________________________________________ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:18:05 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting on P446 will end at 13:20 CST, 2 March 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 10:08:46 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judging Is the court close to reaching a decision on the statement? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 15:48:32 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results & announcements P446 passed (4-1-0-3). It is now Tom Knight's turn. My term as Treasury Minister has expired. Nominations for the position will be open until 13:20 CST, 4 March. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 23:26:03 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judgment I, once again, strongly urge the court to expediently reach a decision on RFJ 60. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 22:03:34 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: PLEASE ISSUE A JUDGMENT!!!!!!!!! The court (consisting of Tom Knight, Tom Mueller, and Ed Proescholdt) must issue a majority judgment before 23:46 CST, 6 March UNDER PAIN OF DEATH. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE issue a verdict so we can determine the current state of the game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 10:27:26 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: judgement 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. My opinion: false I'm going to disregard the first part, and just look at what is said after "so." Rule 346 says only rules may create and destroy subers. Rule 402 allows the TM to authorize the minting of Subers to be placed in the treasury. This implies that Subers are created somewhere and placed in the treasury. Since 346 does not require that Subers be explicitly created by the rules, its good enough for me. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 18:59:08 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement At 10:27 AM 3/6/99 -0600, you wrote: >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. > >My opinion: false > >I'm going to disregard the first part, and just look at what is said after >"so." Rule 346 says only rules may create and destroy subers. Rule 402 >allows the TM to authorize the minting of Subers to be placed in the >treasury. This implies that Subers are created somewhere and placed in the >treasury. Since 346 does not require that Subers be explicitly created by >the rules, its good enough for me. > >Ed I concur with the final decision (though it wrecks my fortune). Moreover, I note that the statement does include the first clause with a linking "so". I've seen this read as a logical therefore. I note that a logical statement only discusses the concurance of certain things being true in certain patterns and fails to capture the english language implications of causation. We might agree that some pattern of truth holds but that such a thing is an accident and then still rule the statement false because we fail to find a substructure of analysis which creates the pattern. If we use this second interpretation (English implication not logical formalism) then the statement is more emphatically false, because the causation does not exist. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 20:58:13 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: hooray, we have a judgment! Now that that's out of the way, I'll start in on the necessary page updates. Look for more vital things (like the ruleset, proposals, and judgments) to be updated tonight or tomorrow, and everything else within the next several days. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 10:46:18 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: updates... Sorting out the current game state is a little more complex than I had though, so I'm getting the Event Log back in shape first. The current ruleset WILL be up by tonight. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:52:21 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting correction P446 (from last turn) passed (5-1-0-3). Osborn's Demon voted with Tom Mueller. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:56:14 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: further correction P446 passed (5-1-0-4). I forgot to count Osborn's aa, since he was added to the game before the vote. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 13:43:23 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: mistake I just noticed that I was wrong about Josh being the new FM. According to Rule 394: "If no nominations are received for an elected Office by the time nominations have closed, the current Officeholder retains the position." -- which means that Tom Mueller is still our Foreign Minister. Sorry about that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 16:03:05 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ready *Everything* is now updated. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 16:27:16 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposals Here are a few proposals I've been meaning to dash off for some time now... -------------------------------- P447 Change R229 to the following MINORCHANGE delimited text: MINORCHANGE The set of Offices is defined as {Judge, Administrator, Foreign Minister, Treasury Minister}. Upon the passage of a Proposal altering this set, the set shall amend itself to reflect the changes. Entities holding Offices are Officeholders. Players may resign from any Offices they hold at any time. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules or portions of Rules dealing with Offices. MINORCHANGE * What this does: fixes a minor discrepancy between currently existing offices and the defined list of currently existing offices. * -------------------------------- P448 12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the anniversary of the start of the game. * I would appreciate recommendations for an appropriate event or events to coincide with Berserker Nomic Day * -------------------------------- P449 Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. * These are the current economy rules. They don't work as intended. Let's rid ourselves of them. * --------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 19:54:39 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: front page addition I just added a "game calendar" to the main page. Is this something that anyone will find useful? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 22:55:47 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: front page addition Joel Uckelman writes: >I just added a "game calendar" to the main page. Is this something that >anyone will find useful? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ I asked for that a long time ago. -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 05:59:57 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Proposal-thingie This is the nice version of my proposal: @@@ Anguagelay Attersmay Ulesray anday Roposalspay ustmay ebay inyay Englishyay. @@@ Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 23:31:11 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal-thingie "Ole Andersen" writes: >This is the nice version of my proposal: > >@@@ >Anguagelay Attersmay > > >Ulesray anday Roposalspay ustmay ebay inyay Englishyay. >@@@ > >Ole > > > You'd think you could be a little bit less direct if you wanted a proposal that resulted in a contradiction. :) -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 06:31:11 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie Erratum: "anday" should be "andyay". Ole -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Ole Andersen Til: Berserker Dato: 9. marts 1999 06:10 Emne: Nomic: Proposal-thingie :This is the nice version of my proposal: : :@@@ :Anguagelay Attersmay : : :Ulesray anday Roposalspay ustmay ebay inyay Englishyay. :@@@ : :Ole : : : : ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:26:44 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie At 11:31 PM 3/8/99 , you wrote: >Erratum: > >"anday" should be "andyay". > >Ole > > >-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: Ole Andersen >Til: Berserker >Dato: 9. marts 1999 06:10 >Emne: Nomic: Proposal-thingie > > >:This is the nice version of my proposal: >: >:@@@ >:Anguagelay Attersmay >: >: >:Ulesray anday Roposalspay ustmay ebay inyay Englishyay. >:@@@ >: >:Ole >: >: >: >: > Noted. This is P450. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 00:45:23 -0600 From: "Nonymous, A." Subject: Nomic: RFJ I just don't know abou thisŠ ---- The entity commonly identified as "Nick Osborn" is, in fact a "tasteful shrubbery," and should be recognized as such by Berserker Nomic. ---- Rule 381 would appear to support this; however, it has never been followed. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 08:28:51 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ "Nonymous, A." writes: >I just don't know abou thisŠ > >---- >The entity commonly identified as "Nick Osborn" is, in fact a "tasteful >shrubbery," and should be recognized as such by Berserker Nomic. >---- > >Rule 381 would appear to support this; however, it has never been followed. well then we are all sinners in the hands of an angry god -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:47:01 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: RFJ How about a rule like: "General Fine Level If no other fine is defined in the rules, a fine of one Suber is to be paid to the Treasury each time a rule is broken." Comments are, of course, more than welcome. Ole -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Nonymous, A. Til: Berserker Nomic Dato: 9. marts 1999 07:50 Emne: Nomic: RFJ :I just don't know abou thisŠ : :---- :The entity commonly identified as "Nick Osborn" is, in fact a "tasteful :shrubbery," and should be recognized as such by Berserker Nomic. :---- : :Rule 381 would appear to support this; however, it has never been followed. : ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:24:27 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: RFJ At 09:47 AM 3/9/99 , Ole wrote: >How about a rule like: > >"General Fine Level > >If no other fine is defined in the rules, a fine of one Suber is to be paid >to the Treasury each time a rule is broken." > >Comments are, of course, more than welcome. > > >Ole This leaves some important things to be determined: 1. How do we determine who is responsible for breaking a rule? 2. Does this legitimize the breaking of rules? At present, it is defined as impossible to break a rule -- which is why the game rewinds to the last legal state if that happens. 3. Does this conflict with R101? If it does, it would be void. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:40:34 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 61: The entity commonly identified as "Nick Osborn" is, in fact a "tasteful shrubbery," and should be recognized as such by Berserker Nomic. