM can't mint Subers, but can authorize the minting of however many Subers e feels like, so the entire move was legal. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:39:11 CST From: "Why Johnny Can't Read" Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement Andrew Proescholdt writes: > >Ruling: False > >Statement: > >The Treasury Minister can never mint more than 2 Subers per turn, and thus >the transaction in which Joel Uckelman claimed to sell 1 spam to the >Treasury for 1 trillion Subers was illegal. > >Comments: >Rule 402 states: > >"The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, but no more than once per turn, > may: > > 1. Auction public lands. > 2. Authorize the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury. > 3. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury." > >My interpretation of this is that the Treasury Minister authorizes the >minting of Subers, but does not do the actual minting. Thus, the TM can >authorize the minting only once per turn, and then the Subers are placed in >the Treasury by whatever unnamed force does the actual minting. Thus, the >TM can't mint Subers, but can authorize the minting of however many Subers >e feels like, so the entire move was legal. Has the court reached a majority opinion? CFJ: There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, under the current ruleset. Analysis: The Subers rule says only rules may create and destroy Subers. The rule for the Treasury says the Treasury holds the "proceeds from the minting of new Subers." The Treasury Minister rule says that the Minister may "[a]uthorize the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury." Nowhere do I see anything which actually mints Subers, though there seems to be a lot of discussion about what to do with the final product. I note furthermore that this means, until the rules are changed, no Subers can be minted at all. A consqeuence of this impossibility is that Joel could not have sold 1 spam to the Treasury for 1 trillion Subers, because those Subers could not have been available as payment. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:08:08 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement At 02:39 PM 2/14/99 , Josh wrote: > >Has the court reached a majority opinion? > >CFJ: > >There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so >no Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's >authorization, under the current ruleset. > >Analysis: > >The Subers rule says only rules may create and destroy Subers. >The rule for the Treasury says the Treasury holds the "proceeds from >the minting of new Subers." The Treasury Minister rule says that >the Minister may "[a]uthorize the minting of Subers, to be placed >in the Treasury." Nowhere do I see anything which actually mints >Subers, though there seems to be a lot of discussion about what to >do with the final product. I hold there to be no difference between the minting of Subers and the authorization of such minting now, as there was no difference in the past when Subers have been minted. Additionally, even if authorization to mint and minting differ, the (supposed) lack of rules governing minting allows the TM to mint Subers once he has been authorized to do so through R116. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:12:15 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignment Tom Mueller has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 60: There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, under the current ruleset. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:52:10 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement >Has the court reached a majority opinion? yes there was a majority. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:45:15 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting Voting lasts until 15:31 CST, 15 February 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:16:51 CST From: "Why Johnny Can't Read" Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement Joel D Uckelman writes: >I hold there to be no difference between the minting of Subers and the >authorization of such minting now, as there was no difference in the past >when Subers have been minted. Additionally, even if authorization to mint >and minting differ, the (supposed) lack of rules governing minting allows >the TM to mint Subers once he has been authorized to do so through R116. I hold that the fact that we were formerly ignorant has nothing to do with the precedent you claim is set. Which rule takes precedence? 116 or the Subers rule? Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:14:00 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement At 02:16 AM 2/15/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>I hold there to be no difference between the minting of Subers and the >>authorization of such minting now, as there was no difference in the past >>when Subers have been minted. Additionally, even if authorization to mint >>and minting differ, the (supposed) lack of rules governing minting allows >>the TM to mint Subers once he has been authorized to do so through R116. > >I hold that the fact that we were formerly ignorant has nothing to >do with the precedent you claim is set. > >Which rule takes precedence? 116 or the Subers rule? > >Josh 116, since it's immutable. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:16:11 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: idea Would anyone find a "game calendar" with the times for upcomming game events useful? If so, I will put one on the page once I have some time. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:37:34 CST From: "Why Johnny Can't Read" Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 02:16 AM 2/15/99 , you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>I hold there to be no difference between the minting of Subers and the >>>authorization of such minting now, as there was no difference in the past >>>when Subers have been minted. Additionally, even if authorization to mint >>>and minting differ, the (supposed) lack of rules governing minting allows >>>the TM to mint Subers once he has been authorized to do so through R116. >> >>I hold that the fact that we were formerly ignorant has nothing to >>do with the precedent you claim is set. >> >>Which rule takes precedence? 116 or the Subers rule? >> >>Josh > >116, since it's immutable. Are you sure you want to completely invalidate our currency system? Rule 110/0(i) : Primacy of Immutable Rules In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Josh -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:49:39 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judgement Josh wrote: >Are you sure you want to completely invalidate our currency system? > > Rule 110/0(i) : Primacy of Immutable Rules > > In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the > immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be > entirely void. ... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I believe we need a pretty smart lawyer here. I'd say Rule 110 kills any mutable rule conflicting even the slightest little bit with an immutable rule. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:05:06 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement At 01:37 PM 2/15/99 , Josh wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 02:16 AM 2/15/99 , you wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>I hold there to be no difference between the minting of Subers and the >>>>authorization of such minting now, as there was no difference in the past >>>>when Subers have been minted. Additionally, even if authorization to mint >>>>and minting differ, the (supposed) lack of rules governing minting allows >>>>the TM to mint Subers once he has been authorized to do so through R116. >>> >>>I hold that the fact that we were formerly ignorant has nothing to >>>do with the precedent you claim is set. >>> >>>Which rule takes precedence? 116 or the Subers rule? >>> >>>Josh >> >>116, since it's immutable. > >Are you sure you want to completely invalidate our currency system? > > Rule 110/0(i) : Primacy of Immutable Rules > > In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the > immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be > entirely void. ... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Josh Our judicial history seems to indicate that we've always taken "entirely void" to mean "entirely void qua the conflicting immutable rule", so I don't see this as a problem. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:15:11 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: why? Why did people vote against P445? No one offered any criticism of it at all during the debate period. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:14:11 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results I don't know who Osborn's Demon votes with yet, since whether I won at the end of last turn is still in dispute; however, the Demon's votes won't change the pass/fail state of either proposal, so here are the preliminary results: P444 passed (4-1-1-3). P445 failed (2-3-1-3). The turn cannot end until a judgment has been issued on RFJ 60. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:25:58 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting correction I just noticed that Ole voted before the voting period began, so the preliminary votes are actually: P444 passed (3-1-1-4). P445 ?????? (2-2-1-4). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:27:09 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Can I play? At 09:22 PM 2/12/99 , you wrote: >Can someone inform me as to my status. Am I a Player, or is there a vote >going on? > >n The vote is ongoing. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:13:17 CST From: "Why Johnny Can't Read" Subject: Re: Nomic: voting correction Joel D Uckelman writes: >I just noticed that Ole voted before the voting period began, so the >preliminary votes are actually: > >P444 passed (3-1-1-4). >P445 ?????? (2-2-1-4). I think the fact that Ole voted before the period could be considered "reasonable" warning of absentee voting, for reasonable values of "reasonable." Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:14:12 CST From: "Why Johnny Can't Read" Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 01:37 PM 2/15/99 , Josh wrote: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>At 02:16 AM 2/15/99 , you wrote: >>>> >>>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>I hold there to be no difference between the minting of Subers and the >>>>>authorization of such minting now, as there was no difference in the past >>>>>when Subers have been minted. Additionally, even if authorization to mint >>>>>and minting differ, the (supposed) lack of rules governing minting allows >>>>>the TM to mint Subers once he has been authorized to do so through R116. >>>> >>>>I hold that the fact that we were formerly ignorant has nothing to >>>>do with the precedent you claim is set. >>>> >>>>Which rule takes precedence? 116 or the Subers rule? >>>> >>>>Josh >>> >>>116, since it's immutable. >> >>Are you sure you want to completely invalidate our currency system? >> >> Rule 110/0(i) : Primacy of Immutable Rules >> >> In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the >> immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be >> entirely void. ... >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>Josh > >Our judicial history seems to indicate that we've always taken "entirely >void" to mean "entirely void qua the conflicting immutable rule", so I >don't see this as a problem. Seems to. Again, perhaps we've just never been aware of this inconsistency before. "Entirely" is a universal quantifier of sorts. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:26:30 CST From: "Why Johnny Can't Read" Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: judgement "Ole Andersen" writes: >Josh wrote: > >>Are you sure you want to completely invalidate our currency system? >> >> Rule 110/0(i) : Primacy of Immutable Rules >> >> In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the >> immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be >> entirely void. ... >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > > >I believe we need a pretty smart lawyer here. I'd say Rule 110 kills any >mutable rule conflicting even the slightest little bit with an immutable >rule. Indeed. -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:09:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: voting correction At 11:13 PM 2/15/99 , Joel wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>I just noticed that Ole voted before the voting period began, so the >>preliminary votes are actually: >> >>P444 passed (3-1-1-4). >>P445 ?????? (2-2-1-4). > >I think the fact that Ole voted before the period could be >considered "reasonable" warning of absentee voting, for >reasonable values of "reasonable." > >Josh Oh. That would be R323. I had forgotten that we had that rule. Ole's votes count, then. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:29:59 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:10:59 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Tom Mueller did not return a judgment on RFJ 60 in time, and has been fined 10 points. Joel Uckelman has been selected for 1 Court for RFJ 60. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:10:52 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: let me play! I'd really, really like to play. I promise to be good; no shrubberies, honest. Please, vote me in, or I'm going to set Joel on fire. n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:58:47 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: judge reassignment Uckelman wrote: >Tom Mueller did not return a judgment on RFJ 60 in time, and has been fined >10 points. Joel Uckelman has been selected for 1 Court for RFJ 60. > Curses! I'd like to apologize for not dealing with this, my ISP changed protocols without telling me (and I have an old modem) and it took quite a while before I found someone in the office who knew what had happened and could direct me to a line that maintained backwards compatability. So here I am. Finally caught up. I managed a while back to use a public terminal to send a message to the list using hotmail, but now that I look for it I don't find it. (And it was a good one too, it had a RFJ which questioned whether an RFJ could be submited using an unorthodox email address :) ). Did you see it bounce Joel? Or did it even get that far.... Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:32:57 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge reassignment At 07:58 PM 2/18/99 , Mueller wrote: >Uckelman wrote: >>Tom Mueller did not return a judgment on RFJ 60 in time, and has been fined >>10 points. Joel Uckelman has been selected for 1 Court for RFJ 60. >> > >Curses! > >I'd like to apologize for not dealing with this, my ISP changed protocols >without telling me (and I have an old modem) and it took quite a while >before I found someone in the office who knew what had happened and could >direct me to a line that maintained backwards compatability. > >So here I am. Finally caught up. > >I managed a while back to use a public terminal to send a message to the >list using hotmail, but now that I look for it I don't find it. (And it >was a good one too, it had a RFJ which questioned whether an RFJ could be >submited using an unorthodox email address :) ). > >Did you see it bounce Joel? Or did it even get that far.... > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net Nope. This is the first I've seen of it, i.e. it never made it to our majordomo server. Also, I too apologize for being a little remiss in updating things this week -- I've been busier than I had anticipated... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:50:16 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting on Osborn Voting is still happening. If you want Nick to rejoin the game and haven't voted yet, please do so. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:06:24 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new (sort of) player As of 00:40, Nick Osborn is now a player. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:26:02 CST From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: New prop I'm back! new prop ---- Any rule introducing or facilitating the introduction of a shrubbery or shrubberies to Berserker Nomic, the Berserker Nomic ruleset, or to anything associated with Berserker Nomic, is immutable. ---- n ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:49:44 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I'm back! > >new prop >---- >Any rule introducing or facilitating the introduction of a shrubbery or >shrubberies to Berserker Nomic, the Berserker Nomic ruleset, or to >anything associated with Berserker Nomic, is immutable. >---- >n Good to have you back, Nick. In fine form already, at that. -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:06:32 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop At 03:26 AM 2/20/99 , Nick wrote: >I'm back! > >new prop >---- >Any rule introducing or facilitating the introduction of a shrubbery or >shrubberies to Berserker Nomic, the Berserker Nomic ruleset, or to >anything associated with Berserker Nomic, is immutable. >---- >n You can't propose yet. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:29:37 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: election stuff I'll put up a schedule for this stuff in the future. For now, sorry about the short notice. 1. Tom Mueller's term as Foreign Minister has just ended. Nominations are now open. 2. We missed the nomination period for the newly created Commerce Minister, which means that the position reverts to me as Administrator; however, since the office was created with the intent to reduce the power of the TM, it would seem that I presently have a conflict of interest in holding it. Therefore, I resign as CM, and nominations for it are also now open. Nominations for both end at 13:20 CST, 22 February 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:20:07 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 1 Judgment 60 Statement: There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, under the current ruleset. Ruling: FALSE Analysis: R346/2 states, in part, that "only rules may create and destroy Subers," so prima facie, it seems that the statement should be ruled TRUE; however, R402/1 "2. Authorize[s] the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury" and "3. Authorize[s] the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury," and R402/1 takes precedence by R211/1. The question here seems, then, to lie in whether the two rules do indeed contradict each other. R346/2 prohibits the creation and destruction of Subers by anything save rules -- i.e. only rules are _authorized_ to create Subers. R402/1 confers on the Treasury Minister the right to authorize such creation and destruction. Thus, R402/1 clearly takes precedence in this case. At the time of the RFJ, there were no rules governing the creation of Subers after the Treasury Minister grants authorization; as such, the creation of Subers upon authorization from the Treasury Minister is permitted under R116/0. Whoever (or whatever) the Treasury Minister grants authorization to mint Subers may then mint them in any number e so chooses. [NB: The statement's antecedent, "There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers," is actually false, as R347/3 explicitly creates Subers when new players enter the game. Strictly speaking, then, the statement is true, but only in a vacuous sense. By my analysis, however, the consequent is always false, so if the antecedent were true, the statement would be false in a meaningful way. As the complainant certainly overlooked R347/3 and took the antecedent to be indisputably true, and as nothing is served by ruling true due to a false antecedent, I feel justified ruling the statement false.] J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:30:38 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: next turn It is now Ole Andersen's turn. Everyone except Nick Osborn is now eligible to judge and make proposals. