________________________________________ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:33:10 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: new prop, defining Currently, we have a number of native terms that are open to interpretation. I don't think this is a necessarily good situation. I'm taking suggestions, as this prop is currently INACTIVE. It would be best to make the rules as clear as possible, even though any card-carrying desconstructionist could tell you that it's impossible to eliminate native terms. ---- Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit "To forfeit shall be defined as withdrawl of the consent to be represented as per the definition of a Player." Create a Rule 005: Definition of Penalty "A penalty shall be defined as any punishment prescribed by the Rules. Penalties may not extend beyond the universe of Berserker and may not remove a Player from Berserker." ---- I'm open to suggestions concerning the above and any other vague native terms. ats ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 14:17:14 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: new prop, defining "Osborn, N." writes: >Currently, we have a number of native terms that are open to >interpretation. I don't think this is a necessarily good situation. I'm >taking suggestions, as this prop is currently INACTIVE. It would be best to >make the rules as clear as possible, even though any card-carrying >desconstructionist could tell you that it's impossible to eliminate native >terms. > >---- >Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit > >"To forfeit shall be defined as withdrawl of the consent to be represented >as per the definition of a Player." > >Create a Rule 005: Definition of Penalty > >"A penalty shall be defined as any punishment prescribed by the Rules. >Penalties may not extend beyond the universe of Berserker and may not >remove a Player from Berserker." >---- > >I'm open to suggestions concerning the above and any other vague native terms. You should have a talk with Joel about micro-worlds. What's "the universe of Berserker?" What's "[removing] a player from Berserker?" What's a "punishment?" -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:07:36 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: points 1. Jeff Schroeder received 3 points for judging RFJ 68. 2. In case anyone was wondering, judges have been receiving points in the past -- I just haven't been consistently announcing it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:02:51 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot Here's the ballot. Voting ends at 13:20, 3 April. ---------------------------- P463 Unless otherwise directed, all game actions shall be posted to nomic@iastate.edu by the Player(s) initiating the action. ---------------------------- P464 Repeal 381. --------------------------- P465 All Eligible Voters may cast votes on current Proposals by sending eir votes in an email to the Administrator. --------------------------- P466 Players receive one UPC for each failed Proposal of which they are a proponent. UPCs are distributed at the appointed time for proposal scoring. UPCs may be traded among Players in integer units, though no Player may ever have less than zero UPCs. Players may turn in their UPCs with their ballot upon voting for Proposals. UPCs that are turned in are fed to Osborn's Demon. The GRAND PRIZE is an eligible voter. If no UPCs are turned in, there is no GRAND PRIZE for that ballot. [[The following is in a manner similar to Osborn's Demon.]] The GRAND PRIZE votes the same as the Player who turned in the most UPCs. If no Player turns in more UPcs than all the other Players, the GRAND PRIZE shall vote as do a plurality of the Players turning in equally the most UPCs. If there is no plurality, the GRAND PRIZE does not vote for that ballot. The GRAND PRIZE's votes are cast immediately after the Player or Players turning in the most UPCs cast their ballot(s). [[Void where prohibited. Available while supplies last. Not available in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. Participation may vary. Check stores for details.]] {{Upon passage of this rule, all Players have zero UPCs.}} -------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:10:58 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: points Joel Uckelman writes: >1. Jeff Schroeder received 3 points for judging RFJ 68. > >2. In case anyone was wondering, judges have been receiving points in the >past -- I just haven't been consistently announcing it. Give us total announcement action! All Uckelman All the Time! -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:46:11 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Re: Nomic: new prop, defining >>---- >>Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit >> >>"To forfeit shall be defined as withdrawl of the consent to be represented >>as per the definition of a Player." >> >>Create a Rule 005: Definition of Penalty >> >>"A penalty shall be defined as any punishment prescribed by the Rules. >>Penalties may not extend beyond the universe of Berserker and may not >>remove a Player from Berserker." >>---- >> >>I'm open to suggestions concerning the above and any other vague native >>terms. > >You should have a talk with Joel about micro-worlds. > >What's "the universe of Berserker?" > >What's "[removing] a player from Berserker?" > >What's a "punishment?" Good points, Josh. Forget about the above. new prop, disinterested ---- Transmute Rule 113 to mutable. Amend Rule 113 as follows: "A player always has the option to forfeit the game." Transmute Rule 113 to immutable. ---- ---- Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit "To "forfeit" shall be defined as ceasing to fit the deifnition of a Player." ---- I'm still open to suggestions. ats ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 11:46:04 -0600 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot At 04:02 PM 4/1/99 , you wrote: >Here's the ballot. Voting ends at 13:20, 3 April. > >---------------------------- > >P463 Yes >P464 Yes >P465 Yes >P466 No ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 14:03:09 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P463 passed (6-1-2-0). P464 failed (4-5-0-0). P465 passed (8-1-0-0). P466 passed (5-2-2-0). Osborn's Demon voted with Ole. Note that there were no auto-abstentions -- meaning that everyone not in Limbo voted. I think this is the first time since we've had auto-abstentions that none were cast. :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 14:29:40 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Proposal scoring for the turn: +31 Nick Osborn +9 Josh Kortbein +9 Jeff Schroeder +8 Ole Andersen +7 Tom Plagge +7 Joel Uckelman It is now Tom Plagge's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 14:36:55 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judging scoring Judging scoring for the turn: +3 Jeff Schroeder +3 Tom Plagge +3 Ed Proescholdt +3 Ole Andersen J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:32:46 -0600 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal Amend Rule 215/1 to the following JUDICIAL REFORM delimited text: JUDICIAL REFORM The judicial pool shall consist of all Players having publicly consented to selection as Judges. A Player may, at any time, add or remove only emself from the judicial pool. Players in Limbo are automatically removed from the judicial pool. In the even that no Players are in the judicial pool, all Players not in Limbo are placed in the judicial pool. {{All Players not in Limbo are in the judicial pool.}} Courts shall be filled by the Administrator with Judges randomly selected from the judicial pool, with the following exclusions: i. Players already selected to the Court in question ii. the Complainant and Appellant if x < 3 iii. no more than one Judge from the x-1 Court for the Case Restrictions ii and iii shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a full Court from being chosen. JUDICIAL REFORM ------------------------------- I think this addresses some of the problems we were having with the judiciary during the last several turns. The self-deleting clause about everyone starting in the pool is there so players wanting to remain judges (which I presume would be almost everyone) need take no action to do so. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:39:29 -0700 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Proposal Change Rule 400 to to the following AVALANCHE delimited text: AVALANCHE The Treasury holds all public property and funds, including, but not limited to the set {proceeds collected from fines, taxes, tariffs}, and the creation of new Subers. Upon the passage of a Proposal altering the holdings of the Treasury, the set of holdings shall amend itself to reflect the changes. The Treasury may not go into debt, but will instead issue more Subers to cover the game's expenses. AVALANCHE Change Rule 400 to to the following LANDSLIDE delimited text: LANDSLIDE The Treasury Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist of: 1. Paying Official's salaries from the Treasury. 2. Preventing the Treasury from going into debt. 3. Submitting a turnly report on relevant matters to the mailing list. The Treasury Minister, at eir discretion, but no more than once per turn, may: 1. Mint new Subers in an amount not to exceed 20% of the total Subers already in play, to be placed in the Treasury. 2. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury. The Treasury Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn e holds Office. LANDSLIDE =============== Just getting rid of references to land, since it is not in use anymore. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Back up my hard drive? How do I put it into reverse?" http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 21:09:45 -0700 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: proposition 457 Since I have nothing to do this weekend, I have been reading over the comments and concerns regarding 457. There is one thing in particular that I wish to comment on. Section 24 states "If a Player possesses insufficient Subers to pay a fine, the unpayable portion of the fine is forgiven and need not be paid." It seems to me that we can allow a Player to have negative Subers. In the event a Player has a negative amount, he will be paid a 'dole' by the treasury and will be exempt from paying income tax. He would also be ineligible to make proposals until his debt is paid off. There are several options for a Player to gain Subers to pay off his debt. a) Perhaps the dole would be sufficient if the debt is low enough. b) He could work off his debt by volunteering for the Judging Pool (if that proposal passes) and serving as a Judge. c) By trading something of value to other Players. Since he would be unable to make proposals, he could sell a proposal to any interested player. d) He would still be able to vote, and could possibly gain funds from voting in against popular proposals. In that case, Players may wish to 'donate' Subers to the indebted Player to ensure that Proposals are passed. e) Players could simply donate Subers out of the kindness of their heart. Just a few rambling thoughts. I would really like to see this proposal active again, so maybe we can discuss it and see if it can be fixed. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Back up my hard drive? How do I put it into reverse?" http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 09:53:30 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: time Due to Woodrow Wilson and daylight savings time, the game time zone is now -5 GMT instead of -6 GMT (i.e. CDT instead of CST). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 12:54:49 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposition 457 At 11:09 PM 4/3/99 , Mary wrote: >Since I have nothing to do this weekend, I have been reading over the >comments and concerns regarding 457. There is one thing in particular >that I wish to comment on. > >Section 24 states "If a Player possesses insufficient Subers to pay a >fine, the unpayable portion of the fine is forgiven and need not be >paid." I'm still not happy with this part -- the lack of a good system of debt is the primary reason that I made the proposal inactive. >It seems to me that we can allow a Player to have negative Subers. In >the event a Player has a negative amount, he will be paid a 'dole' by >the treasury and will be exempt from paying income tax. He would also be >ineligible to make proposals until his debt is paid off. That seems counterproductive -- I would think that the best way to pay off a debt would be to make proposals. >There are several options for a Player to gain Subers to pay off his >debt. >a) Perhaps the dole would be sufficient if the debt is low enough. >b) He could work off his debt by volunteering for the Judging Pool (if >that proposal passes) and serving as a Judge. >c) By trading something of value to other Players. Since he would be >unable to make proposals, he could sell a proposal to any interested >player. I don't follow. Why would anyone want to buy a proposal? >d) He would still be able to vote, and could possibly gain funds from >voting in against popular proposals. In that case, Players may wish to >'donate' Subers to the indebted Player to ensure that Proposals are >passed. >e) Players could simply donate Subers out of the kindness of their >heart. > >Just a few rambling thoughts. I would really like to see this proposal >active again, so maybe we can discuss it and see if it can be fixed. > >Mary I was thinking something more along the lines of a real-world debt system, in which your cash on hand and your debts are seperate. Your cash on hand can never drop below zero (obviously), but your net worth can. If ever a debt comes due and cannot be paid, bankruptcy ensues. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 15:25:52 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: proposition 457 Joel Uckelman wrote: > > At 11:09 PM 4/3/99 , Mary wrote: > >Since I have nothing to do this weekend, I have been reading over the > >comments and concerns regarding 457. There is one thing in particular > >that I wish to comment on. > > > >Section 24 states "If a Player possesses insufficient Subers to pay a > >fine, the unpayable portion of the fine is forgiven and need not be > >paid." > > I'm still not happy with this part -- the lack of a good system of debt is > the primary reason that I made the proposal inactive. > > >It seems to me that we can allow a Player to have negative Subers. In > >the event a Player has a negative amount, he will be paid a 'dole' by > >the treasury and will be exempt from paying income tax. He would also be > >ineligible to make proposals until his debt is paid off. > > That seems counterproductive -- I would think that the best way to pay off > a debt would be to make proposals. Except that when a proposal fails, a Player loses a lot of Subers or points. Thus, increasing hid indebtedness. By not allowing a Player to make Proposals, they are encouraged to pay off their debt as soon as possible, so they can get on with the game. > > >There are several options for a Player to gain Subers to pay off his > >debt. > >a) Perhaps the dole would be sufficient if the debt is low enough. > >b) He could work off his debt by volunteering for the Judging Pool (if > >that proposal passes) and serving as a Judge. > >c) By trading something of value to other Players. Since he would be > >unable to make proposals, he could sell a proposal to any interested > >player. > > I don't follow. Why would anyone want to buy a proposal? Well, since there is nothing else of value right now, Proposals are the only thing to buy or sell. > > >d) He would still be able to vote, and could possibly gain funds from > >voting in against popular proposals. In that case, Players may wish to > >'donate' Subers to the indebted Player to ensure that Proposals are > >passed. > >e) Players could simply donate Subers out of the kindness of their > >heart. > > > >Just a few rambling thoughts. I would really like to see this proposal > >active again, so maybe we can discuss it and see if it can be fixed. > > > >Mary > > I was thinking something more along the lines of a real-world debt system, > in which your cash on hand and your debts are seperate. Your cash on hand > can never drop below zero (obviously), but your net worth can. If ever a > debt comes due and cannot be paid, bankruptcy ensues. But right now we have no other way of defining net worth except Subers. We would need some sort of property to make net worth different from cash on hand. After the last attempt at an economy, I would expect a future economy to be a bit simpler that the earlier version. If such a thing can come into existence, then net-worth could be different from cash on hand. > > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Back up my hard drive? How do I put it into reverse?" http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 16:42:27 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposition 457 At 04:25 PM 4/4/99 , Mary wrote: > >Joel Uckelman wrote: >> >> At 11:09 PM 4/3/99 , Mary wrote: >> >Since I have nothing to do this weekend, I have been reading over the >> >comments and concerns regarding 457. There is one thing in particular >> >that I wish to comment on. >> > >> >Section 24 states "If a Player possesses insufficient Subers to pay a >> >fine, the unpayable portion of the fine is forgiven and need not be >> >paid." >> >> I'm still not happy with this part -- the lack of a good system of debt is >> the primary reason that I made the proposal inactive. >> >> >It seems to me that we can allow a Player to have negative Subers. In >> >the event a Player has a negative amount, he will be paid a 'dole' by >> >the treasury and will be exempt from paying income tax. He would also be >> >ineligible to make proposals until his debt is paid off. >> >> That seems counterproductive -- I would think that the best way to pay off >> a debt would be to make proposals. > >Except that when a proposal fails, a Player loses a lot of Subers or >points. Thus, increasing hid indebtedness. By not allowing a Player to >make Proposals, they are encouraged to pay off their debt as soon as >possible, so they can get on with the game. It seems like a lot right now because few points are in play, but 10 points relative to several hundred isn't a really a big penalty. >> >> >There are several options for a Player to gain Subers to pay off his >> >debt. >> >a) Perhaps the dole would be sufficient if the debt is low enough. >> >b) He could work off his debt by volunteering for the Judging Pool (if >> >that proposal passes) and serving as a Judge. >> >c) By trading something of value to other Players. Since he would be >> >unable to make proposals, he could sell a proposal to any interested >> >player. >> >> I don't follow. Why would anyone want to buy a proposal? > >Well, since there is nothing else of value right now, Proposals are the >only thing to buy or sell. Sure, but there'd be no reason for anyone to want to buy a proposal unless someone already had 10 in play and wanted more (which has never happened). >> >> >d) He would still be able to vote, and could possibly gain funds from >> >voting in against popular proposals. In that case, Players may wish to >> >'donate' Subers to the indebted Player to ensure that Proposals are >> >passed. >> >e) Players could simply donate Subers out of the kindness of their >> >heart. >> > >> >Just a few rambling thoughts. I would really like to see this proposal >> >active again, so maybe we can discuss it and see if it can be fixed. >> > >> >Mary >> >> I was thinking something more along the lines of a real-world debt system, >> in which your cash on hand and your debts are seperate. Your cash on hand >> can never drop below zero (obviously), but your net worth can. If ever a >> debt comes due and cannot be paid, bankruptcy ensues. > >But right now we have no other way of defining net worth except Subers. >We would need some sort of property to make net worth different from >cash on hand. After the last attempt at an economy, I would expect a >future economy to be a bit simpler that the earlier version. If such a >thing can come into existence, then net-worth could be different from >cash on hand. No, debt could still be measured in Subers -- it's just kept as a seperate number, just like how money owed my bank doesn't prevent me from also having money in my wallet. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 16:03:23 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposition 457 Joel Uckelman wrote: > No, debt could still be measured in Subers -- it's just kept as a seperate > number, just like how money owed my bank doesn't prevent me from also > having money in my wallet. So there would need to be something analogous to a Bank, that would provide loans of Subers to Players. The Bank could charge interest, for example of 10% per turn, and if the Bank needs to pay taxes, then the treasury would be getting even more Subers. I like that idea. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Back up my hard drive? How do I put it into reverse?" http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 16:26:39 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: Proposal (oops) Sorry, I just realized I made a small mistake. The LANDSLIDE text refers to Rule 402. Xylen wrote: > > Change Rule 400 to to the following AVALANCHE delimited text: > > AVALANCHE > The Treasury holds all public property and funds, including, but > not limited to the set {proceeds collected from fines, taxes, tariffs}, > and the creation of new Subers. Upon the passage of a Proposal altering > the holdings of the Treasury, the set of holdings shall amend itself to > reflect the changes. > > The Treasury may not go into debt, but will instead issue more > Subers to cover the game's expenses. > AVALANCHE > > Change Rule 400 to to the following LANDSLIDE delimited text: This should read--> Change Rule 402 to the following Landslide delimited text: > LANDSLIDE > > The Treasury Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist > of: > > 1. Paying Official's salaries from the Treasury. > 2. Preventing the Treasury from going into debt. > 3. Submitting a turnly report on relevant matters to the mailing > list. > > The Treasury Minister, at eir discretion, but no more than once per > turn, may: > > 1. Mint new Subers in an amount not to exceed 20% of the total > Subers already in play, to be placed in the > Treasury. > 2. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the > Treasury. > > The Treasury Minister shall receive the standard salary for each > full turn e holds Office. > LANDSLIDE > > =============== > Just getting rid of references to land, since it is not in use anymore. Sorry about that. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Back up my hard drive? How do I put it into reverse?" http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 17:39:03 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: proposition 457 At 05:03 PM 4/4/99 , Mary wrote: > >Joel Uckelman wrote: > > >> No, debt could still be measured in Subers -- it's just kept as a seperate >> number, just like how money owed my bank doesn't prevent me from also >> having money in my wallet. > >So there would need to be something analogous to a Bank, that would >provide loans of Subers to Players. The Bank could charge interest, for >example of 10% per turn, and if the Bank needs to pay taxes, then the >treasury would be getting even more Subers. > >I like that idea. > >Mary I was thinking about a more general type of debt such that anything that can own property could be owed it. I want to write a general debt protocal before we establish a bank, but I did have a bank in mind, yes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 13:41:20 CDT Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:38:40 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." "Osborn, N." writes: >new prop, disinterested >---- >Transmute Rule 113 to mutable. > >Amend Rule 113 as follows: > >"A player always has the option to forfeit the game." > >Transmute Rule 113 to immutable. >---- > >amended prop >---- >Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit > >"To "forfeit" shall be defined as ceasing to fit the deifnition of a Player." >---- > >I'm still open to suggestions. > >ats Isn't the definition of player immutable? Does this cause problems? -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 13:31:23 -0600 From: "Osborn, N." Subject: Nomic: Re: >"Osborn, N." writes: >>new prop, disinterested >>---- >>Transmute Rule 113 to mutable. >> >>Amend Rule 113 as follows: >> >>"A player always has the option to forfeit the game." >> >>Transmute Rule 113 to immutable. >>---- >> >>amended prop >>---- >>Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit >> >>"To "forfeit" shall be defined as ceasing to fit the deifnition of a Player." >>---- >> >>I'm still open to suggestions. >> >>ats > >Isn't the definition of player immutable? Does this cause problems? > >-- >i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? I don't see what you're getting at. The above provides for a Player forfeiting by simply no longer wishing to play. This is a reduction of native terms and cleans up some ambiguities. I don't see that it would create any problem. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:01:22 -0600 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: try this amended prop ---- Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit "A Player forfeits upon ceasing to fit the definition of a Player." ---- I'm still open to suggestions. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:23:03 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: try this a tasteful shrubbery wrote: > > amended prop > ---- > Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit > "A Player forfeits upon ceasing to fit the definition of a Player." > ---- > > I'm still open to suggestions. > > ats I don't see why this prop is necessary. Rule #002 states "... who consents...". If a person no longer wish to play, then they no longer consent, and then by #002, they are no longer Players. Of course upon reading the last sentence of #002, I have my concerns about "a tasteful shrubbery" being a player, but that is something I don't want to get into. ;) Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Back up my hard drive? How do I put it into reverse?" http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 23:43:55 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Prop: Spivakize 002 I'd like to amend: "Rule 002/1(i) : Definition of Player A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames." to have this wording: "A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames." but first, I'd like 002 transmuted. I'd like it transmuted last, as well. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 17:09:00 -0600 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: try this >I don't see why this prop is necessary. Rule #002 states "... who >consents...". If a person no longer wish to play, then they no longer >consent, and then by #002, they are no longer Players. > amended prop ---- Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit "A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player." ---- The point is not to restate an aspect of a previous rule, but to restrict forfeiture to a consistent definition. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 17:18:07 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: try this a tasteful shrubbery wrote: > > >I don't see why this prop is necessary. Rule #002 states "... who > >consents...". If a person no longer wish to play, then they no longer > >consent, and then by #002, they are no longer Players. > > > > amended prop > ---- > Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit > "A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player." > ---- > > The point is not to restate an aspect of a previous rule, but to restrict > forfeiture to a consistent definition. > > ats Ok, I can see your point. But you may wish to expand 'iff' to it's full form. Otherwise, it could be considered a typo, and then the whole meaning changes. Unless, 'iff' is a typo and you really meant 'if', then I am still confuzzled. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Back up my hard drive? How do I put it into reverse?" http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 18:07:33 -0600 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: try this >a tasteful shrubbery wrote: >> >> >I don't see why this prop is necessary. Rule #002 states "... who >> >consents...". If a person no longer wish to play, then they no longer >> >consent, and then by #002, they are no longer Players. >> > >> >> amended prop >> ---- >> Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit >> "A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player." >> ---- >> >> The point is not to restate an aspect of a previous rule, but to restrict >> forfeiture to a consistent definition. >> >> ats >Ok, I can see your point. But you may wish to expand 'iff' to it's full >form. Otherwise, it could be considered a typo, and then the whole >meaning changes. Unless, 'iff' is a typo and you really meant 'if', then >I am still confuzzled. > >Mary "Iff" is used a number of times in the current rules. Its use here shouldn't create any new problems. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 20:30:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: "Osborn, N." writes: >I don't see what you're getting at. The above provides for a Player >forfeiting by simply no longer wishing to play. This is a reduction of >native terms and cleans up some ambiguities. I don't see that it would >create any problem. It could be a problem in terms of rule conflicts, since your rule would be mutable, whereas the definition of Player is immutable. -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 20:33:09 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: try this Xylen writes: > > >a tasteful shrubbery wrote: >> >> >I don't see why this prop is necessary. Rule #002 states "... who >> >consents...". If a person no longer wish to play, then they no longer >> >consent, and then by #002, they are no longer Players. >> > >> >> amended prop >> ---- >> Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit >> "A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player." >> ---- >> >> The point is not to restate an aspect of a previous rule, but to restrict >> forfeiture to a consistent definition. >> >> ats >Ok, I can see your point. But you may wish to expand 'iff' to it's full >form. Otherwise, it could be considered a typo, and then the whole >meaning changes. Unless, 'iff' is a typo and you really meant 'if', then >I am still confuzzled. Makes perfect sense to me, and it shows up in other rules. -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 20:16:30 -0600 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: >"Osborn, N." writes: >>I don't see what you're getting at. The above provides for a Player >>forfeiting by simply no longer wishing to play. This is a reduction of >>native terms and cleans up some ambiguities. I don't see that it would >>create any problem. > >It could be a problem in terms of rule conflicts, since your rule >would be mutable, whereas the definition of Player is immutable. > "Forfeit" is defined in reference to "Player." This new rule would do nothing to define "Player." I don't see how any conflict could arise. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 21:14:37 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: At 08:30 PM 4/5/99 , Josh wrote: > >"Osborn, N." writes: >>I don't see what you're getting at. The above provides for a Player >>forfeiting by simply no longer wishing to play. This is a reduction of >>native terms and cleans up some ambiguities. I don't see that it would >>create any problem. > >It could be a problem in terms of rule conflicts, since your rule >would be mutable, whereas the definition of Player is immutable. Can you explain why you think it would cause a rule conflict? I don't see it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 01:23:37 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: a request When making a proposal or a change to an old proposal, please make it clear what you are doing -- it makes my job a lot easier, and then I don't have ask about what your intentions were later. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 01:22:11 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop: Spivakize 002 At 04:43 PM 4/5/99 , you wrote: >I'd like to amend: > >"Rule 002/1(i) : Definition of Player > >A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and >only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A >Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and >surnames." > >to have this wording: > >"A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and >only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A >Player shall be identified by eir corresponding real human fore- and >surnames." > >but first, I'd like 002 transmuted. >I'd like it transmuted last, as well. > > >Ole So is this an actual proposal, or are you just getting people's opinions on the idea? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:33:16 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Prop: Spivakize 002 Joel Uckelman asked: :So is this an actual proposal, or are you just getting people's opinions on :the idea? : It's a prop. You may still comment, of course. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:27:14 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal A new proposal: ----------------------------- 1. Create the following GET SLACK delimited rule: GET SLACK Slack is a player attribute. Each Player begins the game with 20 slack. Players that enter the game after it has officially started receive 20 slack. Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the Recipient. Players possessing less than five (5) slack must be refered to in all list correspondence as a "pink," or some variation thereof. [[E.g., Josh is a pink.]] GET SLACK 2. Create the following PRAISE BOB delimited rule: PRAISE BOB The Stark Fist of Removal is an entity that, immediately upon the reduction of a Player's slack to less than zero (0), smites said Player. A smitten Player is prohibited from being the Recipient of eir own slack transfers. PRAISE BOB J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 19:48:20 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Joel Uckelman writes: >A new proposal: > >----------------------------- > >1. Create the following GET SLACK delimited rule: > >GET SLACK > >Slack is a player attribute. Each Player begins the game with 20 slack. >Players that enter the game after it has officially started receive 20 slack. > >Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one Player, >hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the >Recipient. > >Players possessing less than five (5) slack must be refered to in all list >correspondence as a "pink," or some variation thereof. [[E.g., Josh is a >pink.]] > >GET SLACK > >2. Create the following PRAISE BOB delimited rule: > >PRAISE BOB > >The Stark Fist of Removal is an entity that, immediately upon the reduction >of a Player's slack to less than zero (0), smites said Player. > >A smitten Player is prohibited from being the Recipient of eir own slack >transfers. > >PRAISE BOB So... a smitten player can't transfer slack to eirself? Of what use is this smitten state, then? I will note vote for any proposal which refers to me as a "pink." At least you're finally beginning to understand "fun." Josh -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:41:16 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 07:48 PM 4/6/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>A new proposal: >> >>----------------------------- >> >>1. Create the following GET SLACK delimited rule: >> >>GET SLACK >> >>Slack is a player attribute. Each Player begins the game with 20 slack. >>Players that enter the game after it has officially started receive 20 slack. >> >>Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one Player, >>hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the >>Recipient. >> >>Players possessing less than five (5) slack must be refered to in all list >>correspondence as a "pink," or some variation thereof. [[E.g., Josh is a >>pink.]] >> >>GET SLACK >> >>2. Create the following PRAISE BOB delimited rule: >> >>PRAISE BOB >> >>The Stark Fist of Removal is an entity that, immediately upon the reduction >>of a Player's slack to less than zero (0), smites said Player. >> >>A smitten Player is prohibited from being the Recipient of eir own slack >>transfers. >> >>PRAISE BOB > >So... a smitten player can't transfer slack to eirself? Of what >use is this smitten state, then? I see the lack of slack (or the abundance of anti-slack, if you prefer) as as a mode of social rather than juridical disapproval. As such, I'm not sure that I want smitten players to face direct consequences in the rest of the game. Or how about "A smitten Player is prohibited from winning. A Player is no longer considered smitten once e regains a nonnegative amount of slack." >I will note vote for any proposal which refers to me as a "pink." It's just an example, Josh. I'm not actually calling you a pink. Of course, you would be if you voted against this. >At least you're finally beginning to understand "fun." Fun? Isn't fun that thing you always invoke when we disagree? :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 22:03:25 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Joel Uckelman writes: >I see the lack of slack (or the abundance of anti-slack, if you prefer) as >as a mode of social rather than juridical disapproval. As such, I'm not >sure that I want smitten players to face direct consequences in the rest of >the game. > >Or how about "A smitten Player is prohibited from winning. A Player is no >longer considered smitten once e regains a nonnegative amount of slack." I like that. >>I will note vote for any proposal which refers to me as a "pink." > >It's just an example, Josh. I'm not actually calling you a pink. Of course, >you would be if you voted against this. The text is there, isn't it? >>At least you're finally beginning to understand "fun." > >Fun? Isn't fun that thing you always invoke when we disagree? :) That's right, you're finally getting it. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 22:28:31 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: CFJ The results of the last election are invalid, because Ole Andersen's votes were not randomly rearranged amongst the proposals on the ballot (after he cast them). Reasoning: The Spare Tire rule says that the tire shall have the effect on its posessor as dictated by the plurality of Spare Tired Creeds. Three players have creeds, and two of those agree on the effects of the Tire. Thus, the Tire's effects should have been taken into account during the last round of voting. Those who may wish to claim that players without Spare Tire Creeds in fact have identical, null creeds may wish to consult the portion of the rule which says "Each player _may_ make a statement..." I read this as meaning that a player's STC does not exist before e makes such a statement, which only three players have done. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 06:41:39 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: props Props 454 and 467 are no longer. Prop 468 is active. ats ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 10:11:23 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judging selection Jeff Schroeder has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 71: The results of the last election are invalid, because Ole Andersen's votes were not randomly rearranged amongst the proposals on the ballot (after he cast them). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 21:56:41 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Spare Tire thingie My Spare Tire Creed is: "The holder of the Spare Tire is considered a nice person." I will, btw, pass the tire on to Mary. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 08:46:32 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Spare Tire thingie It looks like the Spare Tire is with Mary now... Ole -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Ole Andersen Til: Berserker Dato: 10. april 1999 22:00 Emne: Nomic: Spare Tire thingie :My Spare Tire Creed is: : :"The holder of the Spare Tire is considered a nice person." : : :I will, btw, pass the tire on to Mary. : : :Ole : : ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:23:30 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Spare Tire thingie At 01:46 AM 4/11/99 , Ole wrote: > >It looks like the Spare Tire is with Mary now... > >Ole >-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: Ole Andersen >Til: Berserker >Dato: 10. april 1999 22:00 >Emne: Nomic: Spare Tire thingie > > >:My Spare Tire Creed is: >: >:"The holder of the Spare Tire is considered a nice person." >: >: >:I will, btw, pass the tire on to Mary. >: >: >:Ole >: I adopt the same STC as Ole. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:35:22 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot I (and Josh, too) just returned from NAQT Nationals in Michigan. Here's the ballot that should have been sent when I was somewhere in Illinois. ----------------------------------- P468 Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit "A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player." ----------------------------------- P469 Amend Rule 215/1 to the following JUDICIAL REFORM delimited text: JUDICIAL REFORM The judicial pool shall consist of all Players having publicly consented to selection as Judges. A Player may, at any time, add or remove only emself from the judicial pool. Players in Limbo are automatically removed from the judicial pool. In the even that no Players are in the judicial pool, all Players not in Limbo are placed in the judicial pool. {{All Players not in Limbo are in the judicial pool.}} Courts shall be filled by the Administrator with Judges randomly selected from the judicial pool, with the following exclusions: i. Players already selected to the Court in question ii. the Complainant and Appellant if x < 3 iii. no more than one Judge from the x-1 Court for the Case Restrictions ii and iii shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a full Court from being chosen. JUDICIAL REFORM ------------------------------- P470 Change Rule 400 to to the following AVALANCHE delimited text: AVALANCHE The Treasury holds all public property and funds, including, but not limited to the set {proceeds collected from fines, taxes, tariffs}, and the creation of new Subers. Upon the passage of a Proposal altering the holdings of the Treasury, the set of holdings shall amend itself to reflect the changes. The Treasury may not go into debt, but will instead issue more Subers to cover the game's expenses. AVALANCHE Change Rule 402 to to the following LANDSLIDE delimited text: LANDSLIDE The Treasury Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist of: 1. Paying Official's salaries from the Treasury. 