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:43:56 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ At 12:45 AM 3/9/99 , Nick wrote: >I just don't know abou thisŠ > >---- >The entity commonly identified as "Nick Osborn" is, in fact a "tasteful >shrubbery," and should be recognized as such by Berserker Nomic. >---- > >Rule 381 would appear to support this; however, it has never been followed. Rule 381 says that Nick shall be "known" as a tasteful shrubbery. The contemporary philosophical definition of "knowledge" -- "true, justified belief" -- does not require us to refer to Nick as a shrubbery, it just tells us that he is, and that we are justified in believing such. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 11:39:46 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: RFJ Joel Uckelman writes: >At 09:47 AM 3/9/99 , Ole wrote: >>How about a rule like: >> >>"General Fine Level >> >>If no other fine is defined in the rules, a fine of one Suber is to be paid >>to the Treasury each time a rule is broken." >> >>Comments are, of course, more than welcome. >> >> >>Ole > >This leaves some important things to be determined: >1. How do we determine who is responsible for breaking a rule? Pragmatics? >2. Does this legitimize the breaking of rules? At present, it is defined as >impossible to break a rule -- which is why the game rewinds to the last >legal state if that happens. Now, doesn't the game say that it's impossible to leave the game in a contradictory state? Illegal actions are only impossible in that they are undone if found to be illegal by a court. No one's _stopping_ Mike Jensen, for example, from declaring that he's won the game. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 11:40:17 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: RFJ "Ole Andersen" writes: >How about a rule like: > >"General Fine Level > >If no other fine is defined in the rules, a fine of one Suber is to be paid >to the Treasury each time a rule is broken." Paid by whom? Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 11:47:57 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection Joel Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 61: > >The entity commonly identified as "Nick Osborn" is, in fact a "tasteful >shrubbery," and should be recognized as such by Berserker Nomic. The court shall hear the statement. The court judges the statement to be TRUE. Analysis: All references to "Nick Osborn" below are merely meta-references. Of course, that token and "a tasteful shrubbery" are precisely identical according to rule 381. As Mr. Uckelman has pointed out, the contemporary philosophical definition of knowledge is "true, justified belief." Thus, we are directed by rule 381 to have true, justified belief in the fact that Nick Osborn is a tasteful shrubbery. As all we have are the rules, all of our true, justified beliefs must stem from rules, so there is naught to dissuade us from assigning Nick Osborn such an appellation. Furthermore: the familiar meaning of "known" is "referred to as," so to refer to "a tasteful shrubbery" as such is only in accordance with the rules. Finally: are "Nick Osborn" and "a tasteful shrubbery" really identical? In one sense, yes. But in another, "a tasteful shrubbery" has primacy over "Nick Osborn"; in essense, it becomes our only gateway into "Nick Osborn." This is due to the wording of rule 381; in a construction like "A shall be known as B," A becomes a discarded token, no longer to be used when referring to the object to henceforth be known as B. We should do similarly with "a tasteful shrubbery," or all is lost. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:34:40 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie Josh Kortbein wrote: : :You'd think you could be a little bit less direct if you :wanted a proposal that resulted in a contradiction. :) : One could argue that Pig Latin is a subset of English... On the other hand, one could argue anything. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 15:19:00 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie "Ole Andersen" writes: >Josh Kortbein wrote: > > > >: >:You'd think you could be a little bit less direct if you >:wanted a proposal that resulted in a contradiction. :) >: > > >One could argue that Pig Latin is a subset of English... >On the other hand, one could argue anything. They are isomorphic. Pig Latin is not, however, a subset of English. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 15:31:09 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals It's prooposals like 448 and 449 that make me want to have disinterested proposals allowed at all times; why should Joel get points for un-fucking us, when he's the one that did it before, and we all agree to the un-fucking (presumably)? Something to think about... Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 17:59:53 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie At 03:19 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: > >"Ole Andersen" writes: >>Josh Kortbein wrote: >> >> >> >>: >>:You'd think you could be a little bit less direct if you >>:wanted a proposal that resulted in a contradiction. :) >>: >> >> >>One could argue that Pig Latin is a subset of English... >>On the other hand, one could argue anything. > >They are isomorphic. Pig Latin is not, however, a subset of English. > >Josh Is something like this going to cause a contradiction such that further play is impossible? I'd hate for whomever's turn it is right now (Tom Knight's, I think) to win by accident. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 18:04:42 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: RFJ At 09:47 AM 3/9/99 , Ole wrote: >How about a rule like: > >"General Fine Level > >If no other fine is defined in the rules, a fine of one Suber is to be paid >to the Treasury each time a rule is broken." > >Comments are, of course, more than welcome. > > >Ole Is this an official proposal, or just a suggestion for discussion? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 18:09:37 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals At 03:31 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: > >It's prooposals like 448 and 449 that make me want to have >disinterested proposals allowed at all times; why should Joel >get points for un-fucking us, when he's the one that did it >before, and we all agree to the un-fucking (presumably)? > >Something to think about... > >Josh If any proposal could be disinterested, why would anyone ever vote in favor of a normal proposal? Furthermore, I don't see Josh proposing any problem-fixes, so... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 18:03:21 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: RFJ At 11:39 AM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 09:47 AM 3/9/99 , Ole wrote: >>>How about a rule like: >>> >>>"General Fine Level >>> >>>If no other fine is defined in the rules, a fine of one Suber is to be paid >>>to the Treasury each time a rule is broken." >>> >>>Comments are, of course, more than welcome. >>> >>> >>>Ole >> >>This leaves some important things to be determined: >>1. How do we determine who is responsible for breaking a rule? > >Pragmatics? I don't mean this to refer to situations like "I just set my score to 1000000000000" -- those are clear-cut. What I'm more worried about are situations like when everyone forgets about something and we miss some sort of deadline. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 18:59:21 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie Joel Uckelman writes: >At 03:19 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>"Ole Andersen" writes: >>>Josh Kortbein wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>: >>>:You'd think you could be a little bit less direct if you >>>:wanted a proposal that resulted in a contradiction. :) >>>: >>> >>> >>>One could argue that Pig Latin is a subset of English... >>>On the other hand, one could argue anything. >> >>They are isomorphic. Pig Latin is not, however, a subset of English. >> >>Josh > >Is something like this going to cause a contradiction such that further >play is impossible? I'd hate for whomever's turn it is right now (Tom >Knight's, I think) to win by accident. I don't know that it would stop further play, but it would certainly be a contradiction. Maybe if there were an "urtherfay" added to Ole's rule. -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 19:09:03 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: RFJ Joel Uckelman writes: >At 11:39 AM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>At 09:47 AM 3/9/99 , Ole wrote: >>>>How about a rule like: >>>> >>>>"General Fine Level >>>> >>>>If no other fine is defined in the rules, a fine of one Suber is to be paid >>>>to the Treasury each time a rule is broken." >>>> >>>>Comments are, of course, more than welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>>Ole >>> >>>This leaves some important things to be determined: >>>1. How do we determine who is responsible for breaking a rule? >> >>Pragmatics? > >I don't mean this to refer to situations like "I just set my score to >1000000000000" -- those are clear-cut. What I'm more worried about are >situations like when everyone forgets about something and we miss some sort >of deadline. Well then I think the best place to lay the blame is on the Administrator. :) Many actions could be linked, through the rules, to their associated office-holders. For instance, FM election reminders could be the job of the FM, or the Administrator. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 19:05:04 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie At 06:59 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 03:19 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>"Ole Andersen" writes: >>>>Josh Kortbein wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>: >>>>:You'd think you could be a little bit less direct if you >>>>:wanted a proposal that resulted in a contradiction. :) >>>>: >>>> >>>> >>>>One could argue that Pig Latin is a subset of English... >>>>On the other hand, one could argue anything. >>> >>>They are isomorphic. Pig Latin is not, however, a subset of English. >>> >>>Josh >> >>Is something like this going to cause a contradiction such that further >>play is impossible? I'd hate for whomever's turn it is right now (Tom >>Knight's, I think) to win by accident. > >I don't know that it would stop further play, but it would certainly >be a contradiction. > >Maybe if there were an "urtherfay" added to Ole's rule. I'd be much more comfortable with this if either 1) the rule excluded itself from it's provision, or 2) the rule were in standard English. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 19:08:00 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals Joel Uckelman writes: >At 03:31 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>It's prooposals like 448 and 449 that make me want to have >>disinterested proposals allowed at all times; why should Joel >>get points for un-fucking us, when he's the one that did it >>before, and we all agree to the un-fucking (presumably)? >> >>Something to think about... >> >>Josh > >If any proposal could be disinterested, why would anyone ever vote in favor >of a normal proposal? Sort of the same reason people continue to engage, in real life, in the free market system (assuming people in capitalist societies) instead of just pillaging and raping. If _they_ start pillaging and raping, everyone will and then the dangers outweigh the advantages. But if there's some sort of give-and-take, because everyone would _like_ to come out ahead, then everyone who would like to ends up having to assent, voting for other peoples' proposals when they feel they're justified in doing so. >Furthermore, I don't see Josh proposing any problem-fixes, so... That has no bearing on whether or not I think people should get essentially "free" points. Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 19:16:33 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie Joel Uckelman writes: >At 06:59 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>At 03:19 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >>>> >>>>"Ole Andersen" writes: >>>>>Josh Kortbein wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>: >>>>>:You'd think you could be a little bit less direct if you >>>>>:wanted a proposal that resulted in a contradiction. :) >>>>>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>One could argue that Pig Latin is a subset of English... >>>>>On the other hand, one could argue anything. >>>> >>>>They are isomorphic. Pig Latin is not, however, a subset of English. >>>> >>>>Josh >>> >>>Is something like this going to cause a contradiction such that further >>>play is impossible? I'd hate for whomever's turn it is right now (Tom >>>Knight's, I think) to win by accident. >> >>I don't know that it would stop further play, but it would certainly >>be a contradiction. >> >>Maybe if there were an "urtherfay" added to Ole's rule. > >I'd be much more comfortable with this if either 1) the rule excluded >itself from it's provision, or 2) the rule were in standard English. Read my message again, kemosabe. -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 19:41:56 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals At 07:08 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 03:31 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>It's prooposals like 448 and 449 that make me want to have >>>disinterested proposals allowed at all times; why should Joel >>>get points for un-fucking us, when he's the one that did it >>>before, and we all agree to the un-fucking (presumably)? >>> >>>Something to think about... >>> >>>Josh >> >>If any proposal could be disinterested, why would anyone ever vote in favor >>of a normal proposal? > >Sort of the same reason people continue to engage, in real life, >in the free market system (assuming people in capitalist societies) >instead of just pillaging and raping. If _they_ start pillaging >and raping, everyone will and then the dangers outweigh the >advantages. But if there's some sort of give-and-take, because >everyone would _like_ to come out ahead, then everyone who would >like to ends up having to assent, voting for other peoples' proposals >when they feel they're justified in doing so. This isn't an apt analogy for what I'm talking about. proposer y n me y 20, 0 -10, 0 n -10, 0 -10, 0 If there are two of us, absent any considerations of a proposal's content, the dominant strategy is for me to vote "no". The only reason for me to vote for the proposal is if I like it, so if a proposal that I like can be made disinterested, it is to my advantage to apply pressure to make it so -- thus, I receive the benefits of the proposal, and deny the proposer points from it. As a result, points would never be awarded for proposals, and we would lose any way (aside from impossibility of further play) to award wins. >>Furthermore, I don't see Josh proposing any problem-fixes, so... > >That has no bearing on whether or not I think people should get >essentially "free" points. > >Josh How would problems ever get solved, then? Should no one should propose problem fixes because they get points for them? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 19:57:52 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals Joel Uckelman writes: >At 07:08 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>At 03:31 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >>>> >>>>It's prooposals like 448 and 449 that make me want to have >>>>disinterested proposals allowed at all times; why should Joel >>>>get points for un-fucking us, when he's the one that did it >>>>before, and we all agree to the un-fucking (presumably)? >>>> >>>>Something to think about... >>>> >>>>Josh >>> >>>If any proposal could be disinterested, why would anyone ever vote in favor >>>of a normal proposal? >> >>Sort of the same reason people continue to engage, in real life, >>in the free market system (assuming people in capitalist societies) >>instead of just pillaging and raping. If _they_ start pillaging >>and raping, everyone will and then the dangers outweigh the >>advantages. But if there's some sort of give-and-take, because >>everyone would _like_ to come out ahead, then everyone who would >>like to ends up having to assent, voting for other peoples' proposals >>when they feel they're justified in doing so. > >This isn't an apt analogy for what I'm talking about. > > proposer > y n >me y 20, 0 -10, 0 > > n -10, 0 -10, 0 > >If there are two of us, absent any considerations of a proposal's content, >the dominant strategy is for me to vote "no". The only reason for me to >vote for the proposal is if I like it, so if a proposal that I like can be >made disinterested, it is to my advantage to apply pressure to make it so >-- thus, I receive the benefits of the proposal, and deny the proposer >points from it. As a result, points would never be awarded for proposals, >and we would lose any way (aside from impossibility of further play) to >award wins. I believe it _is_ an apt analogy. For one thing, the situation becomes vastly more complicated with multiple ( > 2) players. Also, I see this "pressure" you speak of much like the pressure exerted by players who threaten to vote against a proposal unless it is changed. The advantage isn't as great, but this doesn't seem to be (much of) a problem with opposed minority point scoring, so why would it be in this case? Plus, you say "apply pressure," and then assume it will always be applied, and will always be effective. Why need it be? Like I said - it would only be effective if everyone opened themselves up to tit-for-tat gameplay, which hasn't been a problem in the past. >How would problems ever get solved, then? Should no one should propose >problem fixes because they get points for them? The point here is that it's your own damn proposals you're repealing. I'm not saying people should not get points for problem fixes, but it seems somehow cosmically stinky that you're gaining points twice for fucking, then un-fucking us. Perhaps people who voted against the proposal under question should get points when they're repealed, for finally having their opposition opinions validated. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 21:30:26 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals At 07:57 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 07:08 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>>At 03:31 PM 3/9/99 , Josh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>It's prooposals like 448 and 449 that make me want to have >>>>>disinterested proposals allowed at all times; why should Joel >>>>>get points for un-fucking us, when he's the one that did it >>>>>before, and we all agree to the un-fucking (presumably)? >>>>> >>>>>Something to think about... >>>>> >>>>>Josh >>>> >>>>If any proposal could be disinterested, why would anyone ever vote in favor >>>>of a normal proposal? >>> >>>Sort of the same reason people continue to engage, in real life, >>>in the free market system (assuming people in capitalist societies) >>>instead of just pillaging and raping. If _they_ start pillaging >>>and raping, everyone will and then the dangers outweigh the >>>advantages. But if there's some sort of give-and-take, because >>>everyone would _like_ to come out ahead, then everyone who would >>>like to ends up having to assent, voting for other peoples' proposals >>>when they feel they're justified in doing so. >> >>This isn't an apt analogy for what I'm talking about. >> >> proposer >> y n >>me y 20, 0 -10, 0 >> >> n -10, 0 -10, 0 >> >>If there are two of us, absent any considerations of a proposal's content, >>the dominant strategy is for me to vote "no". The only reason for me to >>vote for the proposal is if I like it, so if a proposal that I like can be >>made disinterested, it is to my advantage to apply pressure to make it so >>-- thus, I receive the benefits of the proposal, and deny the proposer >>points from it. As a result, points would never be awarded for proposals, >>and we would lose any way (aside from impossibility of further play) to >>award wins. > >I believe it _is_ an apt analogy. > >For one thing, the situation becomes vastly more complicated with multiple >( > 2) players. Also, I see this "pressure" you speak of much like the pressure >exerted by players who threaten to vote against a proposal unless it >is changed. The advantage isn't as great, but this doesn't seem to be >(much of) a problem with opposed minority point scoring, so why would >it be in this case? > >Plus, you say "apply pressure," and then assume it will always be applied, >and will always be effective. Why need it be? Like I said - it would >only be effective if everyone opened themselves up to tit-for-tat >gameplay, which hasn't been a problem in the past. > >>How would problems ever get solved, then? Should no one should propose >>problem fixes because they get points for them? > >The point here is that it's your own damn proposals you're repealing. >I'm not saying people should not get points for problem fixes, >but it seems somehow cosmically stinky that you're gaining points >twice for fucking, then un-fucking us. Perhaps people who voted >against the proposal under question should get points when they're >repealed, for finally having their opposition opinions validated. > >Josh Why? I still don't agree with the reasons the opposition gave. The economy was not suitable for our current situation -- that is all I concede. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 23:25:21 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: 2 New props ---- 12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the anniversary of the start of the game. [[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this proposal.]] ---- ---- Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. [[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this proposal.]] ---- Is this better than Joel raking in more points? n ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 05:56:44 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Sv: Nomic: RFJ Joel Uckelman asked: : :Is this an official proposal, or just a suggestion for discussion? : The latter. There are too many loose ends in it. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 06:13:49 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie Joel Uckelman wrote: : :I'd be much more comfortable with this if either 1) the rule excluded :itself from it's provision, or 2) the rule were in standard English. : 1) would lead to a longer rule, which is not very desirable. 2) would be much less fun. Remember, we are still within the language capabilities of most English-speaking people. I could have made the proposal in Danish or German, except that it would have ensured the defeat of the prop. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 06:04:13 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Sv: Nomic: RFJ Joel Uckelman wrote: :>>This leaves some important things to be determined: :>>1. How do we determine who is responsible for breaking a rule? :> :>Pragmatics? : :I don't mean this to refer to situations like "I just set my score to :1000000000000" -- those are clear-cut. What I'm more worried about are :situations like when everyone forgets about something and we miss some sort :of deadline. : The last resort could be the Judicial system, though I am not sure if that is something to wish for. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 23:45:45 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie At 11:13 PM 3/9/99 , Ole wrote: >Joel Uckelman wrote: > >: >:I'd be much more comfortable with this if either 1) the rule excluded >:itself from it's provision, or 2) the rule were in standard English. >: > > >1) would lead to a longer rule, which is not very desirable. >2) would be much less fun. >Remember, we are still within the language capabilities of most >English-speaking people. I could have made the proposal in Danish or German, >except that it would have ensured the defeat of the prop. > >Ole Hmm. I am not opposed to long rules if the added length provides clarity. Also, had you proposed it in German, I may have been able to read *some* of the words (not that I recommend it, though). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 23:51:42 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 2 New props At 11:25 PM 3/9/99 , Nick wrote: >---- >12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the >anniversary of the start of the game. > >[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >proposal.]] >---- > >---- >Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. > >[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >proposal.]] >---- > >Is this better than Joel raking in more points? > >n I feel obligated to inform you that text inside [[ ]] is a comment, and therefore has no effect. Also, a proposal cannot make enforceable pronouncements as to the effects of its failure. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:52:29 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Sv: Nomic: Proposal-thingie "Ole Andersen" writes: >Joel Uckelman wrote: > >: >:I'd be much more comfortable with this if either 1) the rule excluded >:itself from it's provision, or 2) the rule were in standard English. >: > > >1) would lead to a longer rule, which is not very desirable. >2) would be much less fun. >Remember, we are still within the language capabilities of most >English-speaking people. I could have made the proposal in Danish or German, >except that it would have ensured the defeat of the prop. > > >Ole > > Chitaete po russki, pozhalsta. -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:26:11 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: 2 New props "Osborn, N." writes: >---- >12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the >anniversary of the start of the game. > >[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >proposal.]] >---- > >---- >Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. > >[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >proposal.]] >---- > >Is this better than Joel raking in more points? > >n a tasteful shrubbery shall have his name shouted from the rafters of all the fine cathedrals of france in decades to come -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:39:21 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 2 New props At 01:26 AM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: > >"Osborn, N." writes: >>---- >>12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the >>anniversary of the start of the game. >> >>[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >>proposal.]] >>---- >> >>---- >>Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. >> >>[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >>proposal.]] >>---- >> >>Is this better than Joel raking in more points? >> >>n > >a tasteful shrubbery shall have his name shouted from the rafters >of all the fine cathedrals of france in decades to come By your own reasoning, why should I not get points for the Berserker Nomic Day proposal? It isn't repealing anything that I proposed before, and it was my idea. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:57:51 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: New prop To cut a long story short, my spare tire is currently floating around Harwood, my dorm, as jovial Harwoodians dump it off in empty rooms. It's kind of like a 25 lbs. warm fuzzy. This is the inspiration for a new prop. ---- There exists within Berserker Nomic the Spare Tire. The Spare Tire is always possessed by a Player. If the Player possessing the Spare Tire forfeits, the Administrator gains possession of the Spare Tire. If a Player enters Limbo while in possession of the Spare Tire, possession of the Spare Tire is transferred to the Administrator after the passage of a complete turn. A Player loses possession of the Spare Tire by publicly declaring that the Spare Tire has been given to an other Player who is not in LImbo. Within six hours of this public declaration, if the Player unto whom the Spare Tire is being given publicly declares that he doesn't want the tire, the Spare Tire does not change possession. Othrwise, possession of the Spare Tire is transfered six hours after the public declaration that it has been given to an other Player. Each Player may make a statement as to the effect of the Spare Tire upon its possessor. This statement shall be identified as "The Spare Tire Creed of X," where X is the name of each respective Player. If fewer than one-half of Players have Spare Tire Creeds, the Spare Tire shall have no effect. Otherwise, the Spare Tire shall have the effect assigned to it by the plurality of Spare Tire Creeds. If a plurality does not exist, the Spare Tire shall have no effect. The effect of the Spare Tire has the force of this rule. [[The Administrator possess the Spare Tire.]] ---- This sounds fun. Any suggestions? n ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:09:29 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: New prop New prop ---- There exists within Berserker Nomic the epithet "Village Idiot." This epithet is applied to the Player who had the most votes against his Proposals in the previous turn. If more than one Player share the honor of having the most votes against their Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. If no Player had votes against his Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. A Player to whom the epithet "Village Idiot" is applied may have no active Proposals; all of this Player's Proposals are inactive for the duration of the turn. ---- ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:17:05 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: RFJ I was browsing the Rule set when I came across 385. As there is currently no way for a Proposal to avoid rewarding or penalizing Players unless the Proposal specifically states such, all Proposals that didn't take such a measure should have been prohibited. ---- Since the passage of Rule 385, Proposals that have rewarded or penalized Players voting on them should have been prohibited. ---- n ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:17:01 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop "Osborn, N." writes: >New prop >---- >There exists within Berserker Nomic the epithet "Village Idiot." This >epithet is applied to the Player who had the most votes against his >Proposals in the previous turn. > >If more than one Player share the honor of having the most votes against >their Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not >be applied to any Player in the current turn. If no Player had votes >against his Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" >shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. > >A Player to whom the epithet "Village Idiot" is applied may have no active >Proposals; all of this Player's Proposals are inactive for the duration of >the turn. >---- sweet! -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:15:50 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: 2 New props Joel Uckelman writes: >At 01:26 AM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>"Osborn, N." writes: >>>---- >>>12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the >>>anniversary of the start of the game. >>> >>>[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >>>proposal.]] >>>---- >>> >>>---- >>>Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. >>> >>>[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >>>proposal.]] >>>---- >>> >>>Is this better than Joel raking in more points? >>> >>>n >> >>a tasteful shrubbery shall have his name shouted from the rafters >>of all the fine cathedrals of france in decades to come > >By your own reasoning, why should I not get points for the Berserker Nomic >Day proposal? It isn't repealing anything that I proposed before, and it >was my idea. well that one, i think, is just sort of lame i won't vote for it unless it also make seomthing interesting happen -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:17:54 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop "Osborn, N." writes: >To cut a long story short, my spare tire is currently floating around >Harwood, my dorm, as jovial Harwoodians dump it off in empty rooms. It's >kind of like a 25 lbs. warm fuzzy. This is the inspiration for a new prop. > >---- >There