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 16:06:03 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: 1 Judgment 60 Joel D Uckelman writes: >that they create Subers," is actually false, as R347/3 explicitly creates >Subers when new players enter the game. Strictly speaking, then, the >statement is true, but only in a vacuous sense. By my analysis, however, >the consequent is always false, so if the antecedent were true, the >statement would be false in a meaningful way. As the complainant certainly >overlooked R347/3 and took the antecedent to be indisputably true, and as >nothing is served by ruling true due to a false antecedent, I feel >justified ruling the statement false.] Good enough for me. I appeal this statement on the grounds that its judge deliberately ignored well-established rules of logic. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:38:56 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 1 Judgment 60 At 04:06 PM 2/20/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>that they create Subers," is actually false, as R347/3 explicitly creates >>Subers when new players enter the game. Strictly speaking, then, the >>statement is true, but only in a vacuous sense. By my analysis, however, >>the consequent is always false, so if the antecedent were true, the >>statement would be false in a meaningful way. As the complainant certainly >>overlooked R347/3 and took the antecedent to be indisputably true, and as >>nothing is served by ruling true due to a false antecedent, I feel >>justified ruling the statement false.] > >Good enough for me. I appeal this statement on the grounds that >its judge deliberately ignored well-established rules of logic. > >Josh If my memory serves me, the last time we argued this, you held the position that I hold now. What would a true ruling mean on this statement, anyway? Nothing, since it wouldn't be clear how it's true -- I'm sure that isn't what you were going for. Let this be a lesson to everyone: don't submit conditional statements for judgment. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:43:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 1 Judgment 60 At 04:06 PM 2/20/99 , Josh wrote: > >Good enough for me. I appeal this statement on the grounds that >its judge deliberately ignored well-established rules of logic. > >Josh The new court should note that Josh does not dispute my reasoning on substantive issues -- the point of disputation is on how I dealt with a false antecedent. Consider what Josh would have done if I had not remembered R347/3 -- the antecedent would have been effectively true, while the consequent would be false, thus making the statement false (note the truth table below): A B A -> B ----------------------- T T T T F F F T T F F T J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:54:14 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignments Ole Andersen, Ottis Airhart, and Tom Plagge have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 60: There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, under the current ruleset. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:50:35 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: legal reform I think I'm going to propose some legal reforms this turn: 1. More linkage between statements and the actions being disputed. If one could ask for approval/disapproval of a particular action (or class of actions), things might be clearer. 2. Some system of precedent such that actions already ruled on cannot be arbitrarily reversed should exist. 3. A statute of limitations such that actions in the past cannot be reversed beyond a certain point. At present we could find that some action from last September was illegal and be forced to undo everything done since then. I doubt anyone wants to be forced down that path. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:52:59 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: 1 Judgment 60 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 04:06 PM 2/20/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Good enough for me. I appeal this statement on the grounds that >>its judge deliberately ignored well-established rules of logic. >> >>Josh > >The new court should note that Josh does not dispute my reasoning on >substantive issues -- the point of disputation is on how I dealt with a >false antecedent. Consider what Josh would have done if I had not >remembered R347/3 -- the antecedent would have been effectively true, while >the consequent would be false, thus making the statement false (note the >truth table below): > >A B A -> B >----------------------- >T T T >T F F >F T T >F F T One should not infer that, because I chose to submit an appeal based on one portion of Joel's judgment, that I am in agreement with all other parts. To do so would be fallacious (shame on you, Joel). I still have plenty of time to make my case. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:50:12 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: 1 Judgment 60 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 04:06 PM 2/20/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>that they create Subers," is actually false, as R347/3 explicitly creates >>>Subers when new players enter the game. Strictly speaking, then, the >>>statement is true, but only in a vacuous sense. By my analysis, however, >>>the consequent is always false, so if the antecedent were true, the >>>statement would be false in a meaningful way. As the complainant certainly >>>overlooked R347/3 and took the antecedent to be indisputably true, and as >>>nothing is served by ruling true due to a false antecedent, I feel >>>justified ruling the statement false.] >> >>Good enough for me. I appeal this statement on the grounds that >>its judge deliberately ignored well-established rules of logic. >> >>Josh > >If my memory serves me, the last time we argued this, you held the position >that I hold now. What would a true ruling mean on this statement, anyway? >Nothing, since it wouldn't be clear how it's true -- I'm sure that isn't >what you were going for. Let this be a lesson to everyone: don't submit >conditional statements for judgment. Life's funny that way, eh? Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:08:25 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 1 Judgment 60 At 05:52 PM 2/20/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 04:06 PM 2/20/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>Good enough for me. I appeal this statement on the grounds that >>>its judge deliberately ignored well-established rules of logic. >>> >>>Josh >> >>The new court should note that Josh does not dispute my reasoning on >>substantive issues -- the point of disputation is on how I dealt with a >>false antecedent. Consider what Josh would have done if I had not >>remembered R347/3 -- the antecedent would have been effectively true, while >>the consequent would be false, thus making the statement false (note the >>truth table below): >> >>A B A -> B >>----------------------- >>T T T >>T F F >>F T T >>F F T > >One should not infer that, because I chose to submit an appeal >based on one portion of Joel's judgment, that I am in agreement >with all other parts. To do so would be fallacious (shame on you, Joel). > >I still have plenty of time to make my case. > >Josh How can making your case change effect of the ruling? If you want to play it as being true (strictly), whether it's true by my argument or by your argument isn't going to be decided here. Does it seem to you to be a problem with the judiciary that we're still litigating over something that happened two turns ago? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:36:22 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: Spam Have we all lost points for failing to eat spam? Ed ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:07:10 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam At 06:36 PM 2/20/99 , Ed wrote: > >Have we all lost points for failing to eat spam? > >Ed Yes, unfortunately. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:43:52 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 06:36 PM 2/20/99 , Ed wrote: >> >>Have we all lost points for failing to eat spam? >> >>Ed > >Yes, unfortunately. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ What, it's not implicit, if one has spam? What a waste of effort. -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:49:57 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: 1 Judgment 60 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 05:52 PM 2/20/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>At 04:06 PM 2/20/99 , Josh wrote: >>>> >>>>Good enough for me. I appeal this statement on the grounds that >>>>its judge deliberately ignored well-established rules of logic. >>>> >>>>Josh >>> >>>The new court should note that Josh does not dispute my reasoning on >>>substantive issues -- the point of disputation is on how I dealt with a >>>false antecedent. Consider what Josh would have done if I had not >>>remembered R347/3 -- the antecedent would have been effectively true, while >>>the consequent would be false, thus making the statement false (note the >>>truth table below): >>> >>>A B A -> B >>>----------------------- >>>T T T >>>T F F >>>F T T >>>F F T >> >>One should not infer that, because I chose to submit an appeal >>based on one portion of Joel's judgment, that I am in agreement >>with all other parts. To do so would be fallacious (shame on you, Joel). >> >>I still have plenty of time to make my case. >> >>Josh > >How can making your case change effect of the ruling? If you want to play >it as being true (strictly), whether it's true by my argument or by your >argument isn't going to be decided here. > >Does it seem to you to be a problem with the judiciary that we're still >litigating over something that happened two turns ago? Yep, you're right, courts are slow. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 01:35:59 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam At 12:43 AM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 06:36 PM 2/20/99 , Ed wrote: >>> >>>Have we all lost points for failing to eat spam? >>> >>>Ed >> >>Yes, unfortunately. >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu >>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > >What, it's not implicit, if one has spam? What a waste of effort. I didn't mean that you have to had said "I eat my spam." The real problem lies in whether or not there is currently ANY spam, i.e. whether or not the game reset two turns ago. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 04:05:32 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:43 AM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>At 06:36 PM 2/20/99 , Ed wrote: >>>> >>>>Have we all lost points for failing to eat spam? >>>> >>>>Ed >>> >>>Yes, unfortunately. >>> >>>J. Uckelman >>>uckelman@iastate.edu >>>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ >> >>What, it's not implicit, if one has spam? What a waste of effort. > >I didn't mean that you have to had said "I eat my spam." The real problem >lies in >whether or not there is currently ANY spam, i.e. whether or not the game >reset two turns ago. If the game was reset, then we won't lose the points because we haven't actually reset it yet. If the game wasn't reset, then there should be no problem with having spam. Am I missing something here? Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:03:00 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam At 04:05 AM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 12:43 AM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>At 06:36 PM 2/20/99 , Ed wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Have we all lost points for failing to eat spam? >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>>Yes, unfortunately. >>>> >>>>J. Uckelman >>>>uckelman@iastate.edu >>>>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ >>> >>>What, it's not implicit, if one has spam? What a waste of effort. >> >>I didn't mean that you have to had said "I eat my spam." The real problem >>lies in >>whether or not there is currently ANY spam, i.e. whether or not the game >>reset two turns ago. > >If the game was reset, then we won't lose the points because we haven't >actually reset it yet. No. If I won, the game reset at that moment, so there hasn't been any spam since then. >If the game wasn't reset, then there should be no problem with >having spam. Agreed. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:00:25 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam Joel D Uckelman writes: >>If the game was reset, then we won't lose the points because we haven't >>actually reset it yet. > >No. If I won, the game reset at that moment, so there hasn't been any spam >since then. Since the game went ON, though, there are many game actions to undo, including all economic actions, etc. This doesn't seem to quite be working the way we intended. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:57:03 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam At 01:00 PM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>If the game was reset, then we won't lose the points because we haven't >>>actually reset it yet. >> >>No. If I won, the game reset at that moment, so there hasn't been any spam >>since then. > >Since the game went ON, though, there are many game actions to undo, >including all economic actions, etc. > >This doesn't seem to quite be working the way we intended. > >Josh There haven't been any economic actions since then, but it seems that we need some other way to do this. I'll be thinking about it. Anyway, Plagge and I were talking, and it might be a good idea to scrap the current economy but at the same time eliminate points and have players paid in Subers for proposals and judging -- which is why we need an assessor and I'm going to repropose it. And don't say "I told you so" -- I think the economy isn't working due to lack of interest, too few players, etc. rather than lack of intrinsic value. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:25:40 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 01:00 PM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>If the game was reset, then we won't lose the points because we haven't >>>>actually reset it yet. >>> >>>No. If I won, the game reset at that moment, so there hasn't been any spam >>>since then. >> >>Since the game went ON, though, there are many game actions to undo, >>including all economic actions, etc. >> >>This doesn't seem to quite be working the way we intended. >> >>Josh > >There haven't been any economic actions since then, but it seems that we >need some other way to do this. I'll be thinking about it. > >Anyway, Plagge and I were talking, and it might be a good idea to scrap the >current economy but at the same time eliminate points and have players paid >in Subers for proposals and judging -- which is why we need an assessor and >I'm going to repropose it. And don't say "I told you so" -- I think the >economy isn't working due to lack of interest, too few players, etc. rather >than lack of intrinsic value. Hmmmm. What motivates interest? Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:49:41 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam At 05:25 PM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 01:00 PM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>If the game was reset, then we won't lose the points because we haven't >>>>>actually reset it yet. >>>> >>>>No. If I won, the game reset at that moment, so there hasn't been any spam >>>>since then. >>> >>>Since the game went ON, though, there are many game actions to undo, >>>including all economic actions, etc. >>> >>>This doesn't seem to quite be working the way we intended. >>> >>>Josh >> >>There haven't been any economic actions since then, but it seems that we >>need some other way to do this. I'll be thinking about it. >> >>Anyway, Plagge and I were talking, and it might be a good idea to scrap the >>current economy but at the same time eliminate points and have players paid >>in Subers for proposals and judging -- which is why we need an assessor and >>I'm going to repropose it. And don't say "I told you so" -- I think the >>economy isn't working due to lack of interest, too few players, etc. rather >>than lack of intrinsic value. > >Hmmmm. > >What motivates interest? > >Josh I couldn't say, really. It seems arbitrary to me. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:54:37 CST From: The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny Subject: Re: Nomic: Spam Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Anyway, Plagge and I were talking, and it might be a good idea to scrap the >>>current economy but at the same time eliminate points and have players paid >>>in Subers for proposals and judging -- which is why we need an assessor and >>>I'm going to repropose it. And don't say "I told you so" -- I think the >>>economy isn't working due to lack of interest, too few players, etc. rather >>>than lack of intrinsic value. >> >>Hmmmm. >> >>What motivates interest? >> >>Josh > >I couldn't say, really. It seems arbitrary to me. I would agree with that assessment just in case there were not already interesting things. The development of interesting things is indeed a deeper mystery. But when there are pre-existing, interesting things, there seems to be some sort of continuity of interest. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:20:48 -0600 From: The Martin Jischke from Hell Subject: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 I'm going to issue my opinion now, and Ottis & Ole can concur or dissent as they please. STATEMENT: There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, under the current ruleset. RULING: Dismissed COMMENTS: Since the antecedent is false due to R347/3, this RFJ is irrelevant. For future RFJs, it would be wise to request judgement on a statement, rather than a conditional. If a justification like the one included in this RFJ is really necessary, it can always be included as a comment rather than an antecedent. As to whether the consequent in this RFJ is true, I have my doubts, but that has no bearing on this judgement. Once again, I call Josh's attention to the many virtues of pragmatism and encourage him to just shut the hell up once in a while. >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>that they create Subers," is actually false, as R347/3 explicitly creates >>>Subers when new players enter the game. Strictly speaking, then, the >>>statement is true, but only in a vacuous sense. By my analysis, however, >>>the consequent is always false, so if the antecedent were true, the >>>statement would be false in a meaningful way. As the complainant certainly >>>overlooked R347/3 and took the antecedent to be indisputably true, and as >>>nothing is served by ruling true due to a false antecedent, I feel >>>justified ruling the statement false.] >> >>Good enough for me. I appeal this statement on the grounds that >>its judge deliberately ignored well-established rules of logic. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:04:21 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 The Martin Jischke from Hell writes: >I'm going to issue my opinion now, and Ottis & Ole can concur or dissent as >they please. > >STATEMENT: > >There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no >Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, >under the current ruleset. > > >RULING: > >Dismissed > > >COMMENTS: > >Since the antecedent is false due to R347/3, this RFJ is irrelevant. For Please explain what bearing a statement's truth value has on its relevancy. It seems you evaluated the truth value, which means you considered it relevant in some sense. >future RFJs, it would be wise to request judgement on a statement, rather >than a conditional. If a justification like the one included in this RFJ >is really necessary, it can always be included as a comment rather than an >antecedent. As to whether the consequent in this RFJ is true, I have my >doubts, but that has no bearing on this judgement. > >Once again, I call Josh's attention to the many virtues of pragmatism and >encourage him to just shut the hell up once in a while. You know... When _I_ espouse pragmatism, Joel makes a Joel face. When _Joel_ (or a PMIC eschatologist) espouses it, I'm supposed to be bad somehow. Hmmm.......... ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:27:13 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 At 06:20 PM 2/21/99 , Plagge wrote: >I'm going to issue my opinion now, and Ottis & Ole can concur or dissent as >they please. > >STATEMENT: > >There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no >Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, >under the current ruleset. > > >RULING: > >Dismissed > > >COMMENTS: > >Since the antecedent is false due to R347/3, this RFJ is irrelevant. For >future RFJs, it would be wise to request judgement on a statement, rather >than a conditional. If a justification like the one included in this RFJ >is really necessary, it can always be included as a comment rather than an >antecedent. As to whether the consequent in this RFJ is true, I have my >doubts, but that has no bearing on this judgement. "DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter." Does this mean that you don't think the statement addresses a rules-related matter because it is trivially true? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:23:47 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 At 07:04 PM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: > >The Martin Jischke from Hell writes: >>I'm going to issue my opinion now, and Ottis & Ole can concur or dissent as >>they please. >> >>STATEMENT: >> >>There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no >>Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, >>under the current ruleset. >> >> >>RULING: >> >>Dismissed >> >> >>COMMENTS: >> >>Since the antecedent is false due to R347/3, this RFJ is irrelevant. For > >Please explain what bearing a statement's truth value has on its >relevancy. It seems you evaluated the truth value, which means you >considered it relevant in some sense. > >>future RFJs, it would be wise to request judgement on a statement, rather >>than a conditional. If a justification like the one included in this RFJ >>is really necessary, it can always be included as a comment rather than an >>antecedent. As to whether the consequent in this RFJ is true, I have my >>doubts, but that has no bearing on this judgement. >> >>Once again, I call Josh's attention to the many virtues of pragmatism and >>encourage him to just shut the hell up once in a while. > >You know... > >When _I_ espouse pragmatism, Joel makes a Joel face. When _Joel_ >(or a PMIC eschatologist) espouses it, I'm supposed to be bad somehow. It think it goes more like this: When Josh espouses pragmatism, he has assumed the position which I had once held, but by then, I've changed my mind and agree with Josh's old position. Which is why I make a nasty face when I expect us to agree and we don't. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:35:51 -0600 From: The Martin Jischke from Hell Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 At 07:27 PM 2/21/99 , you wrote: >At 06:20 PM 2/21/99 , Plagge wrote: >>I'm going to issue my opinion now, and Ottis & Ole can concur or dissent as >>they please. >> >>STATEMENT: >> >>There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no >>Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, >>under the current ruleset. >> >> >>RULING: >> >>Dismissed >> >> >>COMMENTS: >> >>Since the antecedent is false due to R347/3, this RFJ is irrelevant. For >>future RFJs, it would be wise to request judgement on a statement, rather >>than a conditional. If a justification like the one included in this RFJ >>is really necessary, it can always be included as a comment rather than an >>antecedent. As to whether the consequent in this RFJ is true, I have my >>doubts, but that has no bearing on this judgement. > >"DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its >veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter." > >Does this mean that you don't think the statement addresses a rules-related >matter because it is trivially true? Yes...I would say that this statement does not address a rules-related matter because, as written, it deals with a hypothetical situation. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:36:45 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Second third of Judgement 60 Seeing that Tom has already posted, I might as well follow. The Statement: "There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, under the current ruleset." is FALSE. COMMENTS: Rule 346 says that only rules may create Subers. Rule 400 says that the Treasury will issue Subers rather than go broke. It is not a choice, but a duty. Rule 402 states one of the Treasury Minister's duties as preventing the Treasury from going into debt. This rule also allows the TM to authorize the creation of Subers. Lastly, Rule 403 has a comment on Subers, but that is but a comment. I would say that Rule 400 does create Subers. It forces the Treasury to issue Subers under specific circumstances, which is pretty much the same thing. As to the TM's authorization, no mention is made of it being necessary. There can easily exist 'authorized' and 'unauthorized' Subers at the same time. The statement can be rewritten as: "There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers" AND "No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, under the current ruleset" AND (IF "There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers", THEN "No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, under the current ruleset.") The first sub-statement is FALSE. The second sub-statement is TRUE. The third sub-statement is TRUE. All three sub-statements must be TRUE in order to make the whole Statement TRUE. The Statement is therefore FALSE. Those are the (IMO) relevant references: Rule 228/0(m) : Judgments says: "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." Rule 346/2(m) : Currency says: "Only rules may create and destroy Subers. " Rule 400/0(m) : The Treasury says: "The Treasury may not go into debt, but will instead issue more Subers to cover the game's expenses." Rule 402/1(m) : Office of the Treasury Minister says: "The Treasury Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist of: ... 4. Preventing the Treasury from going into debt. ... The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, but no more than once per turn, may: ... 2. Authorize the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury. 3. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury." Rule 404/3(m) : State Construction Yard says: "[[This prevents production from ever becoming impossible, since the Treasury can also mint more Subers.]]" ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:01:30 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Once again, I call Josh's attention to the many virtues of pragmatism and >>>encourage him to just shut the hell up once in a while. >> >>You know... >> >>When _I_ espouse pragmatism, Joel makes a Joel face. When _Joel_ >>(or a PMIC eschatologist) espouses it, I'm supposed to be bad somehow. > >It think it goes more like this: > >When Josh espouses pragmatism, he has assumed the position which I had once >held, but by then, I've changed my mind and agree with Josh's old position. >Which is why I make a nasty face when I expect us to agree and we don't. I think perhaps we ought to round up some more eschatologists to study this strange phase shift. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:16:15 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: Second third of Judgement 60 "Ole Andersen" writes: >The statement can be rewritten as: >"There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers" >AND >"No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's >authorization, under the current ruleset" >AND >(IF "There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers", THEN >"No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's >authorization, under the current ruleset.") > >The first sub-statement is FALSE. >The second sub-statement is TRUE. >The third sub-statement is TRUE. > >All three sub-statements must be TRUE in order to make the whole Statement >TRUE. > > >The Statement is therefore FALSE. This is a very curious way of "rewriting" the statement. Since you insist on writing it as an implication, consider p -> q p q p -> q F F T F T T T F F T T T If we "rewrite" the statement as p ^ q ^ (p -> q) \equiv p ^ q ^ (^p v q) and look at the lines of the truth table where p is false, p q p ^ q ^ (^p v q) F F F F T F T F F T T T we see that, in fact, the new statement is not simply a "rewriting" of the old one. If it were, the two statements' truth tables would be the same - but they are clearly not. Sheesh. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:20:49 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 The Martin Jischke from Hell writes: >Yes...I would say that this statement does not address a rules-related >matter because, as written, it deals with a hypothetical situation. 1. R347 does not convey any information about Suber creation. It simply says that players "begin" with certain numbers of Subers. 2. Hypothetically speaking, if I say "p, so q," and you believe p to be false, the situation is not "hypothetical." In fact, you have just judged it to be clearly nonhypothetical, by referring to a rule in order to determine its truth. Poor try Tom. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 06:26:58 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Second third of Judgement 60 Josh insists that 'There are no...' is identical to 'If there are no...' It is not. Ole -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Muss Es Sein? Til: nomic@iastate.edu Dato: 22. februar 1999 06:21 Emne: Re: Nomic: Second third of Judgement 60 : :"Ole Andersen" writes: :>The statement can be rewritten as: :>"There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers" :>AND :>"No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's :>authorization, under the current ruleset" :>AND :>(IF "There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers", THEN :>"No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's :>authorization, under the current ruleset.") :> :>The first sub-statement is FALSE. :>The second sub-statement is TRUE. :>The third sub-statement is TRUE. :> :>All three sub-statements must be TRUE in order to make the whole Statement :>TRUE. :> :> :>The Statement is therefore FALSE. : :This is a very curious way of "rewriting" the statement. Since :you insist on writing it as an implication, consider : :p -> q : :p q p -> q :F F T :F T T :T F F :T T T : :If we "rewrite" the statement as : :p ^ q ^ (p -> q) \equiv :p ^ q ^ (^p v q) : :and look at the lines of the truth table where p is false, : :p q p ^ q ^ (^p v q) :F F F :F T F :T F F :T T T : :we see that, in fact, the new statement is not simply a "rewriting" :of the old one. If it were, the two statements' truth tables would be :the same - but they are clearly not. : :Sheesh. : : :Josh : :-- :Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? : : ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:47:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Second third of Judgement 60 At 11:16 PM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: > >This is a very curious way of "rewriting" the statement. Since >you insist on writing it as an implication, consider Are you implying here that your statement is not a conditional? If not, how not? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:44:29 -0600 From: tom Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 >>>You know... >>> >>>When _I_ espouse pragmatism, Joel makes a Joel face. When _Joel_ >>>(or a PMIC eschatologist) espouses it, I'm supposed to be bad somehow. >> >>It think it goes more like this: >> >>When Josh espouses pragmatism, he has assumed the position which I had once >>held, but by then, I've changed my mind and agree with Josh's old position. >>Which is why I make a nasty face when I expect us to agree and we don't. > >I think perhaps we ought to round up some more eschatologists to >study this strange phase shift. It's nice to see at least someone pick up on that word I pulled out of thin air. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:54:08 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 At 11:20 PM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: > >The Martin Jischke from Hell writes: >>Yes...I would say that this statement does not address a rules-related >>matter because, as written, it deals with a hypothetical situation. > >1. R347 does not convey any information about Suber creation. It > simply says that players "begin" with certain numbers of Subers. Ack. Ack. Ack. The Subers have to come from somewhere, and this doesn't refer to pre-existing Subers -- thus, they must be created. >2. Hypothetically speaking, if I say "p, so q," and you believe p > to be false, the situation is not "hypothetical." In fact, > you have just judged it to be clearly nonhypothetical, by > referring to a rule in order to determine its truth. Huh? Isn't p -> q PURELY hypothetical if p is false? Isn't that part of the definition of "hypothetical", that one can't actually _be_ in a hypothetical situation? If p is true, then it's not hypothetical anymore, since it's happening. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:50:30 -0600 From: tom Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 At 11:20 PM 2/21/99 , you wrote: > >The Martin Jischke from Hell writes: >>Yes...I would say that this statement does not address a rules-related >>matter because, as written, it deals with a hypothetical situation. > >1. R347 does not convey any information about Suber creation. It > simply says that players "begin" with certain numbers of Subers. > >2. Hypothetically speaking, if I say "p, so q," and you believe p > to be false, the situation is not "hypothetical." In fact, > you have just judged it to be clearly nonhypothetical, by > referring to a rule in order to determine its truth. > >Poor try Tom. Really, Josh, I was uncomfortable with ruling the statement true, as it would seem formal logic would dictate. This would have implied something that I didn't feel it should. I wanted to rule false, but couldn't because you'd just appeal it on the same grounds. So I quoted rule 347 to prove your antecedent clearly false. Thus, the rest of the statement doesn't relate to the rules as they currently stand, and the RFJ should be dismissed as irrelevant. Does that clarify? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:21:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: the import of "so" as a conjunction The argument over J60 seems to center on how to interpret "so" in the statement. So far, two possibilities have been presented: 1. A -> B 2. A & (A -> B) "A so B" seems to imply the truthfulness of A -- e.g. "I dropped the ball, so it fell." seems to indicate the the ball was actually dropped -- and a causal relationship from A to B, e.g. the ball actually fell and it did so because I dropped it. I hadn't thought about "so" as a conjunction before I made my ruling, but now I'm inclined to agree with Ole's reading of it (note that 2 and Ole's interpretation are equivalent). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:28:42 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Second third of Judgement 60 At 10:36 PM 2/21/99 , Ole wrote: > >The statement can be rewritten as: >"There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers" >AND >"No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's >authorization, under the current ruleset" >AND >(IF "There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers", THEN >"No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's >authorization, under the current ruleset.") > >The first sub-statement is FALSE. >The second sub-statement is TRUE. >The third sub-statement is TRUE. > Where in your analysis do you show the veracity of the second statement? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:37:43 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 11:20 PM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>The Martin Jischke from Hell writes: >>>Yes...I would say that this statement does not address a rules-related >>>matter because, as written, it deals with a hypothetical situation. >> >>1. R347 does not convey any information about Suber creation. It >> simply says that players "begin" with certain numbers of Subers. > >Ack. Ack. Ack. The Subers have to come from somewhere, and this doesn't >refer to pre-existing Subers -- thus, they must be created. I believe we've already set a precedent for Subers not specifically being created when they're mentioned, but rather requiring some creative force. >>2. Hypothetically speaking, if I say "p, so q," and you believe p >> to be false, the situation is not "hypothetical." In fact, >> you have just judged it to be clearly nonhypothetical, by >> referring to a rule in order to determine its truth. > >Huh? Isn't p -> q PURELY hypothetical if p is false? Isn't that part of >the definition of "hypothetical", that one can't actually _be_ in a >hypothetical situation? If p is true, then it's not hypothetical anymore, >since it's happening. No. There is a difference between being potentially true or false, and "hypothetically" being true or false. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:36:04 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 tom writes: >At 11:20 PM 2/21/99 , you wrote: >> >>The Martin Jischke from Hell writes: >>>Yes...I would say that this statement does not address a rules-related >>>matter because, as written, it deals with a hypothetical situation. >> >>1. R347 does not convey any information about Suber creation. It >> simply says that players "begin" with certain numbers of Subers. >> >>2. Hypothetically speaking, if I say "p, so q," and you believe p >> to be false, the situation is not "hypothetical." In fact, >> you have just judged it to be clearly nonhypothetical, by >> referring to a rule in order to determine its truth. >> >>Poor try Tom. > >Really, Josh, I was uncomfortable with ruling the statement true, as it >would seem formal logic would dictate. This would have implied something >that I didn't feel it should. I wanted to rule false, but couldn't because >you'd just appeal it on the same grounds. So I quoted rule 347 to prove >your antecedent clearly false. Thus, the rest of the statement doesn't >relate to the rules as they currently stand, and the RFJ should be >dismissed as irrelevant. Does that clarify? Completely. You say that you make a truth evaluation, THEN decided to throw the case out, based not on evaluation of the statement's relevancy before hearing it, but AFTER effectively snipping off part of it by placing a truth value on it. Hmmm. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:47:36 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: Second third of Judgement 60 Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 11:16 PM 2/21/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>This is a very curious way of "rewriting" the statement. Since >>you insist on writing it as an implication, consider > >Are you implying here that your statement is not a conditional? If not, how >not? People seem to be assuming, because _they_ feel that one of the portions of my statement could be assigned a truth value of 'false,' that the statement automatically becomes an implication. That might have been the case if I were worried about that portion BEING false. Because I am not, however, it all shakes out in the truth evaluation portion of the judgment. If I say "p and q" and you think q is false, does that turn my statement into an implication? Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:51:49 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: the import of "so" as a conjunction Joel D Uckelman writes: >The argument over J60 seems to center on how to interpret "so" in the >statement. So far, two possibilities have been presented: > >1. A -> B >2. A & (A -> B) > >"A so B" seems to imply the truthfulness of A -- e.g. "I dropped the ball, >so it fell." seems to indicate the the ball was actually dropped -- and a >causal relationship from A to B, e.g. the ball actually fell and it did so >because I dropped it. > >I hadn't thought about "so" as a conjunction before I made my ruling, but >now I'm inclined to agree with Ole's reading of it (note that 2 and Ole's >interpretation are equivalent). Note that, if you're going to read my statement as an implication, you DON'T want to agree with Ole, as he mangled it severely. Clearly the two are not equivalent. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:40:40 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 At 10:37 AM 2/22/99 , Josh wrote: > >>Ack. Ack. Ack. The Subers have to come from somewhere, and this doesn't >>refer to pre-existing Subers -- thus, they must be created. > >I believe we've already set a precedent for Subers not specifically >being created when they're mentioned, but rather requiring some >creative force. When did we set such a precedent? I don't remember that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:58:09 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge reassignment Jeff Schroeder has been selected to replace Ottis Airhart on 2 Court for RFJ 60. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:54:45 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: Re: withdraw Ottis Airhart has forfeited [see below]. This makes me wonder if we really want to make players wait a full turn before being able to do anything interesting. >X-Sender: oairhart@mail.hiwaay.net >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 >Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:50:28 -0600 >To: Joel D Uckelman >From: Ottis Airhart >Subject: Re: withdraw > >I'm quitting because it took way too long to be able to play and by the >time I WAS able to play, I did not care to any longer because I have found >other games to be a part of that didn't take so long to get started. > > > >At 12:39 PM 2/22/99 -0600, you wrote: >>At 10:52 AM 2/22/99 , you wrote: >>>Joel, >>> >>>Currently I am unable to play. I don't know if I'm supposed to announce >>>this or not, but am did unsubscribe from the list. >>> >> >>Are you going into Limbo or are you quitting? >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu >>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:53:06 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: the import of "so" as a conjunction At 10:51 AM 2/22/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>The argument over J60 seems to center on how to interpret "so" in the >>statement. So far, two possibilities have been presented: >> >>1. A -> B >>2. A & (A -> B) >> >>"A so B" seems to imply the truthfulness of A -- e.g. "I dropped the ball, >>so it fell." seems to indicate the the ball was actually dropped -- and a >>causal relationship from A to B, e.g. the ball actually fell and it did so >>because I dropped it. >> >>I hadn't thought about "so" as a conjunction before I made my ruling, but >>now I'm inclined to agree with Ole's reading of it (note that 2 and Ole's >>interpretation are equivalent). > >Note that, if you're going to read my statement as an implication, >you DON'T want to agree with Ole, as he mangled it severely. Clearly >the two are not equivalent. > >Josh I don't agree with Ole as to his evaluation of the truth values of the parts, just the form of the parts. A portion of your statement is an implication, but it also contains a statement that the antecedent is true (I disagree that the statement includes that the consequent is true, just that the statement entials it). I still stand behind my analysis that both the antecedent and the consequent are false -- which makes the statement false regardless. Had I realized this at the time of my judgment, I my analysis would have reflected it, but my ruling still would have been FALSE. I get the impression that you think your statement should be symbolized in some other way. How would you symbolize it? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:00:45 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal Amend Rule 309, paragraph 2, clause 2, to read: "New Players may not propose or serve as Judges until they have been players for five days." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:22:09 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Second third of Judgement 60 Joel wrote: ... :>"No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's :>authorization, under the current ruleset" ...: :Where in your analysis do you show the veracity of the second statement? : As a matter of fact, I do so only partially. The Treasury will issue Subers under certain circumstances, and otherwise not. The authorization (or lack thereof) has no effect upon the said Subers, nor on their minting. If the Treasury is empty, and has expenses, it will create new Subers, with or without authorization from the TM. The term 'minted' can even be discussed. Are Subers coins? Notes are 'issued', IIRC. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:24:03 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Second third of Judgement 60 At 01:22 PM 2/22/99 , you wrote: >Joel wrote: >... >:>"No Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's >:>authorization, under the current ruleset" >...: >:Where in your analysis do you show the veracity of the second statement? >: > >As a matter of fact, I do so only partially. >The Treasury will issue Subers under certain circumstances, and otherwise >not. >The authorization (or lack thereof) has no effect upon the said Subers, nor >on their minting. > >If the Treasury is empty, and has expenses, it will create new Subers, with >or without authorization from the TM. I disagree. One of the TM's duties is to prevent the Treasury from going into debt -- the Treasury has no other way to create Subers than if the TM authorizes it, as the Treasury is not itself a rule. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:53:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: hmmm Rule 400/0 reads, in part: "The Treasury may not go into debt, but will instead issue more Subers to cover the game's expenses." If we use Ole's interpretation that the Treasury issues Subers on it's own when insufficient funds are available, then it would have been forced to do so when I tried to sell my 1 spam to the Treasury, since the TM accepted the offer. Thus, the Subers were created and I was paid them. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:15:49 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Re: withdraw Joel D Uckelman writes: >Ottis Airhart has forfeited [see below]. This makes me wonder if we really >want to make players wait a full turn before being able to do anything >interesting. I don't see much difference between waiting a turn to play once expressing interest, and being interested for a week and then beginning play immediately. It's a psychological thing. -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:04:31 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: election stuff (continued) Since no one was nominated for either Foreign Minister or Commerce Minister, both positions revert to me as Administrator. I don't really like this situation, so I promise to resign one or both upon someone else expressing interest in holding either office. As an aside: I consider any office that I hold as Administrator to be off limits for scamming (much like the post of Administrator itself), so no one needs to worry about me attempting to win again since I'm both TM and CM. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:22:11 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: election stuff (continued) Joel D Uckelman writes: >Since no one was nominated for either Foreign Minister or Commerce >Minister, both positions revert to me as Administrator. I don't really like >this situation, so I promise to resign one or both upon someone else >expressing interest in holding either office. > >As an aside: I consider any office that I hold as Administrator to be off >limits for scamming (much like the post of Administrator itself), so no one >needs to worry about me attempting to win again since I'm both TM and CM. I nominate myself for both offices. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:48:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: election stuff (continued) At 12:22 AM 2/23/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Since no one was nominated for either Foreign Minister or Commerce >>Minister, both positions revert to me as Administrator. I don't really like >>this situation, so I promise to resign one or both upon someone else >>expressing interest in holding either office. >> >>As an aside: I consider any office that I hold as Administrator to be off >>limits for scamming (much like the post of Administrator itself), so no one >>needs to worry about me attempting to win again since I'm both TM and CM. > >I nominate myself for both offices. > >Josh Ok. It just occurred to me that I was planning to propose that much of the economy be replaced with something else, so a CM won't be necessary. I quite willingly resign as FM, but I'm not sure now that I want to as CM, since there's no reason to have an election for it if it will no longer exist after this turn. If you really want to run for it, though, I'll still resign. Thus, a new nomination period has opened for FM, with Josh Kortbein as the first nominee. Nominations close on 25 February. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:53:22 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: election stuff (continued) Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:22 AM 2/23/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Since no one was nominated for either Foreign Minister or Commerce >>>Minister, both positions revert to me as Administrator. I don't really like >>>this situation, so I promise to resign one or both upon someone else >>>expressing interest in holding either office. >>> >>>As an aside: I consider any office that I hold as Administrator to be off >>>limits for scamming (much like the post of Administrator itself), so no one >>>needs to worry about me attempting to win again since I'm both TM and CM. >> >>I nominate myself for both offices. >> >>Josh > >Ok. It just occurred to me that I was planning to propose that much of the >economy be replaced with something else, so a CM won't be necessary. I >quite willingly resign as FM, but I'm not sure now that I want to as CM, >since there's no reason to have an election for it if it will no longer >exist after this turn. If you really want to run for it, though, I'll still >resign. > >Thus, a new nomination period has opened for FM, with Josh Kortbein as the >first nominee. Nominations close on 25 February. The position will only not exist so long as the people will it. And hey - I want to speak for the peopl. Josh -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:56:47 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Possible flaw in Judgement I have just found a possible flaw in my judgement. I had not noticed the preference rule (or rather, I assumed it was the other way around). I cannot at the moment see if it changes anything. Well, does it? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:11:05 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: Possible flaw in Judgement "Ole Andersen" writes: >I have just found a possible flaw in my judgement. I had not noticed the >preference rule (or rather, I assumed it was the other way around). I cannot >at the moment see if it changes anything. Well, does it? > >Ole > > > > Preference rule? -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:45:14 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Possible flaw in Judgement At 07:56 AM 2/24/99 , Ole wrote: >I have just found a possible flaw in my judgement. I had not noticed the >preference rule (or rather, I assumed it was the other way around). I cannot >at the moment see if it changes anything. Well, does it? > >Ole If you're refering to the precedence rule, I direct you to the reasoning in my judgment. If you don't have it anymore I'll resend it, since I haven't put it on the page yet. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:20:52 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: reminder The court has until 27 January to issue a judgment. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:05:54 -0600 From: tom Subject: Re: Nomic: reminder At 09:20 PM 2/24/99 , you wrote: >The court has until 27 January to issue a judgment. ?? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:11:28 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: reminder tom writes: >At 09:20 PM 2/24/99 , you wrote: >>The court has until 27 January to issue a judgment. >?? > Feb, Joel, Feb... -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:03:08 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: reminder At 02:05 AM 2/25/99 , Plagge wrote: >At 09:20 PM 2/24/99 , you wrote: >>The court has until 27 January to issue a judgment. >?? Make that 27 February. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:03:22 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: election results Because he was the only nominee, Josh Kortbein is now our new Foreign Minister. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:11:09 CST From: Muss Es Sein? Subject: Re: Nomic: election results Joel Uckelman writes: >Because he was the only nominee, Josh Kortbein is now our new Foreign Minister Golly, and I forgot to vote. Josh rock the vote, man. rock the vote. -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 06:28:09 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: 2 Judgement 60 (Vs: Vs: Nomic: reminder) I received this from Jeff: -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: willow@iastate.edu Til: Ole Andersen Dato: 28. februar 1999 06:07 Emne: Re: Vs: Nomic: reminder :i agree with your reasoning, at least I think it should be false. If you :don't see my response posted very soon, just say that the majority says :false and say some argument. I'll look at the stuff and deliver something :probably. : :jeff : Now we have two FALSE, so I guess Tom technically has to make up his mind and say FALSE or TRUE, though it won't change a thing... I have to walk the dog, so I'll be back around 7 o'clock. [midnight iastate time] If I'm back before, I'll make a nicer-looking Judgement-thingie, else this must be it. Ahhh.. reasons for judging FALSE? Josh made a statement that had the form 'A, so B'. For this to be true, both 'A' and 'if A, then B' have to be true. 'A' is false, and 'B' is true, so 'A, so B' is FALSE. Ole http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/3637/ http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/8941/ home: siri.iben@get2net.dk palnatoke@get2net.dk (Ole) palnatoke@altavista.net (Ole) aeshna@get2net.dk (Kira) school: 1508oa@fiol.brock.dk (Ole) school: ktkock at stud.aki.ku.dk (Kira) ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:39:24 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: 2 Judgement 60 (Vs: Vs: Nomic: reminder) At 11:28 PM 2/27/99 , Ole wrote: >I received this from Jeff: > >-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: willow@iastate.edu >Til: Ole Andersen >Dato: 28. februar 1999 06:07 >Emne: Re: Vs: Nomic: reminder > > >:i agree with your reasoning, at least I think it should be false. If you >:don't see my response posted very soon, just say that the majority says >:false and say some argument. I'll look at the stuff and deliver something >:probably. >: >:jeff >: > > >Now we have two FALSE, so I guess Tom technically has to make up his mind >and say FALSE or TRUE, though it won't change a thing... > >I have to walk the dog, so I'll be back around 7 o'clock. [midnight iastate >time] > >If I'm back before, I'll make a nicer-looking Judgement-thingie, else this >must be it. > >Ahhh.. reasons for judging FALSE? > >Josh made a statement that had the form 'A, so B'. For this to be true, both >'A' and 'if A, then B' have to be true. 'A' is false, and 'B' is true, so >'A, so B' is FALSE. > > >Ole That would make it the majority opinion if it weren't about 6 hours too late... I should have reminded everyone of the time along with the day. Sorry about that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:36:58 -0600 From: willow@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: 1/3 of Judgement 60 I rule (and with Ole's statement of FALSE this makes the majority of the court) that the statement: "There are no rules which actually state that they create Subers, so no Subers can be minted as a result of the Treasury Minister's authorization, under the current rule set." is FALSE. I say this because I agree with Ole's and Joel's view of the current rule set and because of my own research which is below. I was judge only for the past couple of days, where before I was pretty much ignoring the debate and I had to read the material and try to understand it. :) Not too much fun, I can say. Ole gave a pretty nice listing of the relevant rules, I'll post them again, slightly modified to include the exact wordings: Rule 346 says "Only rules may create and destroy Subers." Rule 400 says "The Treasury may not go into debt, but will instead issue more Subers to cover the game's expenses." - is not a choice, but a duty. Rule 402 states "... The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, but no more than once per turn, may: ...Authorize the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury. ..." - one of the Treasury Minister's duties as preventing the Treasury from going into debt. Rule 400 says that the Treasury will issue more Subers, the Webster's New World Dictionary defines issue to be: "...6. to be printed or published; be put forth and circulated..." and Rule 402 says that the Treasury Minister will mint Subers, the Dictionary defines mint to be: "...1. to coin (money) by stamping metal 2. to invent or create; fabricate." Since all these definitions are true, our version will be the second, because obviously we don't stamp any metal around here (that I know about). When we combine these definitions, all of which pretty much say flat out that we are creating and circulating something, in this case the Suber, it should be obvious that the statement above is FALSE. Because the Treasury Minister has used his authority in the past, without objection, to create these Subers, a precedent was set to allow the creation of Subers. Ah, there we go. I'll talk to everyone later Jeff ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:46:52 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge reassignments The new court for RFJ 60 is Tom Knight, Tom Mueller, and Ed Proescholdt. Please come to a (relatively) quick decision so I know what has happened over the last 2 turns and can thus make the badly needed page updates. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:39:54 -0600 From: willow@iastate.edu Subject: Re: 2 Judgement 60 (Vs: Vs: Nomic: reminder) Oh, oops. When I talked to you last night, you didn't say anything about a time. jeff At 11:39 PM 2/27/99 -0600, you wrote: >At 11:28 PM 2/27/99 , Ole wrote: >>I received this from Jeff: >> >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>Fra: willow@iastate.edu >>Til: Ole Andersen >>Dato: 28. februar 1999 06:07 >>Emne: Re: Vs: Nomic: reminder >> >> >>:i agree with your reasoning, at least I think it should be false. If you >>:don't see my response posted very soon, just say that the majority says >>:false and say some argument. I'll look at the stuff and deliver something >>:probably. >>: >>:jeff >>: >> >> >>Now we have two FALSE, so I guess Tom technically has to make up his mind >>and say FALSE or TRUE, though it won't change a thing... >> >>I have to walk the dog, so I'll be back around 7 o'clock. [midnight iastate >>time] >> >>If I'm back before, I'll make a nicer-looking Judgement-thingie, else this >>must be it. >> >>Ahhh.. reasons for judging FALSE? >> >>Josh made a statement that had the form 'A, so B'. For this to be true, both >>'A' and 'if A, then B' have to be true. 'A' is false, and 'B' is true, so >>'A, so B' is FALSE. >> >> >>Ole > >That would make it the majority opinion if it weren't about 6 hours too >late... I should have reminded everyone of the time along with the day. >Sorry about that. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 08:59:24 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting Voting on P446 will begin at 13:20 CST, 28 February 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:52:16 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot --------------------------------------- P446 Amend Rule 309, paragraph 2, clause 2, to read: "New Players may not propose or serve as Judges until they have been players for five days." --------------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/