2. Preventing the Treasury from going into debt. 3. Submitting a turnly report on relevant matters to the mailing list. The Treasury Minister, at eir discretion, but no more than once per turn, may: 1. Mint new Subers in an amount not to exceed 20% of the total Subers already in play, to be placed in the Treasury. 2. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury. The Treasury Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn e holds Office. LANDSLIDE ------------------------------- P471 Transmute Rule 113 to mutable. Amend Rule 113 as follows: "A player always has the option to forfeit the game." Transmute Rule 113 to immutable. ------------------------------- P472 Transmute 002. Amend: "Rule 002/1(i) : Definition of Player A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames." to have this wording: "A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames." Transmute 002. ------------------------------ P473 1. Create the following GET SLACK delimited rule: GET SLACK Slack is a player attribute. Each Player begins the game with 20 slack. Players that enter the game after it has officially started receive 20 slack. Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the Recipient. Players possessing less than five (5) slack must be refered to in all list correspondence as a "pink," or some variation thereof. [[E.g., Josh is a pink.]] GET SLACK 2. Create the following PRAISE BOB delimited rule: PRAISE BOB The Stark Fist of Removal is an entity that, immediately upon the reduction of a Player's slack to less than zero (0), smites said Player. A smitten Player is prohibited from being the Recipient of eir own slack transfers. PRAISE BOB ---------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 11:13:28 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Spare Tire thingy Yes, Ole, I have the Spare Tire. I have plans for the Spare Tire, so I don't mind having it right now. ;) My Spare Tire Creed: "The Spare Tire causes the holder's votes to be randomly rearranged among proposals upon ballots." But just remember Ole, I have one more turn to [message deleted for security purposes], so just watch out. ;) Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The world is coming to an end... SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!! http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:12:59 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: ballot Joel Uckelman wrote: :I (and Josh, too) just returned from NAQT Nationals in Michigan. Here's the :ballot that should have been sent when I was somewhere in Illinois. : :----------------------------------- :P468 : :Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit : :"A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player." : 1. What is NAQT? 2. Since I assume that Mary is not a 'he', would e be covered by a rule 004 as proposed in P468? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:52:56 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judging reassignment Jeff Schroeder has been fined 10 points and replaced by Ole Andersen on RFJ 71. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 00:03:53 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: judging reassignment Well, then. Anyway, I was going to add that my spare Tire Creed is "The Spare Tire has no effect". This is of course completely bribeable, just call. :) jeff At 11:52 PM 4/11/99 -0500, you wrote: >Jeff Schroeder has been fined 10 points and replaced by Ole Andersen on RFJ 71. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 00:01:29 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: judgement 71 I find the statement: >The results of the last election are invalid, because Ole Andersen's votes >were not randomly rearranged amongst the proposals on the ballot (after he >cast them). as being TRUE. The Spare Tire rule says that the Spare Tire has the effect on the posessor as dictated by the creeds. There is one "no effect" creed, and 2 random voting creeds, giving both the plurality and over 1/3 of the available creeds at the time. I say that Ole's votes must be randomized and the new results reposted and rescored. Jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 00:00:33 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: ballot At 11:12 PM 4/11/99 , Ole wrote: >Joel Uckelman wrote: > `> >:I (and Josh, too) just returned from NAQT Nationals in Michigan. Here's the >:ballot that should have been sent when I was somewhere in Illinois. >: >:----------------------------------- >:P468 >: >:Create a Rule 004: Definition of Forfeit >: >:"A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player." >: > > >1. What is NAQT? National Academic Quiz Tournaments. It's a quiz bowl organization. >2. Since I assume that Mary is not a 'he', would e be covered by a rule >004 as proposed in P468? We have others like that. I presume that all pronouns are neuter anyway (for ruleset purposes). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 07:27:59 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: CFJ I have this statement: "All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood literally." I'd like it judged. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 07:25:37 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judging reassignment I have a problem with this Judgement.... So: I declare the Statement FALSE. I hereby appeal this Judgement. Ole -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Joel Uckelman Til: nomic@iastate.edu Dato: 12. april 1999 07:00 Emne: Nomic: judging reassignment :Jeff Schroeder has been fined 10 points and replaced by Ole Andersen on RFJ 71. : :J. Uckelman :uckelman@iastate.edu :http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ : ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:43:29 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judging reassignment I wrote: :I have a problem with this Judgement.... : I find it wrong that I can become Judge on this question. Anyone up for a fix of this? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:48:32 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: judging reassignment At 12:25 AM 4/12/99 , Ole wrote: >I have a problem with this Judgement.... > >So: > >I declare the Statement FALSE. > > > > >I hereby appeal this Judgement. > > >Ole Um, you can't appeal it because Schroeder's judgment doesn't count -- it came in too late. You're the Judge now. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:49:26 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: judging reassignment >At 12:25 AM 4/12/99 , Ole wrote: >>I have a problem with this Judgement.... >> >>So: >> >>I declare the Statement FALSE. I think right here he is declaring it FALSE, I ruled it true, so it has nothing to do with my slow judgement >> >> >> >>I hereby appeal this Judgement. >> >> >>Ole > >Um, you can't appeal it because Schroeder's judgment doesn't count -- it >came in too late. You're the Judge now. He is appealing his own decision, I believe. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:48:09 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Sv: Nomic: judging reassignment Joel Uckelman wrote: : :Um, you can't appeal it because Schroeder's judgment doesn't count -- it :came in too late. You're the Judge now. : No, I'm not. In the message you replied to, I made a Judgement. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:19:45 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Sv: Nomic: judging reassignment At 09:48 AM 4/12/99 , Ole wrote: >Joel Uckelman wrote: >: >:Um, you can't appeal it because Schroeder's judgment doesn't count -- it >:came in too late. You're the Judge now. >: > > >No, I'm not. > >In the message you replied to, I made a Judgement. > > >Ole Oh. I understand now. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:22:25 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: judging reassignment At 06:43 AM 4/12/99 , Ole wrote: >I wrote: > > >:I have a problem with this Judgement.... >: > > >I find it wrong that I can become Judge on this question. > >Anyone up for a fix of this? > > >Ole Long, long ago, a player making an RFJ could exclude up to 3 other players from being on the court. I'm not sure if Iiked that better than what we have now -- such a system, in part, caused the game meltdown we experienced last October. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:30:23 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judging selection Josh Kortbein, Nick Osborn, and Ed Proescholdt have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 71: The results of the last election are invalid, because Ole Andersen's votes were not randomly rearranged amongst the proposals on the ballot (after he cast them). ------------------ Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 72: All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood literally. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:47:17 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: rfj71 ---- The results of the last election are invalid, because Ole Andersen's votes were not randomly rearranged amongst the proposals on the ballot (after he cast them). ---- I cannot pass judgement on this until the Administrator reports on wether or not Ole's votes were "randomly rearranged amongst the proposals on the ballot (after he cast them)." I call Joel as a witness, or something like that. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:06:47 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judging selection Joel Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein, Nick Osborn, and Ed Proescholdt have been selected to 2 >Court for RFJ 71: > >The results of the last election are invalid, because Ole Andersen's votes >were not randomly rearranged amongst the proposals on the ballot (after he >cast them). I judge TRUE. See my analysis in my original CFJ. >Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 72: > >All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood >literally. I judge TRUE. We have Spivak pronouns so that there is no confusion of gender of pronouns. It would thus be sloppy of us to treat non-Spivak pronouns as if they were gender-neutral, since we have a more clear-cut method of interpretation available. -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:46:29 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: mistake Josh wasn't eligible to be on the 2 Court for RFJ 71. I am the other member, not Josh. In that vein, I rule TRUE on RFJ 71. I had simply forgotten to account for the Spare Tire's effects on voting. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:53:25 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judging selection At 12:06 PM 4/12/99 , Josh wrote: > >>Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 72: >> >>All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood >>literally. > >I judge TRUE. > >We have Spivak pronouns so that there is no confusion of gender of >pronouns. It would thus be sloppy of us to treat non-Spivak pronouns >as if they were gender-neutral, since we have a more clear-cut method >of interpretation available. I appeal. Before Spivak pronouns were introduced, gendered pronouns in the ruleset were understood to address both genders. The Spivak proposal did not change the meaning of pre-existing pronouns; rather, it re-mapped them to the Spivak pronouns: "The following table entries, known as Spivak pronouns, shall be understood to take the places of the standard English pronouns whose table entries they occupy." (R417/0) Thus, gendered pronouns pose merely an aesthetic rather than a substantial problem as is supposed by Mr. Kortbein and Mr. Andersen, and the statement should be FALSE. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:30:14 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judging selection Joel Uckelman appeals 1 Judgement 72, arguing: : :Before Spivak pronouns were introduced, gendered pronouns in the ruleset :were understood to address both genders. The Spivak proposal did not change :the meaning of pre-existing pronouns; rather, it re-mapped them to the :Spivak pronouns: : :"The following table entries, known as Spivak pronouns, shall be understood :to take the places of the standard English pronouns whose table entries :they occupy." (R417/0) : :Thus, gendered pronouns pose merely an aesthetic rather than a substantial :problem as is supposed by Mr. Kortbein and Mr. Andersen, and the statement :should be FALSE. I don't agree. It is every proponent's duty to make sure eir proposals don't create unwanted holes. And there is a hole here. The maker(s) of the Spivak rule _could_ have changed this thing in the entire ruleset, but _chose_ not to. Well, let's see the Judges. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:44:13 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: judging selection At 01:30 PM 4/12/99 , Ole wrote: >Joel Uckelman appeals 1 Judgement 72, arguing: >: >:Before Spivak pronouns were introduced, gendered pronouns in the ruleset >:were understood to address both genders. The Spivak proposal did not change >:the meaning of pre-existing pronouns; rather, it re-mapped them to the >:Spivak pronouns: >: >:"The following table entries, known as Spivak pronouns, shall be understood >:to take the places of the standard English pronouns whose table entries >:they occupy." (R417/0) >: >:Thus, gendered pronouns pose merely an aesthetic rather than a substantial >:problem as is supposed by Mr. Kortbein and Mr. Andersen, and the statement >:should be FALSE. > > >I don't agree. >It is every proponent's duty to make sure eir proposals don't create >unwanted holes. And there is a hole here. >The maker(s) of the Spivak rule _could_ have changed this thing in the >entire ruleset, but _chose_ not to. >Well, let's see the Judges. > >Ole But that was my point -- see that part of the rule I quoted. It _does_ change all of the pronouns, just not textually. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 18:55:54 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: rfj71 At 11:47 AM 4/12/99 , Nick wrote: >---- >The results of the last election are invalid, because Ole Andersen's votes >were not randomly rearranged amongst the proposals on the ballot (after he >cast them). >---- > >I cannot pass judgement on this until the Administrator reports on wether >or not Ole's votes were "randomly rearranged amongst the proposals on the >ballot (after he cast them)." I call Joel as a witness, or something like >that. > >ats I haven't done it yet, but I will within the next few days. No proposals were close enough for the rearranging of Ole's votes to matter toward passage -- it will only affect scores. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:11:38 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: FM election When Mueller went into Limbo, an election for the office of the Foreign Minister should have been triggered. Because there were no nominations, the office reverted to me as Admin. I am resigning as FM, so nominations are now open for the position. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:49:28 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election >When Mueller went into Limbo, an election for the office of the Foreign >Minister should have been triggered. Because there were no nominations, the >office reverted to me as Admin. I am resigning as FM, so nominations are >now open for the position. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ I'll toss my proverbial hat into the ring. My platform: Investigate the possibility of diplomatic relations with other Nomics. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed. ats Also, I concur on rfj 71, or whatever it was, with Joel. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:33:28 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P468 passed (5-3-1-0). P469 passed (9-0-0-0). P470 passed (7-1-1-0). P471 failed (6-3-0-0). P472 failed (6-2-1-0). P473 passed (7-2-0-0). Osborn's Demon voted with Ole Andersen. The Spare Tire redistributed Mary Tupper's votes (which all happened to be "yes"). Nick Osborn and Ole Andersen each receive 1 UPC due to their failed proposals. All Players now have 20 slack. Other updates (such as score) will be forthcoming... maybe not before supper, though. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:42:39 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: next turn & slack transfer It is also now Ed Proescholdt's turn. ------------ I take this opportunity to transfer slack from Josh (for being a hoser and voting against the slack proposal) to Ole (for epitomizing slack, e.g. the Demon voted with him two turns running, and he now has a UPC). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:17:27 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: next turn & slack transfer Joel Uckelman writes: >It is also now Ed Proescholdt's turn. > >------------ > >I take this opportunity to transfer slack from Josh (for being a hoser and >voting against the slack proposal) to Ole (for epitomizing slack, e.g. the >Demon voted with him two turns running, and he now has a UPC). And I take this opportunity to transfer slack from Joel (for deslacking me when I made it clear I would vote against his proposal) to myself (for voting against Joel's proposal). HAND. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:32:25 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: next turn & slack transfer Joel Uckelman wrote: > > It is also now Ed Proescholdt's turn. > > ------------ > > I take this opportunity to transfer slack from Josh (for being a hoser and > voting against the slack proposal) "Due to these duties, the Administrator shall possess privileged information. He or she may not share this information with any Player, directly or indirectly, until the information becomes officially public."-Rule 326/3 Because I believe that Joel has violated his privileged position by revealing the partial voting record of Josh, I hereby transfer one Slack from Joel to Josh. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The world is coming to an end... SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!! http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:45:13 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Proposal Add sections E and F to rule 319 as follows: E. Any player announcing eir transition into Limbo may optionally state an expected time in Limbo. This time shall remain fixed until the player leaves Limbo. [[Thus, a player in Limbo must leave Limbo and then re-enter it in order to set a new expected time in Limbo.]] F. Any player in Limbo who has set an expected time in Limbo shall automatically forfeit if e remains in Limbo for more than half again said expected time. Any player in Limbo who has not set an expected time in Limbo shall automatically forfeit if e remains in Limbo for more than five turns. Josh -- In _Gravity's Rainbow_ Thomas Pynchon wrote that paper is used in three ways-- for "shit, money, and The Word." I tend to look at guitars in the same way. - Brent Dicrescenzo ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:51:40 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: next turn & slack transfer Mary wrote: : :Because I believe that Joel has violated his privileged position by :revealing the partial voting record of Josh, I hereby transfer one Slack :from Joel to Josh. : Since that info will become public next time Joel updates the 'votes'-page, it looks like Mary misjudged the situation. I hereby transfer one Slack from Mary to Nick. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:01:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: next turn & slack transfer At 03:32 PM 4/13/99 , Mary wrote: > >Joel Uckelman wrote: >> >> It is also now Ed Proescholdt's turn. >> >> ------------ >> >> I take this opportunity to transfer slack from Josh (for being a hoser and >> voting against the slack proposal) > >"Due to these duties, the Administrator shall possess privileged >information. He or she may not share this information with any Player, >directly or indirectly, until the information becomes officially >public."-Rule 326/3 > >Because I believe that Joel has violated his privileged position by >revealing the partial voting record of Josh, I hereby transfer one Slack >from Joel to Josh. > >Mary Um, actually that all becomes public once voting is over -- it could legally be found on the voting page now if I had had time to put it there already. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:15:45 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Got Slack? I agree that Mary misjudged the situation, but I feel obligated to de-slack Josh anyway. I thus transfer slack from Josh to Nick Osborn, a Tasteful Shrubbery. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:13:30 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: next turn & slack transfer "Ole Andersen" writes: >Mary wrote: > >: >:Because I believe that Joel has violated his privileged position by >:revealing the partial voting record of Josh, I hereby transfer one Slack >:from Joel to Josh. >: > > >Since that info will become public next time Joel updates the 'votes'-page, >it looks like Mary misjudged the situation. >I hereby transfer one Slack from Mary to Nick. "Will become public" is not the same thing as "public." Therefore I transfer one Slack from Ole to Mary. I note that I do so under the following interpretation of the slack rule: the rule says "once per turn," and then describes an action. Because that action includes the specific players transferred to and from, I claim that there are 2N - 1 such transfers able to be made, _each turn_, by each player. This includes the transfers 1 -> 1, 1 -> 2, ..., 1 -> N, as well as the transfers involving the same players, though in opposite directions (and not counting the second auto-transfer, which cannot happen because the player transferring has already been both transferrer and transferee in a transaction involving eirself). Thus, my transfer is legal, and there are many more possible transfers to be made this turn, by everyone. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:20:01 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: next turn & slack transfer Joel Uckelman writes: >Um, actually that all becomes public once voting is over -- it could >legally be found on the voting page now if I had had time to put it there >already. Of the following definitions Main Entry: 1pub·lic Pronunciation: 'p&-blik Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English publique, from Middle French, from Latin publicus; akin to Latin populus the people Date: 14th century 1 a : exposed to general view : OPEN b : WELL-KNOWN, PROMINENT c : PERCEPTIBLE, MATERIAL 2 a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation 3 a : of or relating to people in general : UNIVERSAL b : GENERAL, POPULAR 4 : of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : SOCIAL 5 : devoted to the general or national welfare : HUMANITARIAN 6 a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market -- often used with go - pub·lic·ness noun 1a seems to be the proper choice. 2a or 6a are not correct because, due to the hold the Administrator has over game information, that information is _inaccessible_ to players at large until the Administrator has published it to the list or the web page. Due to the nature of the game, _all_ information in the game is public in a sense, and thus 2a is not very tenable. Clearly unpublished information is not "exposed to general view." Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:23:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Got Slack? Tom Plagge writes: >I agree that Mary misjudged the situation, but I feel obligated to de-slack >Josh anyway. I thus transfer slack from Josh to Nick Osborn, a Tasteful >Shrubbery. And I transfer slack from Tom Plagge to myself, for continuing to fail to understand the nature of slack and its critics. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:04:11 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 73 I call for judgment on the following statement: Rule 473 prohibits a Player from making more than one slack transfer per turn. ---------- According to Rule 473, "Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the Recipient." I hold that the clause "once per turn" is rightly applied to the action of slack transfer in general rather than any particular slack transfer. E.g., if Josh, in one turn, did the following: Joel, 1 slack -> Josh Ole, 1 slack -> Mary he would be in violation of R473. There is no dispute as to the legality of the first move, which makes the following statement true: (A1) "Josh has transfered one slack from Joel to himself." In it's more general form, it could be rendered as (A2) "A player has transfered one slack from one Player to another Player. The second action, if legal would make the following statement true -- (B1)"Josh has transfered one slack from Ole to Mary" -- and thus make (B2) true as well: "A player has transferred one slack from one Player to another Player." The conjunction of B1 and B2 leads to "A player has twice transferred one slack from one Player to another Player"; however, this contradicts R473: "Each player may, once per turn, ..." Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, we can see that B2 (and therefore B1) must be false, and the second transfer is illegal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:18:51 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 Joel Uckelman writes: >I call for judgment on the following statement: > >Rule 473 prohibits a Player from making more than one slack transfer per turn. > >---------- > >According to Rule 473, "Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) >slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, >hereafter known as the Recipient." > >I hold that the clause "once per turn" is rightly applied to the action of >slack transfer in general rather than any particular slack transfer. E.g., >if Josh, in one turn, did the following: > >Joel, 1 slack -> Josh >Ole, 1 slack -> Mary > >he would be in violation of R473. There is no dispute as to the legality of >the first move, which makes the following statement true: (A1) "Josh has >transfered one slack from Joel to himself." In it's more general form, it >could be rendered as (A2) "A player has transfered one slack from one >Player to another Player. The second action, if legal would make the >following statement true -- (B1)"Josh has transfered one slack from Ole to >Mary" -- and thus make (B2) true as well: "A player has transferred one >slack from one Player to another Player." The conjunction of B1 and B2 >leads to "A player has twice transferred one slack from one Player to >another Player"; however, this contradicts R473: "Each player may, once per >turn, ..." Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, we can see that B2 (and therefore >B1) must be false, and the second transfer is illegal. I note that despite Joel's attempt to pull a Josh and snow us all with logic, the meat of his argument is "Once per turn" is rightly applied to the action of slack transfer in general rather than any particular slack transfer. Joel has not provided any justification for this claim, but instead has merely presented an argument as to how multiple slack transfers would be judged illegal under his assumption. One might hope that the court will see through this attempt to snow us all. So, what reasons are there for believing this assumption, rather than the assumption that I've previously put forth, namely that the slack transfers referred to as only occurring once per turn are the specific transfers between pairs of players? Until Joel presents convincing reasons otherwise, I hold that my option is preferable, simply because it encourages slack transfer. I hold as axiomatic that slack transfer is a Good Thing, by the very nature of slack transfer. Thus, why not read the rules so as to encourage slack transfer, rather than Joel's trickle-away slack-o-nomics? Fnord. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:04:12 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 At 05:18 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>I call for judgment on the following statement: >> >>Rule 473 prohibits a Player from making more than one slack transfer per turn. >> >>---------- >> >>According to Rule 473, "Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) >>slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, >>hereafter known as the Recipient." >> >>I hold that the clause "once per turn" is rightly applied to the action of >>slack transfer in general rather than any particular slack transfer. E.g., >>if Josh, in one turn, did the following: >> >>Joel, 1 slack -> Josh >>Ole, 1 slack -> Mary >> >>he would be in violation of R473. There is no dispute as to the legality of >>the first move, which makes the following statement true: (A1) "Josh has >>transfered one slack from Joel to himself." In it's more general form, it >>could be rendered as (A2) "A player has transfered one slack from one >>Player to another Player. The second action, if legal would make the >>following statement true -- (B1)"Josh has transfered one slack from Ole to >>Mary" -- and thus make (B2) true as well: "A player has transferred one >>slack from one Player to another Player." The conjunction of B1 and B2 >>leads to "A player has twice transferred one slack from one Player to >>another Player"; however, this contradicts R473: "Each player may, once per >>turn, ..." Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, we can see that B2 (and therefore >>B1) must be false, and the second transfer is illegal. > >I note that despite Joel's attempt to pull a Josh and snow us all with >logic, the meat of his argument is > > "Once per turn" is rightly applied to the action of slack > transfer in general rather than any particular slack transfer. > >Joel has not provided any justification for this claim, but instead >has merely presented an argument as to how multiple slack transfers >would be judged illegal under his assumption. One might hope that >the court will see through this attempt to snow us all. > >So, what reasons are there for believing this assumption, rather than >the assumption that I've previously put forth, namely that the slack >transfers referred to as only occurring once per turn are the specific >transfers between pairs of players? > >Until Joel presents convincing reasons otherwise, I hold that my >option is preferable, simply because it encourages slack transfer. >I hold as axiomatic that slack transfer is a Good Thing, by the >very nature of slack transfer. Thus, why not read the rules so >as to encourage slack transfer, rather than Joel's trickle-away >slack-o-nomics? > >Fnord. > >Josh So, in essence, Josh is saying that his view is preferable because he likes the results of it better. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:04:36 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judging assignment Tom Plagge has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 73: Rule 473 prohibits a Player from making more than one slack transfer per turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:07:20 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 Joel Uckelman writes: >So, in essence, Josh is saying that his view is preferable because he likes >the results of it better. This is not all I'm saying. I'm also saying that you prefer _your_ view because of arbitrary reasons. At least I'm forthright about it, and willing to supply my reasons. As I said, you claimed that players could only make one transfer for round, then showed how to judge such transfers illegal, given your assumption. That's no argument for the assumption itself. Still awaiting _real_ reasons that you prefer your view. Or is yours arbitrary too? Oops! Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:12:07 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ 74 I request judgment on the following statement: The second Rule created by Proposal 473 should have number 472. ------------ I forgot to specify the number for the second rule to be created, and there are no guidelines in the rules for what to do if this happens. As such, I should be able to specify some unused number now. Why 472 instead of some other number? 474 would cause there to be no Proposal 474, and I would prefer that the Proposals remain continuiously numbered. Numbers much lower than 473 would cause the two slack rules to appear far appart in the numerical ruleset. Giving the rule no number at all would be legal, but would result in there being no up-to-date ruleset until the beginning of summer, as I would have to rewrite the munge to accomodate it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:18:30 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 At 07:07 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>So, in essence, Josh is saying that his view is preferable because he likes >>the results of it better. > >This is not all I'm saying. > >I'm also saying that you prefer _your_ view because of arbitrary >reasons. At least I'm forthright about it, and willing to supply >my reasons. As I said, you claimed that players could only make one >transfer for round, then showed how to judge such transfers illegal, >given your assumption. That's no argument for the assumption itself. > >Still awaiting _real_ reasons that you prefer your view. Or is >yours arbitrary too? Oops! > >Josh I prefer my view because it more accurately represents the meaning of the rule's text. I did not assume that players could make only one transfer per round in my argument -- I only assumed the part of the text of the rule. Because your assumption causes a contradiciton with the rule, it must be false. I'd symbolize the argument, but I don't have time right now. Maybe later. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:20:24 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 74: The second Rule created by Proposal 473 should have number 472. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:26:47 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 74 Joel Uckelman writes: >I request judgment on the following statement: > >The second Rule created by Proposal 473 should have number 472. > >------------ > >I forgot to specify the number for the second rule to be created, and there >are no guidelines in the rules for what to do if this happens. As such, I >should be able to specify some unused number now. > >Why 472 instead of some other number? 474 would cause there to be no >Proposal 474, and I would prefer that the Proposals remain continuiously >numbered. Numbers much lower than 473 would cause the two slack rules to >appear far appart in the numerical ruleset. Giving the rule no number at >all would be legal, but would result in there being no up-to-date ruleset >until the beginning of summer, as I would have to rewrite the munge to >accomodate it. This is false; it assumes that the rules can _only_ be updated through the munge. The numberless rule could in fact be included by hand. I note that here, also, you basically give arguments from personal taste. The key point here is that you say "should have" and "should be able to." If you are arguing that these are _necessary_, then you haven't presented an argument. If you're just arguing that these are permissable, then what's stopping you? Anything not regulated by the rules... Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:23:54 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 Joel Uckelman writes: >At 07:07 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>So, in essence, Josh is saying that his view is preferable because he likes >>>the results of it better. >> >>This is not all I'm saying. >> >>I'm also saying that you prefer _your_ view because of arbitrary >>reasons. At least I'm forthright about it, and willing to supply >>my reasons. As I said, you claimed that players could only make one >>transfer for round, then showed how to judge such transfers illegal, >>given your assumption. That's no argument for the assumption itself. >> >>Still awaiting _real_ reasons that you prefer your view. Or is >>yours arbitrary too? Oops! >> >>Josh > >I prefer my view because it more accurately represents the meaning of the >rule's text. I did not assume that players could make only one transfer per >round in my argument -- I only assumed the part of the text of the rule. >Because your assumption causes a contradiciton with the rule, it must be >false. I'd symbolize the argument, but I don't have time right now. Maybe >later. This is completely bogus. In "assuming the part of the text of the rule" you are in fact making a particular reading of the rule, one which provides you with the assumption that you need in order to demonstrate how to apply the rule. The fact that you _intended_ to mean a certain thing does not mean that the rule _is_ read the way you intended. Clearly, if it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. My assumption doesn't cause a contradiction with the rule, it causes a contradiction with the way you want the rule to be read. If your argument requires the (special) knowledge of "what Joel meant to write," then it doesn't really stand up. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:39:21 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection Joel Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 74: > >The second Rule created by Proposal 473 should have number 472. The court would like to hear the opinion of the requestor, or of any other interested parties. Are there any rules which specifically state how _rules_ should be numbered, as opposed to proposals? Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:46:23 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 74 At 07:26 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>I request judgment on the following statement: >> >>The second Rule created by Proposal 473 should have number 472. >> >>------------ >> >>I forgot to specify the number for the second rule to be created, and there >>are no guidelines in the rules for what to do if this happens. As such, I >>should be able to specify some unused number now. >> >>Why 472 instead of some other number? 474 would cause there to be no >>Proposal 474, and I would prefer that the Proposals remain continuiously >>numbered. Numbers much lower than 473 would cause the two slack rules to >>appear far appart in the numerical ruleset. Giving the rule no number at >>all would be legal, but would result in there being no up-to-date ruleset >>until the beginning of summer, as I would have to rewrite the munge to >>accomodate it. > >This is false; it assumes that the rules can _only_ be updated through >the munge. The numberless rule could in fact be included by hand. > >I note that here, also, you basically give arguments from personal >taste. The key point here is that you say "should have" and >"should be able to." > >If you are arguing that these are _necessary_, then you haven't >presented an argument. If you're just arguing that these are permissable, >then what's stopping you? Anything not regulated by the rules... > >Josh Well, fine then. I'll just change it. I knew I had the right, but I didn't want to do so without public recognition of that right. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:57:13 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection At 07:39 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 74: >> >>The second Rule created by Proposal 473 should have number 472. > >The court would like to hear the opinion of the requestor, >or of any other interested parties. > >Are there any rules which specifically state how _rules_ should >be numbered, as opposed to proposals? > >Josh No. I wouldn't have requested judgment if there were. Along those lines, I make the following proposal: --------- Add as the second section of Rule 108: "Proposals to create multiple new Rules must specify a corresponding number for each." --------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:51:08 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 74 Joel Uckelman writes: >At 07:26 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>I request judgment on the following statement: >>> >>>The second Rule created by Proposal 473 should have number 472. >>> >>>------------ >>> >>>I forgot to specify the number for the second rule to be created, and there >>>are no guidelines in the rules for what to do if this happens. As such, I >>>should be able to specify some unused number now. >>> >>>Why 472 instead of some other number? 474 would cause there to be no >>>Proposal 474, and I would prefer that the Proposals remain continuiously >>>numbered. Numbers much lower than 473 would cause the two slack rules to >>>appear far appart in the numerical ruleset. Giving the rule no number at >>>all would be legal, but would result in there being no up-to-date ruleset >>>until the beginning of summer, as I would have to rewrite the munge to >>>accomodate it. >> >>This is false; it assumes that the rules can _only_ be updated through >>the munge. The numberless rule could in fact be included by hand. >> >>I note that here, also, you basically give arguments from personal >>taste. The key point here is that you say "should have" and >>"should be able to." >> >>If you are arguing that these are _necessary_, then you haven't >>presented an argument. If you're just arguing that these are permissable, >>then what's stopping you? Anything not regulated by the rules... >> >>Josh > >Well, fine then. I'll just change it. I knew I had the right, but I didn't >want to do so without public recognition of that right. Well, then. My analysis stands. Statement is dismissed. -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:53:44 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 At 07:23 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 07:07 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>>So, in essence, Josh is saying that his view is preferable because he likes >>>>the results of it better. >>> >>>This is not all I'm saying. >>> >>>I'm also saying that you prefer _your_ view because of arbitrary >>>reasons. At least I'm forthright about it, and willing to supply >>>my reasons. As I said, you claimed that players could only make one >>>transfer for round, then showed how to judge such transfers illegal, >>>given your assumption. That's no argument for the assumption itself. >>> >>>Still awaiting _real_ reasons that you prefer your view. Or is >>>yours arbitrary too? Oops! >>> >>>Josh >> >>I prefer my view because it more accurately represents the meaning of the >>rule's text. I did not assume that players could make only one transfer per >>round in my argument -- I only assumed the part of the text of the rule. >>Because your assumption causes a contradiciton with the rule, it must be >>false. I'd symbolize the argument, but I don't have time right now. Maybe >>later. > >This is completely bogus. In "assuming the part of the text of the rule" >you are in fact making a particular reading of the rule, one which >provides you with the assumption that you need in order to demonstrate >how to apply the rule. The fact that you _intended_ to mean a certain >thing does not mean that the rule _is_ read the way you intended. >Clearly, if it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. > >My assumption doesn't cause a contradiction with the rule, it causes >a contradiction with the way you want the rule to be read. If your >argument requires the (special) knowledge of "what Joel meant to >write," then it doesn't really stand up. > >Josh Your assumption causes a contradiction with the way I want the rule to be read because I want the rule to be read correctly. If I assume the rule text exactly as it is, and some assumption you make about the rule directly contradicts it, then I am not begging the question. That the rule prevents your second slack transfer is what I am trying to prove, so even if that very fact is assumed in the rule, there is no problem with assuming the rule. Why? Because showing that your action contradicts the rule shows that the assumption you accuse me of making is acutally in the rule -- which is really the thing I'm trying to show anyway. I can't show you that something is entailed by a larger assumption without first assuming the larger assumption. If I assume the rule without interpreting it, there should be no problem. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:00:43 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection Joel Uckelman writes: >At 07:39 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 74: >>> >>>The second Rule created by Proposal 473 should have number 472. >> >>The court would like to hear the opinion of the requestor, >>or of any other interested parties. >> >>Are there any rules which specifically state how _rules_ should >>be numbered, as opposed to proposals? >> >>Josh > >No. I wouldn't have requested judgment if there were. > >Along those lines, I make the following proposal: > >--------- > >Add as the second section of Rule 108: > >"Proposals to create multiple new Rules must specify a corresponding number >for each." You should add a default clause. -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:06:50 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 74 At 07:51 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 07:26 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>>I request judgment on the following statement: >>>> >>>>The second Rule created by Proposal 473 should have number 472. >>>> >>>>------------ >>>> >>>>I forgot to specify the number for the second rule to be created, and there >>>>are no guidelines in the rules for what to do if this happens. As such, I >>>>should be able to specify some unused number now. >>>> >>>>Why 472 instead of some other number? 474 would cause there to be no >>>>Proposal 474, and I would prefer that the Proposals remain continuiously >>>>numbered. Numbers much lower than 473 would cause the two slack rules to >>>>appear far appart in the numerical ruleset. Giving the rule no number at >>>>all would be legal, but would result in there being no up-to-date ruleset >>>>until the beginning of summer, as I would have to rewrite the munge to >>>>accomodate it. >>> >>>This is false; it assumes that the rules can _only_ be updated through >>>the munge. The numberless rule could in fact be included by hand. >>> >>>I note that here, also, you basically give arguments from personal >>>taste. The key point here is that you say "should have" and >>>"should be able to." >>> >>>If you are arguing that these are _necessary_, then you haven't >>>presented an argument. If you're just arguing that these are permissable, >>>then what's stopping you? Anything not regulated by the rules... >>> >>>Josh >> >>Well, fine then. I'll just change it. I knew I had the right, but I didn't >>want to do so without public recognition of that right. > >Well, then. My analysis stands. Statement is dismissed. I was arguing from preference because there exist no guidelines for such a situation. You seemed to take my argument in a stronger sense than it was meant. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:12:31 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 74 Joel Uckelman writes: >I was arguing from preference because there exist no guidelines for such a >situation. You seemed to take my argument in a stronger sense than it was >meant. I would have expected you to just do it if there were no rule preventing it. Presenting an argument implies something is anticipated to be under dispute. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:10:45 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 Joel Uckelman writes: >Your assumption causes a contradiction with the way I want the rule to be >read because I want the rule to be read correctly. > >If I assume the rule text exactly as it is, and some assumption you make >about the rule directly contradicts it, then I am not begging the question. >That the rule prevents your second slack transfer is what I am trying to >prove, so even if that very fact is assumed in the rule, there is no >problem with assuming the rule. Why? Because showing that your action >contradicts the rule shows that the assumption you accuse me of making is >acutally in the rule -- which is really the thing I'm trying to show >anyway. I can't show you that something is entailed by a larger assumption >without first assuming the larger assumption. If I assume the rule without >interpreting it, there should be no problem. Are you being deliberately obtuse just to argue your point, or do you genuinely not get this? When you say "assume the rule text exactly as is," what you are doing is positing that there is a single correct way in which the rule text should rightly be read. I am saying that this claim is false; clearly, other readings are possible. I made my second slack transfer of the day because as I read the rule, clearly and rationally, I was allowed to. I included an argument as to why because I _knew_ someone would be a pedant about it. That's the nature of ambiguous statements like our rules. You can't _help_ but interpret the rule when you assume it. It's _plain English_. _Plain English gets interpreted._ I don't care about your proof that my second slack transfer is illegal. The proof would be fine, if in fact whether or not I was allowed to transfer slack was what was under question. That, however, is not what is under question. What is under question is whether or not we should be reading the rule the way you want it, or the way I want it. This is why your argument is irrelevant. Of _course_ if you assume that the statement means what you think it means, you can derive a contradiction. Why don't you present an argument as to why you read the statement the way you did? I would prefer something more tangible than "because I read it the right way," because I am strongly of the opinion that you read it _your_ way, and that your way is in fact not necessarily the right or only way. Josh -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:50:26 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 74 At 08:12 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>I was arguing from preference because there exist no guidelines for such a >>situation. You seemed to take my argument in a stronger sense than it was >>meant. > >I would have expected you to just do it if there were no rule preventing >it. Presenting an argument implies something is anticipated to be >under dispute. > >Josh I assumed that people would dispute it if I just did it without asking. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:52:58 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 At 08:10 PM 4/13/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>Your assumption causes a contradiction with the way I want the rule to be >>read because I want the rule to be read correctly. >> >>If I assume the rule text exactly as it is, and some assumption you make >>about the rule directly contradicts it, then I am not begging the question. >>That the rule prevents your second slack transfer is what I am trying to >>prove, so even if that very fact is assumed in the rule, there is no >>problem with assuming the rule. Why? Because showing that your action >>contradicts the rule shows that the assumption you accuse me of making is >>acutally in the rule -- which is really the thing I'm trying to show >>anyway. I can't show you that something is entailed by a larger assumption >>without first assuming the larger assumption. If I assume the rule without >>interpreting it, there should be no problem. > >Are you being deliberately obtuse just to argue your point, or do you >genuinely not get this? > >When you say "assume the rule text exactly as is," what you are doing >is positing that there is a single correct way in which the rule text >should rightly be read. If there is no single correct way in which the rule text should be read, then someone should win the game right now, since an action would appear equally legal and illegal. >I am saying that this claim is false; clearly, >other readings are possible. I made my second slack transfer of the >day because as I read the rule, clearly and rationally, I was allowed >to. I included an argument as to why because I _knew_ someone would >be a pedant about it. That's the nature of ambiguous statements >like our rules. > >You can't _help_ but interpret the rule when you assume it. It's >_plain English_. _Plain English gets interpreted._ Perhaps I have not been clear as to what I am doing. In assuming the rule text as such, I am not in any way changing it -- i.e. the assumption is not even symbolized, it's just the text as is. If I can derive a negation of the exact text from your assumption and other assumptions on which we all agree, then your assumption has to be false, and what I claim is in the rule must be there. I am talking about the rule text as an uninterpreted token -- if A is the rule text, and ~A is true due to your assumption, then it should tell us something about the *content* of A. >I don't care about your proof that my second slack transfer is illegal. >The proof would be fine, if in fact whether or not I was allowed to >transfer slack was what was under question. That, however, is not >what is under question. What is under question is whether or not >we should be reading the rule the way you want it, or the way I >want it. Which way either of us wants to read the rule is irrelevant to how it should be read. >This is why your argument is irrelevant. Of _course_ if you assume >that the statement means what you think it means, you can derive >a contradiction. Why don't you present an argument as to why >you read the statement the way you did? I would prefer something >more tangible than "because I read it the right way," because I >am strongly of the opinion that you read it _your_ way, and that >your way is in fact not necessarily the right or only way. > >Josh My argument shows the "why" you're looking for. The only other way I can see to provide that would be if I diagrammed the sentence, but I don't remember how to do it for sentences that complex. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:11:35 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal Amend paragraph two of Rule 473 to read: "A Player may transfer slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another player, hereafter known as the Recipient. Slack may only be transferred between Players in the amount of one unit per transfer. Each Player may make only one slack transfer per turn." ----------------- Note that this does not represent a rejection of my previously stated views on Rule 473. In my opinion, this amendment does nothing other than rearrange the wording of the rule to eliminate the current interpretational schism. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:22:12 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 Joel Uckelman writes: >Perhaps I have not been clear as to what I am doing. In assuming the rule >text as such, I am not in any way changing it -- i.e. the assumption is not >even symbolized, it's just the text as is. If I can derive a negation of >the exact text from your assumption and other assumptions on which we all >agree, then your assumption has to be false, and what I claim is in the >rule must be there. I am talking about the rule text as an uninterpreted >token -- if A is the rule text, and ~A is true due to your assumption, then >it should tell us something about the *content* of A. I'm quite clear on what _you_ are doing. You are assuming that the statement in question _is_ being symbolized, i.e., shoehorned into a specific form. This isn't (yet) logic, Joel. This is a sentence. Some sentences are ambiguous - like this one. The notion of the rule text being taken as an "uninterpreted token" is laughable. Perhaps, if it were a simple token like "true or false" or even a more complex one such as "if a and b, then c or d," I might be sympathetic to your view. In any reasonable sentence, though, one not specifically cast in pedantic language so as to be easily symbolized, interpretation is _inescapable_. Cf. Noam Chomsky's famous "sentence," "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Despite the fact that people will say it is nonsense, they will say that it _could_ be a sentence, and that it seems like one - the form is right, on a very deep level, but the high level meanings don't quite match up. That is, they cannot _help_ but apply their knowledge of meaning and mechanics to the "sentence." Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the Recipient. Your claim is that the "once per turn" applies solely to the action of transferring. My claim is that "once per turn" applies solely to the action of transferring, in the specific case of transfers between a given Victim and a given Recipient. Now, you may claim that because the second and third Players mentioned in the above rule are simply mentioned as "Player"s, that there are implied universal quantifiers before the rule. I'd be interested in seeing you try to map such an interpretation onto a more formal statement. The way I read it, the text above could be read Each Player may, once per turn, transfer 1 slack between any two given players. I consider the fact that "once per turn" is closer to "transfer" than "any two given players" a bothersome byproduct of the language. It still seems completely sensible to me that the once-per-turn limitation applies to the specific transfers between each pair of players. Don't be so quick to assume that formal logic can solve every argument - you are blithely ignoring issues of meaning and interpretation. If the way in which the sentence were to be (informally) formalized _were_ strict, in the way that you claim it is, then there would never be any debate over laws, aside from misunderstandings about logic. Lawyers and politicians, nay, everyone, would be trained in logic beginning starting at childhood. Debates would be decided rationally and fairly. However, we have a layer of natural, imprecise language - English - which holds sway over the arguments we make. You must deal with that first, before attempting to fit this square peg into your round logic hole. Josh reminder to Tom: what's better, free-flowing slack or boring slack? -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:30:26 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Toward a Healthier, Pinker Joel I make many slack transfers as follows. For each player excluding myself, and excluding any other players to which I have already transferred any of Joel's slack today, I transfer one slack from Joel to that player. Josh viva la slack -- In _Gravity's Rainbow_ Thomas Pynchon wrote that paper is used in three ways-- for "shit, money, and The Word." I tend to look at guitars in the same way. - Brent Dicrescenzo ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:45:53 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: RFJ 73 RULING: TRUE. REASONING: Of course the pertinent sentence is: Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the Recipient. It would seem rather obvious to me what this sentence says. Once the player transfers slack, the following things happen: 1. A player is designated a Victim 2. Another player is designated a Recipient 3. One slack is transfered from the Victim to the Recipient. This set of actions, according to the most sensible reading of this rule, may happen once per player per turn. Josh's claim is not a reasonable reading of this rule. By being intentionally obtuse and confusing what should be a very clear issue, he is showing early signs of pinkness. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:55:23 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 73 Tom Plagge writes: >RULING: TRUE. > >REASONING: Of course the pertinent sentence is: > > Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one > Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter > known as the Recipient. > >It would seem rather obvious to me what this sentence says. Once the >player transfers slack, the following things happen: > 1. A player is designated a Victim > 2. Another player is designated a Recipient > 3. One slack is transfered from the Victim to the Recipient. >This set of actions, according to the most sensible reading of this rule, >may happen once per player per turn. Josh's claim is not a reasonable >reading of this rule. By being intentionally obtuse and confusing what >should be a very clear issue, he is showing early signs of pinkness. Yet again, argument by appeal to convention and "reason" without investigation of the underlying assumptions. Truly a pink judgment. I appeal this judgment on the grounds that no exposition was given re the distinction between a "reasonable" reading and a nonreasonable one. I also set my proposal to inactive, and go into limbo. Josh -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:04:32 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: further analysis of R473 These statements are undisputed: 1. Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the Recipient. 2. Josh, Joel, Ole, and Mary are Players. ----------------------------------------- Both of these by themselves are also undisputed: 3. Josh may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from Joel, hereafter known as the Victim, to himself, hereafter known as the Recipient. 4. Josh may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from Ole, hereafter known as the Victim, to Mary, hereafter known as the Recipient. --------------- The question to be asked here seems to be whether "one Player, hereafter known as the Victim" and "another Player, hereafter known as the Recipient" are forced to refer to the same individuals within the span of a turn. If they are, 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive, which, in this case, makes 4 illegal because 3 occurred first. "one Player" by itself would seem to indicate numerically a single Player, i.e. if it appeared in the absence of "another Player", would lend credence to the interpretation that the action may only be done to a single player and only once per turn. However, the presence of "another" makes the interpretation more difficult, as "one" in "one ... and then another" does not necessarily imply strict numerical limitation as does "one" by itself. My attempt to construct a formal argument semantically neutral with respect to 1 failed -- I was completely unable to do so. What does this show? While I am not convinced of its impossibility, I do see success in it as unlikely given the knowledge I currently have of the matter. My argument against Josh's interpretation of the rule is disarmed (unless someone can point out a better version or some oversight on my part). As stated before, I have no other argument in favor of it. In the context of there being a dispute with viable arguments on both sides, I hold certain reservations about Josh's argument, viz. that when other arguments are available in a rules dispute, they ought to be privileged over arguments based on preferences. In response to my claim that: >So, in essence, Josh is saying that his view is preferable because he likes >the results of it better. Josh said that: >This is not all I'm saying. >I'm also saying that you prefer _your_ view because of arbitrary >reasons. At least I'm forthright about it, and willing to supply >my reasons. As I said, you claimed that players could only make one >transfer for round, then showed how to judge such transfers illegal, >given your assumption. That's no argument for the assumption itself. In light of my argument proving illusory, I see no reason to deny Josh's claim -- he would seem to be correct under Rule 116. However, preferences should not have been an issue had my argument been more than a phantom; nor is it clear (to me, at least) what effect preferences (on either side) could have had on anything other than Josh's willingness to exercise the right it now appears that he has. Therefore, upon closer examination, it appears that I was incorrect in asserting my claims of this afternoon. As a addendum, then, my most recent proposal does indeed change the workings of R473 to be in accord with my original intent. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:10:39 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Ed Proescholdt, Mary Tupper, and Tom Plagge have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 72: All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood literally. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:51:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting update The Spare Tire has now twice rearranged votes to no effect. I just randomized Ole's votes, and they came out the same, so the scores from before this round are already correct. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:15:26 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Proposal scoring from last round: +36 Joel Uckelman +22 Nick Osborn +18 Mary Tupper +8 Josh Kortbein +8 Jeff Schroeder +6 Ed Proescholdt -4 Ole Andersen J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:39:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: UPCs Due to the wording of R466/1, it seems that you get a UPC for each failed proposal for which you voted (contrary to Nick's intentions) -- "Players receive one UPC for each failed Proposal of which they are a proponent." -- because "proponent" is not the same as "proposer". Thus, the following players receive UPCs in the following quantities: Andersen -- 2 Tupper -- 2 Uckelman -- 2 Kortbein -- 1 Osborn -- 1 Plagge -- 1 Proescholdt -- 1 Schroeder -- 1 J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:51:58 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: UPCs >Due to the wording of R466/1, it seems that you get a UPC for each failed >proposal for which you voted (contrary to Nick's intentions) -- "Players >receive one UPC for each failed Proposal of which they are a proponent." -- >because "proponent" is not the same as "proposer". Thus, the following >players receive UPCs in the following quantities: > >Andersen -- 2 >Tupper -- 2 >Uckelman -- 2 >Kortbein -- 1 >Osborn -- 1 >Plagge -- 1 >Proescholdt -- 1 >Schroeder -- 1 > Should this be changed? I didn't notice it, and I'd rather not take advantage of my own error, so I won't be amending R466. However, is it something we want changed, or is it more desirable this way? ats ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:53:15 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: UPCs Joel Uckelman wrote: :Due to the wording of R466/1, it seems that you get a UPC for each failed :proposal for which you voted (contrary to Nick's intentions) -- "Players :receive one UPC for each failed Proposal of which they are a proponent." -- :because "proponent" is not the same as "proposer". Thus, the following :players receive UPCs in the following quantities: Ooops! I was absolutely sure they were synonyms. Having misled Nick on this one, I transfer one Slack from myself to him, if I can. If I cannot do that, I'd like this Slack transfer to be executed ASAP. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:17:45 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Fine then again I take one slack from every player and give it to myself. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:16:34 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Fine then. I transfer one slack from Josh Kortbein to each player except Nick Osborn, a Tasteful Shrubbery. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:23:00 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: updates The site is now mostly updated (everything except the voting record). Slack and UPCs can now be found on the Items page. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:21:33 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Ole Andersen, Jeff Schroeder, and Mary Tupper have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 73: Rule 473 prohibits a Player from making more than one slack transfer per turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:58:12 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player propsal I propose that Matt Kuhns (mjkuhns@iastate.edu) be added as a player. Kuhns was one of our original players -- he quit last fall, but is interested in playing again. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:15:51 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new FM Because Nick Osborn was the only nominee, he is now our new Foriegn Minister. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:17:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: P475 revision This is a revision of P475: ----------------- Add to Rule 108/4 as paragraphs two and three: "Proposals to create multiple new Rules must specify a legal Rule number for each new rule to be created. Rules created by Proposals creating only one new Rule receive the number of their corresponding Proposal unless otherwise specified in said Proposal. A Rule may have as a number any positive integer not held by any other Rule." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 20:58:57 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: new FM >Because Nick Osborn was the only nominee, he is now our new Foriegn Minister. > Does anyone have any suggestions for me? I'd like to do something, but I don't want to piss all of you off, at least not any more than usual. ats ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:56:57 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: new prop, try again Last time I tried to get the whole process through in one shot, but it didn't make it. Reduction of native terms is a good thing. It reduces the chances of having holes in the rules. Anyway, I'm going to try it one step at a time. The following is a disinterested prop ---- Transmute Rule 113 to mutable. ---- ats ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:03:39 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: FM Is anyone interested in interacting with other Nomics? I have my own thoughts on how to pursue relations, but I'd like to know your opinions as well. As I see it, Nomics could be Players in other Nomics, or be set up something like GWIBs, except Players must belong to one and only one GWIB. I think something like a stable internomic economy would require similarity between Nomics to the degree that they may as well be the same game. I'd like to interact with a Nomic that has a different paradigm, just to give us a new POV. Any thoughts, ats ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:18:31 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: RFJ# 72 Response: I rule TRUE. Analysis: The key phrase from Rule #217 being "The following table entries, known as Spivak pronouns, shall be understood to take the places..." By this I interpret it to mean that _when_ the Spivak pronouns are used, they refer to the specified standard English pronouns. There is nothing to indicate any change in meaning of pre-existing standard English pronouns. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The world is coming to an end... SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!! http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:26:17 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: RFJ#73 "Each Player may, once per turn, transfer one (1) slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the Recipient." Each Player may, once per turn, . In this case is "transfer one (1) slack from one Player, hereafter known as the Victim, to another Player, hereafter known as the Recipient." Thus a Player can only