exists within Berserker Nomic the Spare Tire. > >The Spare Tire is always possessed by a Player. If the Player possessing >the Spare Tire forfeits, the Administrator gains possession of the Spare >Tire. If a Player enters Limbo while in possession of the Spare Tire, >possession of the Spare Tire is transferred to the Administrator after the >passage of a complete turn. > >A Player loses possession of the Spare Tire by publicly declaring that the >Spare Tire has been given to an other Player who is not in LImbo. Within >six hours of this public declaration, if the Player unto whom the Spare >Tire is being given publicly declares that he doesn't want the tire, the >Spare Tire does not change possession. Othrwise, possession of the Spare >Tire is transfered six hours after the public declaration that it has been >given to an other Player. > >Each Player may make a statement as to the effect of the Spare Tire upon >its possessor. This statement shall be identified as "The Spare Tire Creed >of X," where X is the name of each respective Player. If fewer than >one-half of Players have Spare Tire Creeds, the Spare Tire shall have no >effect. Otherwise, the Spare Tire shall have the effect assigned to it by >the plurality of Spare Tire Creeds. If a plurality does not exist, the >Spare Tire shall have no effect. The effect of the Spare Tire has the force >of this rule. > >[[The Administrator possess the Spare Tire.]] >---- > >This sounds fun. Any suggestions? > >n hmmmmmmmmmmmmm i like -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:29:11 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: RFJ Commentary 385 would appear to have made impossible the passage of any Proposals that received any opposed votes, as Players voting in the opposed minority are rewarded, or which the Player initiating the Proposal voted upon, as the Proposer would be rewarded for passing a Proposal. I hope I'm wrong. n ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:04:51 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 62: Since the passage of Rule 385, Proposals that have rewarded or penalized Players voting on them should have been prohibited. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:09:27 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ Commentary At 12:29 PM 3/10/99 , you wrote: >385 would appear to have made impossible the passage of any Proposals that >received any opposed votes, as Players voting in the opposed minority are >rewarded, or which the Player initiating the Proposal voted upon, as the >Proposer would be rewarded for passing a Proposal. > >I hope I'm wrong. > >n R385 --------- Proposals that, should they pass, would reward or penalize players voting on them, are prohibited. --------- Note that "proposals" is the subject of this sentence, so the actions being prohibited are that of *proposals themselves* awarding or deducting points as a direct result of their passage. According to our current scoring mechanism, all points for proposal passage or failure are awarded by *rules*. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:01:13 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: 2 New props At 12:15 PM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 01:26 AM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>"Osborn, N." writes: >>>>---- >>>>12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the >>>>anniversary of the start of the game. >>>> >>>>[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >>>>proposal.]] >>>>---- >>>> >>>>---- >>>>Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. >>>> >>>>[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >>>>proposal.]] >>>>---- >>>> >>>>Is this better than Joel raking in more points? >>>> >>>>n >>> >>>a tasteful shrubbery shall have his name shouted from the rafters >>>of all the fine cathedrals of france in decades to come >> >>By your own reasoning, why should I not get points for the Berserker Nomic >>Day proposal? It isn't repealing anything that I proposed before, and it >>was my idea. > >well >that one, i think, is just sort of lame >i won't vote for it unless it also make seomthing interesting happen That's why I asked for suggestions when I proposed it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:19:08 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop At 12:09 PM 3/10/99 , Nick wrote: >New prop >---- >There exists within Berserker Nomic the epithet "Village Idiot." This >epithet is applied to the Player who had the most votes against his >Proposals in the previous turn. > >If more than one Player share the honor of having the most votes against >their Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not >be applied to any Player in the current turn. If no Player had votes >against his Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" >shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. > >A Player to whom the epithet "Village Idiot" is applied may have no active >Proposals; all of this Player's Proposals are inactive for the duration of >the turn. >---- Making proposals is the primary activity of our players at present -- we've even had someone quit because he couldn't propose soon enough. Why, then, do we want to prevent players from making proposals? While we may want to discourage dumb proposals, in many instances in our past, the proposals that have failed worst were actually well-written and reasonable, but just lacked player support (e.g. Mueller's FM initiative). A profusion of proposals, at least in my mind, is associated with a healthy game. And note well: very little happens when we are lacking active proposals. Only a few days ago, Josh was complaining about just that. If the idea is to attach a stigma to dumb proposals, I think you've cast the net a little wide. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:33:33 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: New prop, revised Thanks, Joel. New prop ---- There exists within Berserker Nomic the epithet "Village Idiot." This epithet is applied to the Player who had the most votes against his Proposals in the previous turn. If more than one Player share the honor of having the most votes against their Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. If no Player had votes against his Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. A Player to whom the epithet "Village Idiot" is applied will not lose points for, at most, one Proposal for the current turn. If the Player has any Proposals that would normally cause him to lose no points, this rule has no effect. If the Player has no Proposals up for a vote, this rule has no effect. If all of the Player's Proposals result in a net loss of points, the Proposal that would cause the net loss of the fewest points instead causes no change, plus or minus, in the Player's score. ---- I think this is an improvement, but it seems that it lacks some excitement. I'm still open to suggestions. n ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:44:55 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop, revised At 01:33 PM 3/10/99 , Nick wrote: >Thanks, Joel. > >New prop >---- >There exists within Berserker Nomic the epithet "Village Idiot." This >epithet is applied to the Player who had the most votes against his >Proposals in the previous turn. > >If more than one Player share the honor of having the most votes against >their Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not >be applied to any Player in the current turn. If no Player had votes >against his Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" >shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. > >A Player to whom the epithet "Village Idiot" is applied will not lose >points for, at most, one Proposal for the current turn. If the Player has >any Proposals that would normally cause him to lose no points, this rule >has no effect. If the Player has no Proposals up for a vote, this rule has >no effect. If all of the Player's Proposals result in a net loss of points, >the Proposal that would cause the net loss of the fewest points instead >causes no change, plus or minus, in the Player's score. >---- > >I think this is an improvement, but it seems that it lacks some excitement. >I'm still open to suggestions. > >n Hmm. This seems to have swung the other way -- now being the Village Idiot seems to be some kind of reward or safety net. I thought it was intended to be a penalty. I'm not opposed to penalizing players for badly failed proposals, but it seemed that preventing them from proposing would have had unintended side-effects. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:41:23 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop At 10:57 AM 3/10/99 , NIck wrote: >To cut a long story short, my spare tire is currently floating around >Harwood, my dorm, as jovial Harwoodians dump it off in empty rooms. It's >kind of like a 25 lbs. warm fuzzy. This is the inspiration for a new prop. > >---- >There exists within Berserker Nomic the Spare Tire. > >The Spare Tire is always possessed by a Player. If the Player possessing >the Spare Tire forfeits, the Administrator gains possession of the Spare >Tire. If a Player enters Limbo while in possession of the Spare Tire, >possession of the Spare Tire is transferred to the Administrator after the >passage of a complete turn. > >A Player loses possession of the Spare Tire by publicly declaring that the >Spare Tire has been given to an other Player who is not in LImbo. Within >six hours of this public declaration, if the Player unto whom the Spare >Tire is being given publicly declares that he doesn't want the tire, the >Spare Tire does not change possession. Othrwise, possession of the Spare >Tire is transfered six hours after the public declaration that it has been >given to an other Player. > >Each Player may make a statement as to the effect of the Spare Tire upon >its possessor. This statement shall be identified as "The Spare Tire Creed >of X," where X is the name of each respective Player. If fewer than >one-half of Players have Spare Tire Creeds, the Spare Tire shall have no >effect. Otherwise, the Spare Tire shall have the effect assigned to it by >the plurality of Spare Tire Creeds. If a plurality does not exist, the >Spare Tire shall have no effect. The effect of the Spare Tire has the force >of this rule. > >[[The Administrator possess the Spare Tire.]] >---- > >This sounds fun. Any suggestions? > >n You need to use {{ }} instead of [[ ]]. It's very dangerous allowing a plurality of those with a Spare Tire Creed decide what the ST does -- if a majority of players have a STC, as few as two players could decide its effects. Also note that these effects are not limited in any way. Changing "plurality" to "majority" would be much more palatable. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:13:34 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: 2 New props Joel Uckelman writes: >At 12:15 PM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>At 01:26 AM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: >>>> >>>>"Osborn, N." writes: >>>>>---- >>>>>12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the >>>>>anniversary of the start of the game. >>>>> >>>>>[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >>>>>proposal.]] >>>>>---- >>>>> >>>>>---- >>>>>Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. >>>>> >>>>>[[No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this >>>>>proposal.]] >>>>>---- >>>>> >>>>>Is this better than Joel raking in more points? >>>>> >>>>>n >>>> >>>>a tasteful shrubbery shall have his name shouted from the rafters >>>>of all the fine cathedrals of france in decades to come >>> >>>By your own reasoning, why should I not get points for the Berserker Nomic >>>Day proposal? It isn't repealing anything that I proposed before, and it >>>was my idea. >> >>well >>that one, i think, is just sort of lame >>i won't vote for it unless it also make seomthing interesting happen > >That's why I asked for suggestions when I proposed it. what am i payin for here? dance, monkey, dance! -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:11:25 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop, revised "Osborn, N." writes: >Thanks, Joel. > >New prop >---- >There exists within Berserker Nomic the epithet "Village Idiot." This >epithet is applied to the Player who had the most votes against his >Proposals in the previous turn. > >If more than one Player share the honor of having the most votes against >their Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not >be applied to any Player in the current turn. If no Player had votes >against his Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" >shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. > >A Player to whom the epithet "Village Idiot" is applied will not lose >points for, at most, one Proposal for the current turn. If the Player has >any Proposals that would normally cause him to lose no points, this rule >has no effect. If the Player has no Proposals up for a vote, this rule has >no effect. If all of the Player's Proposals result in a net loss of points, >the Proposal that would cause the net loss of the fewest points instead >causes no change, plus or minus, in the Player's score. >---- > >I think this is an improvement, but it seems that it lacks some excitement. >I'm still open to suggestions. > >n i like it the old way better. don't listn to jo-el. -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 17:28:23 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop, revised At 04:11 PM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: > >"Osborn, N." writes: >>Thanks, Joel. >> >>New prop >>---- >>There exists within Berserker Nomic the epithet "Village Idiot." This >>epithet is applied to the Player who had the most votes against his >>Proposals in the previous turn. >> >>If more than one Player share the honor of having the most votes against >>their Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not >>be applied to any Player in the current turn. If no Player had votes >>against his Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" >>shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. >> >>A Player to whom the epithet "Village Idiot" is applied will not lose >>points for, at most, one Proposal for the current turn. If the Player has >>any Proposals that would normally cause him to lose no points, this rule >>has no effect. If the Player has no Proposals up for a vote, this rule has >>no effect. If all of the Player's Proposals result in a net loss of points, >>the Proposal that would cause the net loss of the fewest points instead >>causes no change, plus or minus, in the Player's score. >>---- >> >>I think this is an improvement, but it seems that it lacks some excitement. >>I'm still open to suggestions. >> >>n > >i like it the old way better. don't listn to jo-el. Ok, then explain why we should discourage people from making proposals. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:19:59 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop, revised Joel Uckelman writes: >At 04:11 PM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>"Osborn, N." writes: >>>Thanks, Joel. >>> >>>New prop >>>---- >>>There exists within Berserker Nomic the epithet "Village Idiot." This >>>epithet is applied to the Player who had the most votes against his >>>Proposals in the previous turn. >>> >>>If more than one Player share the honor of having the most votes against >>>their Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" shall not >>>be applied to any Player in the current turn. If no Player had votes >>>against his Proposals in the previous turn, the epithet "Village Idiot" >>>shall not be applied to any Player in the current turn. >>> >>>A Player to whom the epithet "Village Idiot" is applied will not lose >>>points for, at most, one Proposal for the current turn. If the Player has >>>any Proposals that would normally cause him to lose no points, this rule >>>has no effect. If the Player has no Proposals up for a vote, this rule has >>>no effect. If all of the Player's Proposals result in a net loss of points, >>>the Proposal that would cause the net loss of the fewest points instead >>>causes no change, plus or minus, in the Player's score. >>>---- >>> >>>I think this is an improvement, but it seems that it lacks some excitement. >>>I'm still open to suggestions. >>> >>>n >> >>i like it the old way better. don't listn to jo-el. > >Ok, then explain why we should discourage people from making proposals. ATS's planned proposal doesn't discourage unilaterally, it just gives little advisory notiices to people who are bad at making proposals. Perhaps if the requirement changes from "most no votes" to "all no votes, excepting eir own." -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:34:55 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop, revised At 08:19 PM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: >>>i like it the old way better. don't listn to jo-el. >> >>Ok, then explain why we should discourage people from making proposals. > >ATS's planned proposal doesn't discourage unilaterally, it just gives >little advisory notiices to people who are bad at making proposals. > >Perhaps if the requirement changes from "most no votes" to "all no >votes, excepting eir own." I think you might mean "fails and receives fewer than two yes votes". Otherwise, simply voting against one's own proposal would allow one to escape Village Idiocy. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:32:21 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection Joel Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 62: > >Since the passage of Rule 385, Proposals that have rewarded or penalized >Players voting on them should have been prohibited. The court shall hear the statement. The court finds the statement to be TRUE. Analysis: As Mr. Uckelman states in his argument on this matter, rule 385 makes statements about _proposals_ which reward or penalize players voting on them. He claims that all point relevant point changes here are effected by rules. Under Mr. Uckelman's analysis, then, the above statement is vacuously true, as it is merely a reading of 385. However, cast in a different light Mr. Osborn's statement begins to take on a different meaning. According to Mr. Uckelman, these point changes are caused by rules. These rules do not cause point changes by themselves; they require proposal passage or failure to do so. In that sense, then, these point changes are _never_ caused solely by rules, but always by rules in concert with the relevant game events, namely proposal passage or failure. This dual causal nature complicates matters; if rules, as well as voting results, are required for these point changes, can we point to a single thing or group of things which could be said to be "responsible" for rewarding or penalizing a player or players? Consider the relevant scoring rules. Do they ever reward or penalize players, in the absence of any voting results? Certainly not. However, as soon as voting results are finalized, we consider the appropriate players to have been rewarded or penalized. Clearly the results have primacy when determining causality. These voting results are totally linked to the proposals for which they are results. Thus, the court finds that every proposal since 385 which has either rewarded or penalized a player or players should have been prohibited. The action to be taken, then, is to strike all such game actions [[until dead]]. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:43:51 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New prop, revised Joel Uckelman writes: >At 08:19 PM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: >>>>i like it the old way better. don't listn to jo-el. >>> >>>Ok, then explain why we should discourage people from making proposals. >> >>ATS's planned proposal doesn't discourage unilaterally, it just gives >>little advisory notiices to people who are bad at making proposals. >> >>Perhaps if the requirement changes from "most no votes" to "all no >>votes, excepting eir own." > >I think you might mean "fails and receives fewer than two yes votes". >Otherwise, simply voting against one's own proposal would allow one to >escape Village Idiocy. hmmm. that would be sort of a funny thing to have happen though. how would one know to do so, though? -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:06:53 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Ole Andersen, Tom Knight, and Tom Mueller have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 62: Since the passage of Rule 385, Proposals that have rewarded or penalized Players voting on them should have been prohibited. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:00:33 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection At 08:32 PM 3/10/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 62: >> >>Since the passage of Rule 385, Proposals that have rewarded or penalized >>Players voting on them should have been prohibited. > >The court shall hear the statement. > >The court finds the statement to be TRUE. > >Analysis: > >As Mr. Uckelman states in his argument on this matter, rule 385 makes >statements about _proposals_ which reward or penalize players voting >on them. He claims that all point relevant point changes here are >effected by rules. > >Under Mr. Uckelman's analysis, then, the above statement is vacuously >true, as it is merely a reading of 385. > >However, cast in a different light Mr. Osborn's statement begins >to take on a different meaning. According to Mr. Uckelman, these >point changes are caused by rules. > >These rules do not cause point changes by themselves; they require >proposal passage or failure to do so. In that sense, then, these >point changes are _never_ caused solely by rules, but always by >rules in concert with the relevant game events, namely proposal >passage or failure. > >This dual causal nature complicates matters; if rules, as well >as voting results, are required for these point changes, can we >point to a single thing or group of things which could be said >to be "responsible" for rewarding or penalizing a player or players? > >Consider the relevant scoring rules. Do they ever reward or penalize >players, in the absence of any voting results? Certainly not. >However, as soon as voting results are finalized, we consider >the appropriate players to have been rewarded or penalized. Clearly >the results have primacy when determining causality. > >These voting results are totally linked to the proposals for which >they are results. Thus, the court finds that every proposal since >385 which has either rewarded or penalized a player or players should >have been prohibited. The action to be taken, then, is to strike >all such game actions [[until dead]]. > > > >Josh I appeal. Justification: The causality implied by R385 is a direct one -- proposals do not cause points to be awarded. Rather, proposals cause certain voting results. In turn, voting results trigger the awarding of points through rules. No prohibition of rules awarding points exists, nor does any on on voting results causing rules to award points, nor any on proposals causing voting resutlts. None of the steps in the current process are prohibited. Therefore, R385 only prevents proposals that directly award points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:17:53 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal ------------ No game actions that occurred prior to 13:20 CST 2 March 1999 may be undone by the Judiciary. All such actions are to be considered legal and in accord with the Rules. ------------ I don't think anyone (with the possible exception of Josh) wants the game to be forced to rewind almost three months, but that could be a possible result (one of two) of RFJ 62 being true. This proposal will prevent what, in my opinion, would be catastrophic for the game. I intend to expand this into some sort of more general statute of limitations -- this is just a preliminary draft. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 23:27:17 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Joel Uckelman writes: >------------ >No game actions that occurred prior to 13:20 CST 2 March 1999 may be undone >by the Judiciary. All such actions are to be considered legal and in accord >with the Rules. >------------ > >I don't think anyone (with the possible exception of Josh) wants the game I am shocked and dismayed. I can but only serve as best as can. Er. Something. I think that a proposal in this form is wasteful; if you want a statute of limitations, do it up real general-like the first time. Josh paint your wagon... -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:07:16 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 11:27 PM 3/10/99 , you wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>------------ >>No game actions that occurred prior to 13:20 CST 2 March 1999 may be undone >>by the Judiciary. All such actions are to be considered legal and in accord >>with the Rules. >>------------ >> >>I don't think anyone (with the possible exception of Josh) wants the game > >I am shocked and dismayed. > >I can but only serve as best as can. >Er. >Something. > >I think that a proposal in this form is wasteful; if you want a >statute of limitations, do it up real general-like the first time. > > >Josh >paint your wagon... Like I said, this proposal isn't done, and I do intend to add a more useful general provision in the morning. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 01:15:47 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: Village Idiot Does anyone else have an opinion concerning the Village Idiot? ats ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 01:21:37 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: Spare Tire Creed Just in case it passes... Spare Tire Creed of a tasteful shrubbery: The Spare Tire has no effect. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 01:20:09 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: Spare Tire There exists within Berserker Nomic the Spare Tire. The Spare Tire is always possessed by a Player. If the Player possessing the Spare Tire forfeits, the Administrator gains possession of the Spare Tire. If a Player enters Limbo while in possession of the Spare Tire, possession of the Spare Tire is transferred to the Administrator after the passage of a complete turn. A Player loses possession of the Spare Tire by publicly declaring that the Spare Tire has been given to an other Player who is not in LImbo. Within six hours of this public declaration, if the Player unto whom the Spare Tire is being given publicly declares that he doesn't want the tire, the Spare Tire does not change possession. Othrwise, possession of the Spare Tire is transfered six hours after the public declaration that it has been given to an other Player. Each Player may make a statement as to the effect of the Spare Tire upon its possessor. This statement shall be identified as "The Spare Tire Creed of X," where X is the name of each respective Player. The Spare Tire shall have the effect assigned to it by the plurality, and at least one-third, of Spare Tire Creeds. If a plurality, and at least one-third agreement, does not exist, the Spare Tire shall have no effect. The effect of the Spare Tire has the force of this rule. {{The Administrator possess the Spare Tire.}} ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:45:00 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Village Idiot I play in another Nomic, where we have this rule: "Rule 366 - mutable Prophecy and Martyrdom Each time a proposal is defeated, its proponent receives an Insistance Point. A player with a negative number of points, no Vegetables and more than 5 Insistance Points shall receive the title of Prophet. If a Prophet has fewer points than any other player, he/she shall receive the title of Martyr. If at any time there are two Martyrs, the Martyr with most points shall cease to be a Martyr. If a player with a positive number of points enters the location of a Martyr, the said player shall lose one tenth of his/her points, rounded down, and the Martyr shall gain the same number of points." I like that more. Ole -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Osborn, N. Til: Berserker Nomic Dato: 11. marts 1999 08:20 Emne: Nomic: Village Idiot :Does anyone else have an opinion concerning the Village Idiot? : :ats : ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:36:40 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting starts at 13:20 CST, 12 March 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:52:04 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: RFJ 62, 2 Court, 1/3 Judgement Proposals do not reward or penalize anything. The rules reward or penalize certain kinds of voting under various circumstances. As such, the statement makes no sense. DISMISSED. Ole -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Joel Uckelman Til: nomic@iastate.edu Dato: 11. marts 1999 04:10 Emne: Nomic: judge selection :Ole Andersen, Tom Knight, and Tom Mueller have been selected to 2 Court for :RFJ 62: : :Since the passage of Rule 385, Proposals that have rewarded or penalized :Players voting on them should have been prohibited. : :J. Uckelman :uckelman@iastate.edu :http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ : ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:46:20 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: Final props This is the final form of the "Spare Tire" prop. It's unchanged from the last posting, but I thought it worthwhile to include. ---- There exists within Berserker Nomic the Spare Tire. The Spare Tire is always possessed by a Player. If the Player possessing the Spare Tire forfeits, the Administrator gains possession of the Spare Tire. If a Player enters Limbo while in possession of the Spare Tire, possession of the Spare Tire is transferred to the Administrator after the passage of a complete turn. A Player loses possession of the Spare Tire by publicly declaring that the Spare Tire has been given to an other Player who is not in LImbo. Within six hours of this public declaration, if the Player unto whom the Spare Tire is being given publicly declares that he doesn't want the tire, the Spare Tire does not change possession. Othrwise, possession of the Spare Tire is transfered six hours after the public declaration that it has been given to an other Player. Each Player may make a statement as to the effect of the Spare Tire upon its possessor. This statement shall be identified as "The Spare Tire Creed of X," where X is the name of each respective Player. The Spare Tire shall have the effect assigned to it by the plurality, and at least one-third, of Spare Tire Creeds. If a plurality, and at least one-third agreement, does not exist, the Spare Tire shall have no effect. The effect of the Spare Tire has the force of this rule. {{The Administrator possess the Spare Tire.}} ---- The "Village Idiot" prop is inactive. The "no points awarded" props are final as of their last posting, and I didn't think them worthwhile to include. ats ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:22:53 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: oops Note to self: open mouth, insert crow. Joel selflessly pointed out an syntax error in my "no points" props. Aparently, I would still get points, because I used "[[]]" instead of "{{}}". The final and correct forms should have the "[[]]" replaced with "{{}}". Hope I didn't screw anything else up. ats ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:23:51 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal revision ------- A Judgment may not undo actions that occurred more than two turns prior to its corresponding Request for Judgment. All such actions are to be considered legal and in accord with the Rules. ------- Here is the more general form of a statute of limitations, as requested. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:47:05 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: interesting statistic The Berserker Nomic page accounts for approximately 0.01% of the traffic to the ISU public web server. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:41:14 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: Discussion I was just talking with Joel, and I think it would be of benefit to Berserker if we discussed our thoughts upon the theory and philosophy of the game, a broader scale than worrying about the punctuation in proposals. Recently, there has been some mention of recognizing and punishing illegal actions. In my understanding of the game, this is a bit ridiculus, because I don't believe illegal actions can even take place. I believe the game plays itself out in a "black box," if you will. Everything in the black box takes place according to the rules. The Ruleset is the natural law of the universe of the black box. We act upon what we perceive of the black box, contributing game actions. Judgements are something of an official best guess at the state of the box. As the game progresses, the likelyhood of our exact knowledge of the box decreases. If, in our perception of the box, we do something illegal, it does not occur in the box. Something is illegal wether we recognize it or not. If we recognize something as illegal, we make all attempts to synch ourselves back with the box. If we don't recognize an illegal action, our perception splits from the reality of the box. (Yes, I believe the Black Box is more "real" than all our e-mail and Joel's web page.) The box will continue adhereing to the rules and processing legal game actions, but, likely, it will eventually come to a point where none of the game actions are legal or possessive of a completely legal origin. Hopefully, someone will win before our perception becomes too perverted. If you had the determination to muddle through the above, you can probably see why I find the discussion of how to punish illegal actions simply ridiculus. I am interested in what others think about the game. ats (because Nick Osborn doesn't exist in the Black Box) ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:41:38 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Re: Nomic: interesting statistic >The Berserker Nomic page accounts for approximately 0.01% of the traffic to >the ISU public web server. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ It's good to know our tuition money and tax dollars are going to good use. ats ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:12:29 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: Spare Tire, last time, I promise There exists within Berserker Nomic the Spare Tire. The Spare Tire is always possessed by a Player. If the Player possessing the Spare Tire forfeits, the Administrator gains possession of the Spare Tire. If a Player enters Limbo while in possession of the Spare Tire, possession of the Spare Tire is transferred to the Administrator after the passage of a complete turn. The Spare Tire has no effect if it is passes to the Administrator under the above circumstances. A Player loses possession of the Spare Tire by publicly declaring that the Spare Tire has been given to an other Player who is not in LImbo. Within six hours of this public declaration, if the Player unto whom the Spare Tire is being given publicly declares that he doesn't want the tire, the Spare Tire does not change possession. Othrwise, possession of the Spare Tire is transfered six hours after the public declaration that it has been given to an other Player. Each Player may make a statement as to the effect of the Spare Tire upon its possessor. This statement shall be identified as "The Spare Tire Creed of X," where X is the name of each respective Player. The Spare Tire shall have the effect assigned to it by the plurality, and at least one-third, of Spare Tire Creeds. If a plurality, and at least one-third agreement, does not exist, the Spare Tire shall have no effect. The effect of the Spare Tire has the force of this rule. {{The Administrator possess the Spare Tire. The Spare Tire has no effect until it is passed to a Player other than the Adminstrator.}} ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:41:52 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting Voting has begun. A ballot is forthcoming. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:18:26 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot ---------------------------- P447 Change R229 to the following MINORCHANGE delimited text: MINORCHANGE The set of Offices is defined as {Judge, Administrator, Foreign Minister, Treasury Minister}. Upon the passage of a Proposal altering this set, the set shall amend itself to reflect the changes. Entities holding Offices are Officeholders. Players may resign from any Offices they hold at any time. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules or portions of Rules dealing with Offices. MINORCHANGE ---------------------------- P448 12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the anniversary of the start of the game. ---------------------------- P449 Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. ---------------------------- P450 Ulesray andyay Roposalspay ustmay ebay inyay Englishyay. ----------------------------- P451 12 March shall be known as Berserker Nomic Day in commemoration of the anniversary of the start of the game. {{No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this proposal.}} ----------------------------- P452 Repeal Rules 401, 403, 404, 437, and 444. {{No points shall be gained or lost by the passage or defeat of this proposal.}} ----------------------------- P453 There exists within Berserker Nomic the Spare Tire. The Spare Tire is always possessed by a Player. If the Player possessing the Spare Tire forfeits, the Administrator gains possession of the Spare Tire. If a Player enters Limbo while in possession of the Spare Tire, possession of the Spare Tire is transferred to the Administrator after the passage of a complete turn. The Spare Tire has no effect if it is passes to the Administrator under the above circumstances. A Player loses possession of the Spare Tire by publicly declaring that the Spare Tire has been given to an other Player who is not in LImbo. Within six hours of this public declaration, if the Player unto whom the Spare Tire is being given publicly declares that he doesn't want the tire, the Spare Tire does not change possession. Othrwise, possession of the Spare Tire is transfered six hours after the public declaration that it has been given to an other Player. Each Player may make a statement as to the effect of the Spare Tire upon its possessor. This statement shall be identified as "The Spare Tire Creed of X," where X is the name of each respective Player. The Spare Tire shall have the effect assigned to it by the plurality, and at least one-third, of Spare Tire Creeds. If a plurality, and at least one-third agreement, does not exist, the Spare Tire shall have no effect. The effect of the Spare Tire has the force of this rule. {{The Administrator possess the Spare Tire. The Spare Tire has no effect until it is passed to a Player other than the Adminstrator.}} ----------------------------- P455 A Judgment may not undo actions that occurred more than two turns prior to its corresponding Request for Judgment. All such actions are to be considered legal and in accord with the Rules. ----------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:22:35 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: on proposal cloning I strongly urge everyone to vote against P451 and P452 for the following reason: once we accept proposals being copied with an added "no scoring" proviso, it becomes very hard to justify proposal scoring at all. What's to keep me from doing the same thing to Nick's (or anyone else's) original proposals to prevent him from scoring? If you want to retain a method of scoring at all, please vote against P451 and P452. [[paid for by the Committee to Defeat P451 and P452]] J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:33:49 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: on proposal cloning Joel Uckelman writes: >I strongly urge everyone to vote against P451 and P452 for the following >reason: once we accept proposals being copied with an added "no scoring" >proviso, it becomes very hard to justify proposal scoring at all. What's to Very hard for you, maybe. I'm not convinced that we'll fall into anarchy. >keep me from doing the same thing to Nick's (or anyone else's) original >proposals to prevent him from scoring? If you want to retain a method of >scoring at all, please vote against P451 and P452. > >[[paid for by the Committee to Defeat P451 and P452]] > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 23:51:02 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting ends at 13:20 CST, 14 March 1999 -- about 13 hours from now. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 14:46:45 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: auto-limbo Tom Knight has slipped into Limbo. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 14:49:24 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P447 passed (6-1-0-2). P448 failed (3-4-0-2). P449 failed (1-6-0-2). P450 failed (3-4-0-2). P451 failed (3-4-0-2). P452 passed (4-3-0-2). P453 passed (5-1-1-2). P455 passed (4-3-0-2). Osborn's Demon cast AA's with Tom Mueller. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:31:40 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring and other stuff Scoring changes: +14 Tom Plagge +13 Nick Osborn +9 Ed Proescholdt +8 Joel Uckelman +6 Josh Kortbein -10 Ole Andersen Note that this is the first time in the history of our game that someone with no active proposals was the high scorer for a turn. It is now Josh Kortbein's turn. Joel Uckelman, as Administrator, currently holds the Spare Tire. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:30:44 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal 1. Amend clause B of Rule 319 to read: "B. A Player may go into Limbo only by a) publicly declaring emself in Limbo or b) failing a Limbo Check." 2. Change all pronouns in Rule 319 to their spivak-compliant forms. 3. Reletter clause C of Rule 319 to D, and add as clause C: "C. The Administrator executes a Limbo Check for a player by determining if that Player has taken any game related action [[e.g. voting, proposing, commenting]] over the period of fifteen days immediately prior to the Limbo Check. If a player has not taken any game related action within fifteen days prior to the Limbo Check, that Player has failed the Limbo Check. Any Player may reqest a Limbo Check on any other Player at any time." ----------------------- Reason for this: Not realizing that someone automatically went into Limbo could potentially cause problems, since players in Limbo are not eligible to take most game actions. With this modification, players can only slip into Limbo through a direct action on the part of another player -- that way, it will always be easily noticed when a player goes into Limbo. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 03:01:27 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Request for Judgment I have a statement: "The player referred to as 'X' in Rule 357/1 is not necessarily the Provocateur." I'd like it tested by the Judiciary. Ole From owner-nomic Sun Mar 14 22:10:12 1999 Received: