________________________________________ 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 once per turn. Now, the says they can transfer one slack to another player. That's it, just one slack can be transferred. Thus I must rule TRUE on this judgment. 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 13:42:12 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Request for Judgement I request a judgment on the following: Ole Anderson should be burned at the stake. Reasons: From Case#70, "a Crowd Shamer must make his or her statement between 72 and 96 hours after the Inciter has made his or her public statement." Since I incite the crowd on 26 March, 16:34 CST, then the shaming should have been made between 29 March, 16:34 CST and 30 March, 16:34 CST. However the shaming was made at 29 March, 16:16 CST. This is 18 minutes _prior_ to the time that a shaming should be made. Thus, Ole should be burned at the stake. 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 15:47:21 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Request for Judgement At 02:42 PM 4/16/99 , you wrote: >I request a judgment on the following: > >Ole Anderson should be burned at the stake. > >Reasons: From Case#70, "a Crowd Shamer must make his or her statement >between 72 and 96 hours after the Inciter has made his or her public >statement." > >Since I incite the crowd on 26 March, 16:34 CST, then the shaming should >have been made between 29 March, 16:34 CST and 30 March, 16:34 CST. >However the shaming was made at 29 March, 16:16 CST. This is 18 minutes >_prior_ to the time that a shaming should be made. Thus, Ole should be >burned at the stake. > >Mary My fault... I went back to look at the message logs, and discovered that the time in the event log is inaccurate -- the message went out at 17:16, not 16:16. I would transfer you a slack for that, but I don't know if it's legal for me to do so right now. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:57:04 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: RFJ#73 Mary wrote: :"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 once per turn. : :Now, the says they can transfer one slack to another :player. That's it, just one slack can be transferred. : :Thus I must rule TRUE on this judgment. : :Mary :-- No need to write all that twice. I rule TRUE, too. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:27:08 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: note on slack transfers The legal slack transfers for this turn (as per Judgment 73) are listed in the Event Log. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 11:18:20 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Jeff Schroeder has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 75: Ole Anderson should be burned at the stake. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 12:35:28 -0500 From: exodus Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection I declare myself out of limbo and name Ed (Andrew P.) my proxy voter. That is all. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 18:49:39 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection At 12:35 PM 4/17/99 , Woell wrote: >I declare myself out of limbo and name Ed (Andrew P.) my proxy voter. That >is all. Hey, wait a minute. Why can't Woell vote for himself? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 19:58:37 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection >At 12:35 PM 4/17/99 , Woell wrote: >>I declare myself out of limbo and name Ed (Andrew P.) my proxy voter. That >>is all. > >Hey, wait a minute. Why can't Woell vote for himself? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ The proxy rule came before Limbo. "Proxy" allows Players not in Limbo to name Proxies. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 10:15:56 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection At 07:58 PM 4/17/99 , you wrote: >>At 12:35 PM 4/17/99 , Woell wrote: >>>I declare myself out of limbo and name Ed (Andrew P.) my proxy voter. That >>>is all. >> >>Hey, wait a minute. Why can't Woell vote for himself? >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu >>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > >The proxy rule came before Limbo. "Proxy" allows Players not in Limbo to >name Proxies. > >ats What I meant was: why does Woell need a proxy? He is perfectly capable of voting himself. It seems that he's just giving Ed extra votes, by the look of it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:58:39 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: the proxy problem > >What I meant was: why does Woell need a proxy? He is perfectly capable of >voting himself. It seems that he's just giving Ed extra votes, by the look >of it. > Do we have a game flaw here? Does this current system allow one to, say, convince two friends with no real interest in the game to join Nomic and name you as their proxy, effectively tripling your voting power? Having just rejoined the game, I don't have any reason to assume that's the goal of Mr. Woell's decision, so please don't construe my comments that way. Still, the possibility of such a situation suggests that it's time to re-examine this proxy rule. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:57:29 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: P478 A new proposal to remedy the proxy problem: #prop Strike paragraph two of Rule 323/0. #endprop This simply cuts out the part about proxy voting. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 15:22:06 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: RFJ#73 At 09:57 PM 4/16/99 +0200, you wrote: >Mary wrote: > > >:"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 :something> 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 once per turn. >: >:Now, the says they can transfer one slack to another >:player. That's it, just one slack can be transferred. >: >:Thus I must rule TRUE on this judgment. >: >:Mary >:-- > > >No need to write all that twice. >I rule TRUE, too. > > >Ole Since we have a majority, it doesn't matter what I say, but for posterity I'll say something. I rule TRUE, also. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:21:51 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: RFJ 75 First of all I will compain to everyone, I am using the times given within the message as the times the messages were sent out, and they all seem to be slightly different from what is given in the complaints. The time Mary sent her message with the subject "Nomic: Public Lynching," inciting the crowd is given as 19:34:22 -0700 and it was delivered by majordomo at 20:40:19 CST, I will use the time 20:34:22 CST as the time the message was sent. Thus the shaming must be done between 72 and 96 hours after that, which gives the times of 20:34:22 CST, March 29 and 20:34:22, March 30. I received a message from Uckelman at 16:16:54 CST which would confirm the statement given, but the message only contained the line, "Ok, now that it's the right time, I'm going to try this again... ", there was no shaming in this message. The next message at 17:54:55 CST did contain the actual shaming, but it was before the time requirement of 20:34:22 CST. Therefore, I must rule this statement TRUE. > >Ole Anderson should be burned at the stake. I looked quite a bit to try to disprove this statement, but as the only source of data I have is from my personal Nomic mail folder and I compared the date and time line with the majordomo date and time line, and all the messages had the same date on them at least 3 times (within a few minutes of acceptable error and transfer time), so I was required to use those dates as accurate ones. I could not find any message by Mary sent at 16:34 CDT (-0600), which would be 15:34 -0700 hours. The only messages from her that day were on 19:13:12 -0700 (Re: Nomic Scoring) and at 19:34:22 -0700 (Nomic: Public Lynching), both of which are after the given 16:34 CDT (15:34 -0700). On a personal note, I transfer one slack to Mary for bringing this up. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 17:12:59 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: on errors in the logs I'll try to get those fixed ASAP... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 17:11:49 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 75 At 04:21 PM 4/18/99 , Jeff wrote: >First of all I will compain to everyone, I am using the times given within >the message as the times the messages were sent out, and they all seem to >be slightly different from what is given in the complaints. The time Mary >sent her message with the subject "Nomic: Public Lynching," inciting the >crowd is given as 19:34:22 -0700 and it was delivered by majordomo at >20:40:19 CST, I will use the time 20:34:22 CST as the time the message was >sent. Thus the shaming must be done between 72 and 96 hours after that, >which gives the times of 20:34:22 CST, March 29 and 20:34:22, March 30. The reason this is so confusing is because I botched recording the times for these events. The time at which I recorded Mary calling for Ole's lynching was wrong, and then I compounded it by changing the time when I did the shaming from the correct time to an incorrect one. The correct times (from the message logs) are: 20:34 CST for the call to form a mob 16:16 CST for the shaming Hmm. I don't know how that happened -- I checked a few other times around it and they were correct. I must have made the mistake when that whole business was going on, because I purposely figured out when I could start shaming the mob so Ole woudn't get burnt. >I received a message from Uckelman at 16:16:54 CST which would confirm the >statement given, but the message only contained the line, "Ok, now that >it's the right time, I'm going to try this again... ", there was no shaming >in this message. The next message at 17:54:55 CST did contain the actual >shaming, but it was before the time requirement of 20:34:22 CST. > >Therefore, I must rule this statement TRUE. >> >>Ole Anderson should be burned at the stake. > >I looked quite a bit to try to disprove this statement, but as the only >source of data I have is from my personal Nomic mail folder and I compared >the date and time line with the majordomo date and time line, and all the >messages had the same date on them at least 3 times (within a few minutes >of acceptable error and transfer time), so I was required to use those >dates as accurate ones. I could not find any message by Mary sent at 16:34 >CDT (-0600), which would be 15:34 -0700 hours. The only messages from her >that day were on 19:13:12 -0700 (Re: Nomic Scoring) and at 19:34:22 -0700 >(Nomic: Public Lynching), both of which are after the given 16:34 CDT >(15:34 -0700). > >On a personal note, I transfer one slack to Mary for bringing this up. > >jeff Sorry about that. The statute of limitations hasn't yet passed on the stake burning yet, so I guess Ole is burned at the stake after all. :( J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 04:16:26 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: RFJ 75 I wonder why Jeff did not dismiss this one. There is no Ole Anderson, or at least not in this game. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 22:32:01 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: RFJ 75 Ole Andersen wrote: > > I wonder why Jeff did not dismiss this one. > > There is no Ole Anderson, or at least not in this game. But 'Ole' was the only name used in the inciting, so you are still on the thin edge. ;) Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:20:25 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: RFJ 75 ;) didn't even check that out. At 10:32 PM 4/18/99 -0600, you wrote: > > >Ole Andersen wrote: >> >> I wonder why Jeff did not dismiss this one. >> >> There is no Ole Anderson, or at least not in this game. > >But 'Ole' was the only name used in the inciting, so you are still on >the thin edge. ;) > >Mary ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:49:08 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Labels in Beserker Nomic I think it is time to explain what I have been doing in this game up to now. It's all about 'labels'. When I first got involved with Beserker Nomic, the biggest topic at the time was whether or not Nick Osborn was a tasteful shrubbery. If e wanted to be called a shrubbery, it was his choice to express his desire. But the rules of the game declare that a player "shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames." That makes it simple to determine ordering in turns. But that rule doesn't mean that a player is known _only_ by eir fore- and surnames. Case in point is my Inciting the Mob against "Ole." No one question who I was referring to. Everybody assumed the label of "Ole" referred to Ole Andersen. When I misspelled the surname as "Anderson", everybody still assumed that I was referring to "Ole Andersen." Rule 002/1 says I shall identify a player in the game by eir "real human fore- and surnames." I failed to do that when I incited the Mob, and the other players failed to catch the apparent violation of rule 002, merely because I used an alternative label. Even Rule #473 adds a label to a person. In this case it is "pink." The point I am trying to make is this: For the purposes of determining play order, a players fore- and surnames shall be used, but for any other means of referencing a player, it doesn't really matter. Any label can be applied to any player and it is the consensus of others as to the meaning of that label. Since Nomic is a game of rules, and it is the rules that guide the consensus of the Players, I make the following proposal: =================================== 1) Transmute 002 to mutable 2) Amend 002 to read as follows: 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 for the purpose of determining ordering of turns. A Player may make a proposal that they shall also be known by an alternate label, and said label may be used in all references to that Player. 3) Transmute 002 to immutable =============================== Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:09:23 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Labels in Beserker Nomic At 09:49 AM 4/19/99 , Mary wrote: >=================================== >1) Transmute 002 to mutable > >2) Amend 002 to read as follows: > >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 for the purpose of determining ordering of turns. A Player >may make a proposal that they shall also be known by an alternate label, >and said label may be used in all references to that Player. > >3) Transmute 002 to immutable > >=============================== > >Mary How about adding "and recordkeeping" in after that part about turns? I'd like to keep all of the records associated with player's real names. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 09:16:49 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Labels in Beserker Nomic Joel Uckelman wrote: > > At 09:49 AM 4/19/99 , Mary wrote: > >=================================== > >1) Transmute 002 to mutable > > > >2) Amend 002 to read as follows: > > > >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 for the purpose of determining ordering of turns. A Player > >may make a proposal that they shall also be known by an alternate label, > >and said label may be used in all references to that Player. > > > >3) Transmute 002 to immutable > > > >=============================== > > > >Mary > > How about adding "and recordkeeping" in after that part about turns? I'd > like to keep all of the records associated with player's real names. That makes sense. No need to make your job any harder. But I would prefer to add "and official record keeping" after the part on turns. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:53:24 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Labels in Beserker Nomic Mary wrote: :Joel Uckelman wrote: :> :> At 09:49 AM 4/19/99 , Mary wrote: :> >=================================== :> >1) Transmute 002 to mutable :> > :> >2) Amend 002 to read as follows: :> > :> >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 for the purpose of determining ordering of turns. A Player :> >may make a proposal that they shall also be known by an alternate label, :> >and said label may be used in all references to that Player. :> > :> >3) Transmute 002 to immutable :> > :> >=============================== :> > :> >Mary :> :> How about adding "and recordkeeping" in after that part about turns? I'd :> like to keep all of the records associated with player's real names. : :That makes sense. No need to make your job any harder. But I would :prefer to add "and official record keeping" after the part on turns. And, now you are at it: How about Spivakizing it? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:51:37 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Labels proposal With the two comments I have received, I have rewritten my prop to include the input. So here is the final (I hope) version. =================================== 1) Transmute 002 to mutable 2) Amend 002 to read as follows: 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 for the purpose of determining ordering of turns and official record keeping. A Player may make a proposal that they shall also be known by an alternate label, and said label may be used in all references to that Player. 3) Transmute 002 to immutable =============================== Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:12:46 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Labels proposal >With the two comments I have received, I have rewritten my prop to >include the input. So here is the final (I hope) version. > >=================================== >1) Transmute 002 to mutable > >2) Amend 002 to read as follows: > >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 for the purpose of determining ordering of turns and >official record keeping. A Player may make a proposal that they shall >also be known by an alternate label, and said label may be used in all >references to that Player. > >3) Transmute 002 to immutable In the future, we may be more involved with other Nomics. One course of involvement is Nomics registering as Players in other Nomics. I understand that we are probably not ready for this, but we should allow for growth. Also, this may be perceived as more ecumenical by other Nomics. Allowance for the future doesn't necessarily have to be built into this rule, but it should be accomadated. Passing the above as immutable does not make future changes hospitable. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:23:54 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Labels proposal At 01:12 PM 4/19/99 , Nick wrote: >>With the two comments I have received, I have rewritten my prop to >>include the input. So here is the final (I hope) version. >> >>=================================== >>1) Transmute 002 to mutable >> >>2) Amend 002 to read as follows: >> >>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 for the purpose of determining ordering of turns and >>official record keeping. A Player may make a proposal that they shall >>also be known by an alternate label, and said label may be used in all >>references to that Player. >> >>3) Transmute 002 to immutable > >In the future, we may be more involved with other Nomics. One course of >involvement is Nomics registering as Players in other Nomics. I understand >that we are probably not ready for this, but we should allow for growth. >Also, this may be perceived as more ecumenical by other Nomics. Allowance >for the future doesn't necessarily have to be built into this rule, but it >should be accomadated. Passing the above as immutable does not make future >changes hospitable. > >ats If the Player definition rule isn't immutable, it gets into all kinds of precedence problems with other rules, and we could end up inadvertantly dumping some of our players. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:42:58 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Labels proposal >At 01:12 PM 4/19/99 , Nick wrote: >>In the future, we may be more involved with other Nomics. One course of >>involvement is Nomics registering as Players in other Nomics. I understand >>that we are probably not ready for this, but we should allow for growth. >>Also, this may be perceived as more ecumenical by other Nomics. Allowance >>for the future doesn't necessarily have to be built into this rule, but it >>should be accomadated. Passing the above as immutable does not make future >>changes hospitable. >> >>ats > >If the Player definition rule isn't immutable, it gets into all kinds of >precedence problems with other rules, and we could end up inadvertantly >dumping some of our players. Alrighty, I guess it's OK to just wait to prepare for the future when it arrives on our doorstep. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:01:09 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Labels proposal a tasteful shrubbery wrote: > > In the future, we may be more involved with other Nomics. One course of > involvement is Nomics registering as Players in other Nomics. I understand > that we are probably not ready for this, but we should allow for growth. > Also, this may be perceived as more ecumenical by other Nomics. Allowance > for the future doesn't necessarily have to be built into this rule, but it > should be accomadated. Passing the above as immutable does not make future > changes hospitable. > > ats I was thinking that the inter-nomic games would have Beserker Nomic as a player, and the players within Beserker Nomic would follow their own rules. I don't see why we would need to keep 002 as mutable to deal with 'Beserker Nomic' as a player. It would be more appropriate to deal with that in a separate rule. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:35:16 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Loophole-surfing time This here is a policy that has to have loopholes in it somewhere. We, of all people, should be able to find it. >Harwood, > >Storage will be open this entire week, as it needs to be entirely cleaned >out by Saturday, 4/24. Please take out all the things you have in >storage and either put them in your room, or in one of the dens. > >The storage closets will be sprayed for bugs to >ready them for the summer. After they are done spraying (I'll let you >know when this is done), only those who >are returning may put stuff back in. Those who are moving to a different >house must put your things in the storage closet on that house. Those >who will be on waiver in the fall and plan to return to Harwood may keep >stuff in storage. > >Things you may keep in storage: > >a loft, a couch, carpet, a chair > >ONLY THESE ITEMS MAY BE LEFT IN STORAGE, AND ONLY ONE OF THESE >ITEMS PER PERSON. You'll have to find some other place to put the rest of your >stuff. > >EVERYTHING you put in storage must be correctly labeled and you must sign >a contract. Matt Kuhns and I will have both of these documents. Please >see one of us for these documents, and we will monitor the storage and >what you put in. > >By the way, there will be a $15 charge that will be put on your U-bill >for summer storage. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:58:39 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: STC Spare Tire Creed of a tasteful shrubbery ---- The Spare Tire causes the holder to immediately enter Limbo. ---- ats ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:01:45 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Loophole-surfing time >This here is a policy that has to have loopholes in it somewhere. We, of >all people, should be able to find it. <> You could label everything you put in storage as part of your "loft." Find out who's going to be policing the storage area, then we'll have a better idea of what we can get away with. ats why don't we take this off list? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:05:48 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting begins at 14:20 CDT tomorrow. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:35:39 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: prop 479 pronouns Proposal 479 : 19 April 1999, 11:51 CDT : Mary Tupper : Active 1) Transmute 002 to mutable 2) Amend 002 to read as follows: 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 for the purpose of determining ordering of turns and official record keeping. A Player may make a proposal that they shall also be known by an alternate label, and said label may be used in all references to that Player. 3) Transmute 002 to immutable. ---- >From the last sentence of 2), it is unclear to me what all the pronouns refer to. "They" seems to be misused. This isn't normally something I would pick on, but it may change the meaning here. I don't know if it allows Players to make props to change an other Player's identifier. I hope this can be cleared before the vote. ats .,;<<>><;;^^"^^^^,` .<=ZA%AAANNAAAAAgggHgAHpZst<. `cHAgHNNZFUOacncaaszsXsUs=[uaNpc` .xHAHpOFXzuztxnn!<>tZt/c_lF[(n=FcsN> !H%AHNFzFc/u=ZXlzn"""Xa>>1_cZXXzcZ/NN_. 1%@@%AgAgN%pOgOgctpt>(<;;;;;t%%ZcON. :g@%@AUaux//l((ll/11[uazst/>",,,,,^^^";;_U%OuN%. <%%%%AOac(_><;""""""";;;"^^^^^^,,^^""";<%%@@AOFx__>;;"""^^"^^"^^^,,,,,^"""^^";>>>spua%! <$@$$gZst(_><;;"";""""""""^^^^^^^^^^^"<;;;;;""";;"""^""^^,,,,^^;lt__agZU%_ `H$$$Haat(>><;;"";";";;^";^^^^,,,,,^^"/X!(p%Op@! X@$$HZUx!l//1/l_;^"^"""""^,,^";<<<<;">Xl!p%aa%> >OpA$NOOxuaFZZpAAU["""""";"^"xappOaFsux=1_n%%AHc. ,NZOgOOat1(__!(tapOc_;;""";(tzut/(>;;>xaX!(A$Ha_ `HApsFUt/1XzFaaFFOOan>","OApp` .O%Auct/luFctFAs1zZOZ=;,,1nnssc1Fpc!sF[_[l>agAO. .Zgpct1!_!>_([1//tuaUu;`:;>;>(l(((>;_(!>",^^^^""=tUl >Zuz(l>",,^";;",,<[z/^.,"<",,::::```:,,^,^xxF, `=[F!1!^,,:::`:,"!t=>,:,<><",:`.```.`:,"";t>l` ;cO![u>^,,,,,^>(;[l",:^>;^(/_^:``.`:,"_">X(> ^;;!tsn<: "uUONaaZ1xUAAAAggAAAn<,,^;<_([XsaZaZ/(caX; xpccsl_!z%@Osnustx![tx[tO%U[/[;_sFt` .Uzxst_>upgAOc("._.^;<;zax;"<";xZu! ^pcXu>;/ag%%AZ1(/><>_(1!",,^"_sF/. (Z=u!"/N@%AOcx//ll!!!<"^,,,;;"""^,,^>>>;<_[sZ! XHNOanXFpg%gHZ, (FHHOUZasssFszZOt` :A%ANUnuUH%%s. .:,^,;!/xtx/;. " ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:48:16 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: prop 479 pronouns I think it should be 'e'. Ole wrote : :>From the last sentence of 2), it is unclear to me what all the pronouns :refer to. "They" seems to be misused. This isn't normally something I would :pick on, but it may change the meaning here. I don't know if it allows :Players to make props to change an other Player's identifier. I hope this :can be cleared before the vote. : ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:49:28 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: prop 479 pronouns You are correct. I'm still not used to the Spivak system. It should be 'e' Mary Ole Andersen wrote: > > I think it should be 'e'. > > Ole > > > wrote > > : > :>From the last sentence of 2), it is unclear to me what all the pronouns > :refer to. "They" seems to be misused. This isn't normally something I would > :pick on, but it may change the meaning here. I don't know if it allows > :Players to make props to change an other Player's identifier. I hope this > :can be cleared before the vote. > : -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:50:54 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot 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." ------------------------ P476 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. ------------------------- P477 Transmute Rule 113 to mutable. ------------------------- P478 Strike paragraph two of Rule 323/0. ------------------------- P479 1) Transmute 002 to mutable 2) Amend 002 to read as follows: 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 for the purpose of determining ordering of turns and official record keeping. A Player may make a proposal that e shall also be known by an alternate label, and said label may be used in all references to that Player. 3) Transmute 002 to immutable -------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 19:57:50 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Judgement wanted I want the statement: 'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson' judged. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:50:31 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Nick Osborn has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 76: 'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson'. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 16:08:10 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection >Nick Osborn has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 76: > >'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson'. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ Dismissed. The strings of characters are not the same. This, however, doesn't have anything to do with Berserker. ats ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:27:10 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judge selection I appeal. 1 Judgement 75 states that 'Ole Anderson' is to be burned at the Stake. That person is not me. Ole Nick wrote: :>Nick Osborn has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 76: :> :>'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson'. :> :>J. Uckelman :>uckelman@iastate.edu :>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ : :Dismissed. : :The strings of characters are not the same. This, however, doesn't have :anything to do with Berserker. : :ats : ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:02:04 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Spare Tire Creed My new STC: "The holder of the Spare Tire must change eir Spare Tire Creed at least once a week, and never to an already-used effect." Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:57:50 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting ends at 14:20 CDT, 23 April 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 03:21:59 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: A Triumphant Return I exit limbo. I go back in. I leave again. I do the Hokey Pokey and I shake the ruleset all around. ------- I change my Spare Tire Creed to: The holder of the spare tire may only give the Spare Tire to the player with a Spare Tire Creed that could be placed highest on a alphabetically ordered list of Spare Tire Creeds. The holder can and must change the Spare Tire Creed of the player to whom they will be passing it so long as the new Spare Tire Creed includes the text 'The holder can and must change the Spare Tire Creed of the player to whom they will be passing it so long as the new Spare Tire Creed includes the text "'. Hail the Tire Virus, long may it propagate! ---------- I vote "Yes" on all proposals and announce my intention to vote yes on all proposals in the future - no matter how ill concieved in an effort to entirely replace the original ruleset. ---------- In Alphanomic I create the following: TomboR#4: This rule only takes effect if it is in every alphanomic player's personal ruleset. Tom Mueller may claim to win Alphanomic if the rules of Alphanomic "break". ---------- I can't believe what Tom Mueller did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Tom Mueller should be punished by The Mob. If you need a reason, then I guess for wandering off when I was playing... bad me! ---------- I hereby state my intent to become pink and commence by transferring one slack from my self to Josh. ---------- I submit the following Proposal for the next voting period: Prop 480 There is an entity which can vote named The Contemplater's Lotus. The Administrator shall keep a public record of the last time each player entered Limbo and the time they spent there. Only the player whose last period in limbo longer than any non-Limbonic player and who is now not in Limbo has the title Passive Contemplater. Whenever e votes, The Contemplater's Lotus votes the same way. If a new player becomes Passive Contemplater after a vote has been taken but before a vote is resolved, The Contemplater's Lotus changes it votes to match the new, not the old Passive Contemplater. Time in limbo for the purposes of this rule only counts from the time the rule entered the ruleset. Tom Mueller "That everyone can learn to read will ruin in the long run not only writing, but thinking too." - Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part I Zarathustra's Discourses, Of Reading And Writing ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:22:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: A Triumphant Return At 02:21 AM 4/23/99 , Mueller wrote: >I exit limbo. > >I go back in. > >I leave again. > >I do the Hokey Pokey and I shake the ruleset all around. Glad you're back. What happened? >------- > >I change my Spare Tire Creed to: > >The holder of the spare tire may only give the Spare Tire to the player >with a Spare Tire Creed that could be placed highest on a alphabetically >ordered list of Spare Tire Creeds. The holder can and must change the >Spare Tire Creed of the player to whom they will be passing it so long as >the new Spare Tire Creed includes the text 'The holder can and must change >the Spare Tire Creed of the player to whom they will be passing it so long >as the new Spare Tire Creed includes the text "'. > >Hail the Tire Virus, long may it propagate! > >---------- > >I vote "Yes" on all proposals and announce my intention to vote yes on all >proposals in the future - no matter how ill concieved in an effort to >entirely replace the original ruleset. > >---------- > >In Alphanomic I create the following: > >TomboR#4: This rule only takes effect if it is in every alphanomic player's >personal ruleset. Tom Mueller may claim to win Alphanomic if the rules of >Alphanomic "break". > >---------- > >I can't believe what Tom Mueller did! It was an outrage! There outta be a >law! Since there isn't one, Tom Mueller should be punished by The Mob. > > If you need a reason, then I guess for wandering off when > I was playing... bad me! > >---------- > >I hereby state my intent to become pink and commence by transferring one >slack from my self to Josh. > >---------- > >I submit the following Proposal for the next voting period: > >Prop 480 > >There is an entity which can vote named The Contemplater's Lotus. > >The Administrator shall keep a public record of the last time each player >entered Limbo and the time they spent there. > >Only the player whose last period in limbo longer than any non-Limbonic >player and who is now not in Limbo has the title Passive Contemplater. >Whenever e votes, The Contemplater's Lotus votes the same way. If a new >player becomes Passive Contemplater after a vote has been taken but before >a vote is resolved, The Contemplater's Lotus changes it votes to match the >new, not the old Passive Contemplater. > >Time in limbo for the purposes of this rule only counts from the time the >rule entered the ruleset. > >Tom Mueller We're in voting right now. You can't propose that until after 14:20 CDT this afternoon. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:30:01 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge reselection Matt Kuhns, Nick Osborn, and Jeff Schroeder have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 71: All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood literally. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:04:24 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: judge reselection I think you really mean RFJ 72. Although I did post my judgment on this matter in the first 2 court, neither of the other two judges did, so I am concerned with the outcome of 'my' case. Good luck to the new judges, may you all have time to come to a decision. Mary Joel Uckelman wrote: > > Matt Kuhns, Nick Osborn, and Jeff Schroeder have been selected to 2 Court > for RFJ 71: > > All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood > literally. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:25:51 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge reselection At 10:04 AM 4/23/99 , Mary wrote: >I think you really mean RFJ 72. Although I did post my judgment on this >matter in the first 2 court, neither of the other two judges did, so I >am concerned with the outcome of 'my' case. Good luck to the new judges, >may you all have time to come to a decision. > >Mary My bad. It is, in fact 72, not 71. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:03:14 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P475 passed (6-4-0-1). P476 passed (8-2-0-1). P477 failed (4-4-2-1). P478 failed (5-5-0-1). P479 failed (6-3-1-1). The Demon voted with Ole. There were a lot of UPC's awarded... I figure that out later. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 02:04:25 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: voting results :The Demon voted with Ole. Well, did it? In 1 Judgement 75, Ole Anderson was judged to be burnt. Immediately after the Judgement, I pointed out that there was no Ole Anderson. Still, nobody objected to the Judgement. Therefore, Ole Anderson has been burnt. E loses 50 points. And the Demon probably votes with em. According to Rule 002/1, "A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames." Since we cannot know if there is an 'Ole Anderson' who consents to being a game entity, we have a very undefined situation. I say we have a situation as described in Rule 213/0, since we don't know how the Demon votes, and therefore we don't know which proposals are adopted. We need a Judge. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 05:00:14 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: A Triumphant Return At 09:22 AM 4/23/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:21 AM 4/23/99 , Mueller wrote: >>I exit limbo. >> >>I go back in. >> >>I leave again. >> >>I do the Hokey Pokey and I shake the ruleset all around. > >Glad you're back. What happened? Initially my ISP fiddled with its software and messed me out of my connection. By the time that was straightened out I had about 2000 unread emails and was kinda used to my free time (I was also playing Acka and Axiom and watching Agora). So I procrastinated my return and the email backlog got worse... Finally I just purged everything to the last two weeks and got back in Berserker. I'll slowly be building back towards full (if perhaps less exuberant) participation, though I'll probably stop watching agora after I do a CFJ there (they have the interesting tradition/rule which permits non-players to make CFJs). Actually, that might be one of the few ways to get a foot in the door for an invasion. >>------- >> >>I change my Spare Tire Creed to: >> >>The holder of the spare tire may only give the Spare Tire to the player >>with a Spare Tire Creed that could be placed highest on a alphabetically >>ordered list of Spare Tire Creeds. The holder can and must change the >>Spare Tire Creed of the player to whom they will be passing it so long as >>the new Spare Tire Creed includes the text 'The holder can and must change >>the Spare Tire Creed of the player to whom they will be passing it so long >>as the new Spare Tire Creed includes the text "'. Come on! Let's see if we can start a virus. >> >>---------- >> >>I vote "Yes" on all proposals and announce my intention to vote yes on all >>proposals in the future - no matter how ill concieved in an effort to >>entirely replace the original ruleset. >> >>---------- >> >>In Alphanomic I create the following: >> >>TomboR#4: This rule only takes effect if it is in every alphanomic player's >>personal ruleset. Tom Mueller may claim to win Alphanomic if the rules of >>Alphanomic "break". >> >>---------- >> >>I can't believe what Tom Mueller did! It was an outrage! There outta be a >>law! Since there isn't one, Tom Mueller should be punished by The Mob. >> >> If you need a reason, then I guess for wandering off when >> I was playing... bad me! >> >>---------- >> >>I hereby state my intent to become pink and commence by transferring one >>slack from my self to Josh. >> >>---------- >> >>I submit the following Proposal for the next voting period: >> >>Prop 480 >> >>There is an entity which can vote named The Contemplater's Lotus. >> >>The Administrator shall keep a public record of the last time each player >>entered Limbo and the time they spent there. >> >>Only the player whose last period in limbo longer than any non-Limbonic >>player and who is now not in Limbo has the title Passive Contemplater. >>Whenever e votes, The Contemplater's Lotus votes the same way. If a new >>player becomes Passive Contemplater after a vote has been taken but before >>a vote is resolved, The Contemplater's Lotus changes it votes to match the >>new, not the old Passive Contemplater. >> >>Time in limbo for the purposes of this rule only counts from the time the >>rule entered the ruleset. >> > >We're in voting right now. You can't propose that until after 14:20 CDT >this afternoon. That's why I said "for the next voting period". If that didn't work I officially submit it here. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 05:30:28 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: A Triumphant Return >At 09:22 AM 4/23/99 -0500, you wrote: >>At 02:21 AM 4/23/99 , Mueller wrote: >>>I exit limbo. >>> >>>I go back in. >>> >>>I leave again. >>> >>>I do the Hokey Pokey and I shake the ruleset all around. >> >>Glad you're back. What happened? > >Initially my ISP fiddled with its software and messed me out of my >connection. By the time that was straightened out I had about 2000 unread >emails and was kinda used to my free time >(I was also playing Acka and Axiom and watching Agora). > >So I procrastinated my return and the email backlog got worse... > >Finally I just purged everything to the last two weeks and got back in >Berserker. I'll slowly be building back towards full (if perhaps less >exuberant) participation, though I'll probably stop watching agora after I >do a CFJ there (they have the interesting tradition/rule which permits >non-players to make CFJs). > >Actually, that might be one of the few ways to get a foot in the door for >an invasion. > If you're invading agora I might be able to help. Poulenc- nomic MU ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 21:17:55 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: backlog I'll get everything back up to date tomorrow... not much free time the last few days. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 12:27:19 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Tom Plagge, Joel Uckelman, and Nick Osborn have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 75: 'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson'. -------------------------- Because Matt Kuhns did not put himself in the judicial pool, he was not actually eligible to serve on 2 Court for RFJ 72. Due to a lack of judges for the court, restrictions ii and iii are waived, and Joel Uckelman is selected to 2 Court for RFJ 72. Also, neither Aaron Woell nor Tom Mueller are currently in the judicial pool. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:17:30 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring and such Points from voting: +18 Joel Uckelman +14 Nick Osborn +8 Ed Proescholdt +6 Ole Andersen +6 Jeff Schroeder -10 Mary Tupper UPC's: +3 Tom Mueller +3 Mary Tupper +2 Nick Osborn +2 Ed Proescholdt +2 Jeff Schroeder +2 Joel Uckelman +1 Matt Kuhns J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:20:36 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection At 12:27 PM 4/25/99 , I wrote: >Tom Plagge, Joel Uckelman, and Nick Osborn have been selected to 2 Court >for RFJ 75: Oops. That should be 76. >'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson'. > >-------------------------- > >Because Matt Kuhns did not put himself in the judicial pool, he was not >actually eligible to serve on 2 Court for RFJ 72. Due to a lack of judges >for the court, restrictions ii and iii are waived, and Joel Uckelman is >selected to 2 Court for RFJ 72. > >Also, neither Aaron Woell nor Tom Mueller are currently in the judicial pool. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:38:56 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: TM election I just noticed that we missed the TM election right before the last voting period. Unless anyone wants me to step down, I'll continue in the post. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:09:29 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection >Tom Plagge, Joel Uckelman, and Nick Osborn have been selected to 2 Court >for RFJ 75: > >'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson'. > I rule for a Dismissal. See previous Judgement for statements. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:07:13 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: New business With regards to Joel continuing as TM, I have no problems with that. I certainly don't want the job. :) Now onto more important things... ================ disinterested Proposal transmute rule 002 to mutable ================= interested Proposal amend 327/3 to include an attribute known as Alias =================== interested Proposal A Player may make a proposal that e shall also be known by an Alias, and said Alias may be used in all references to that Player within the game of Beserker Nomic. =================== Finally, in accordance with 399/3, I wish to place 5 Slack up for auction. I will accept bids for individual Slack, or for the entire lot of 5 Slack. Starting price will be 1 Suber per Slack. Bidding will start at 15:00 CDT, 25 April, 1999. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:17:06 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: judge reselection >Matt Kuhns, Nick Osborn, and Jeff Schroeder have been selected to 2 Court >for RFJ 71: > >All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood >literally. For my part, I rule False. Literal interpretation is valid, but there are other valid forms of interpretation. In this case, game tradition should guide us in choosing a form of interpretation. In the past third person pronouns were not interpreted literally, so I see no reason to change game tradition. However, if we are ever in a situation where game tradition does not indicate the preferred form of interpretation, we may have to declare a victor. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:29:13 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: Free Slack I offer all my Slack, all 22 units, up to whomever desires it. I initiate any legal Slack transfer of which I am the Victim, for which any Player publicly proclaims a desire. This policy is in effective until I otherwise state. Please share. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:52:41 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Free Slack a tasteful shrubbery wrote: > > I offer all my Slack, all 22 units, up to whomever desires it. I initiate > any legal Slack transfer of which I am the Victim, for which any Player > publicly proclaims a desire. This policy is in effective until I otherwise > state. Please share. > > ats I hereby express an interest in 20 of the 22 units of slack. In return, I will pay 20 Subers to a tasteful shrubbery. Mary *attempting to help ats spread the pinkness* -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:03:19 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: Free Slack >I offer all my Slack, all 22 units, up to whomever desires it. I initiate >any legal Slack transfer of which I am the Victim, for which any Player >publicly proclaims a desire. This policy is in effective until I otherwise >state. Please share. > >ats I formally request that A Tasteful Shrubbery transfer some of his slack to me, in whatever amount he deems appropriate. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:47:12 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Judicial Pool I hereby place myself in the pool. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 16:03:59 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: slack sale I'm not sure that you can sell slack in quantities greater than 1/turn. Selling slack would still be a transfer of slack, i.e. from the seller to the buyer. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 16:02:15 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: pool All players that weren't in Limbo when the judical pool was created are in it automatically. Kuhns is now in the pool as well. The only active players not in the pool are Tom Mueller and Aaron Woell. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:53:25 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: slack sale Joel Uckelman wrote: > > I'm not sure that you can sell slack in quantities greater than 1/turn. > Selling slack would still be a transfer of slack, i.e. from the seller to > the buyer. Rule 399 allows for the sale of property, and by the definition in 399, slack is property. However, rule 473 is the most recently changed rule, so it would take precedence over 399, IF the sale of slack is a 'transfer'. It is my belief that selling/buying and transferring are two different processes. Hence, I repeat my offer to A Tasteful Shrubbery for 20 slack at the price of 20 Subers. I am also still accepting bids for the sale of 5 slack. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:09:15 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: slack sale Mary wrote: : :Rule 399 allows for the sale of property, and by the definition in 399, :slack is property. However, rule 473 is the most recently changed rule, :so it would take precedence over 399, IF the sale of slack is a :'transfer'. It is my belief that selling/buying and transferring are two :different processes. I believe you are both right. If you buy 20 Slack from Mr. Shrubbery, you transfer the ownership of the Slack from em to you. But e may not transfer the actual Slack to you faster than one per turn. So you would have to do it in 20 instalments. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:22:45 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: Re: Free Slack Mary, the Slack is yours if you want it and it's legal for you to take it. I will sell it to you for 0 (zero) Subers. I feel obliged to scold you for not sharing. So... I can't believe what Mary did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Mary should be punished by The Mob. Kuhns, I know that I have at least 2 units of Slack. I may have more if I can't give more than 1 unit to Mary. I sell you 1 unit of Slack for 0 (zero) Subers. If you, or anyone else, want the other one, just state your desire publicly. I'm changing my Free Slack policy, as follows: I offer all my Slack, any Slack I possess, up to whomever desires it. I initiate a Slack auction, 1 (one) unit at a time, with a closing price of 0 (zero) Subers. This policy is in effective until I otherwise state. Please share. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:43:43 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: Free Slack I really botched my policy. The spanking brand new policy follows. I offer all my Slack, any Slack I possess, unto whomever desires it. I initiate a Slack auction, 1 (one) unit at a time, with a closing price of 0 (zero) Subers, per unit. This policy is in effect until I state otherwise. Please share, and I mean it. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:05:35 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: Free Slack a tasteful shrubbery wrote: > > Mary, the Slack is yours if you want it and it's legal for you to take it. Since I agree with Ole's comment, I will accept the slack, to be delivered to me in instalments of 1 slack per turn for the next 20 turns. > I will sell it to you for 0 (zero) Subers. I feel obliged to scold you for > not sharing. I am ashamed of myself for not sharing. Since I cannot share more than one slack per turn, I feel that I must share something to rid myself of the horrible guilt. To that end, I hereby pass the Spare Tire to Matt Kuhns, together with all of the Creeds to date. Further more, I hereby transfer one slack from myself to Joel, who has the least amount slack at this point. Also, since I have 5 UPC's, I will gladly transfer them to whomever becomes the Crowd Shamer successfully. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 20:04:31 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: scoring and such Uckelman wrote: >Points from voting: > >+18 Joel Uckelman >+14 Nick Osborn > +8 Ed Proescholdt > +6 Ole Andersen > +6 Jeff Schroeder >-10 Mary Tupper > >UPC's: >+3 Tom Mueller >+3 Mary Tupper >+2 Nick Osborn >+2 Ed Proescholdt >+2 Jeff Schroeder >+2 Joel Uckelman >+1 Matt Kuhns Now you see that a Changist bias exists in the UPC system. I call on everyone to vote yes on everything in an effort replace all rules that existed at the start of the game. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 19:04:50 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: Free Slack >I am ashamed of myself for not sharing. Since I cannot share more than >one slack per turn, I feel that I must share something to rid myself of >the horrible guilt. To that end, I hereby pass the Spare Tire to Matt >Kuhns, together with all of the Creeds to date. Gee, thanks, you shouldn't have! ...you REALLY shouldn't have. Actually, I don't want the spare tire. You keep it. --- Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns "Anyone who would letterspace black letter would steal sheep." --Frederic Goudy ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 20:14:18 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Down with the immutables! I submit the following proposals: ---------- Make Rule 001 mutable. ---------- Make Rule 003 mutable. ---------- Make Rule 004 mutable. ---------- Make Rule 101 mutable. ---------- Make Rule 102 mutable. ---------- Make Rule 103 mutable. ---------- Make Rule 104 mutable. ---------- Make Rule 105 mutable. ---------- Also, I would like once again to express my dissatisfaction with "mutability" in general. If we want to change something and are prevented then, by definition, our desires are being frustrated. We don't want things that frustrate our wants, also by definition. Therefore, we don't want immutable rules. QED Also, re: The Uckelman Objection (that precedence must be maintained), I think we could come up with some new system which involves precedence but not two step voting. But to put that in place we need to free up some of the rules... so vote yes on the above stuff. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 18:31:36 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Down with the immutables! Mueller wrote: > > I submit the following proposals: <> > Also, I would like once again to express my dissatisfaction with > "mutability" in general. If we want to change something and are prevented > then, by definition, our desires are being frustrated. We don't want things > that frustrate our wants, also by definition. Therefore, we don't want > immutable rules. QED Actually, what you are saying makes sense. If we want to change something, it just takes a couple turns to do it in. The only thing that immutable does is require some proposals to have unanimous approval. One Player can control the game by voting against such proposals. I don't like the idea that a democratic system can be run like a monarchy. > Also, re: The Uckelman Objection (that precedence must be maintained), I > think we could come up with some new system which involves precedence but > not two step voting. But to put that in place we need to free up some of > the rules... so vote yes on the above stuff. If all rules are mutable, then the only precedence would come from the rule numbers and the date of last change. That seems to make the most sense to me, and keeps the game moving a bit faster. The two step procedure slows the game down and decreases my enjoyment of it. Personally, I think this is a good idea, so I will vote yes on these proposals. To show my appreciation of your ideas, I pass the Spare Tire to you. :) Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 18:52:26 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: A forgotten Mob Trying to catch up on everything that has happened the last few days, I noticed that there is another Mob. OK, two of them, but I'm hoping one of them goes away. :) I join the Mob against Tom Mueller. Long Live Anarchy! Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 20:18:49 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: enough of this This subversive attempt to eliminate from Berserker the time-honored concept of immutable rules is dangerous! The forces of anarchy must be stopped at once, lest they undermine the basic degree of stability which makes this game playable. As much as Nomic is, at least orginally, a game of change, it is also a game of rules--thus a game of order, not chaos! And what good does reckless and unregulated change do when there is no standard of consistency against which it can be measured? To this end, I declare opposition to Tom Mueller's recent proposals of transmutation, and moreover I transfer one Slack from Mueller (who should not mind, having stated that it is his intention to achieve pinkness) to Andy Palacek, who is an admirable opponent of change in and out of the game. Matt Kuhns <<>> mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns Nobody ever says "I wanna be a graphic designer when I grow up." ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:19:07 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Down with the immutables! Mueller writes: >I submit the following proposals: >---------- >Make Rule 001 mutable. >---------- >Make Rule 003 mutable. >---------- >Make Rule 004 mutable. >---------- >Make Rule 101 mutable. >---------- >Make Rule 102 mutable. >---------- >Make Rule 103 mutable. >---------- >Make Rule 104 mutable. >---------- >Make Rule 105 mutable. >---------- > >Also, I would like once again to express my dissatisfaction with >"mutability" in general. If we want to change something and are prevented >then, by definition, our desires are being frustrated. We don't want things >that frustrate our wants, also by definition. Therefore, we don't want >immutable rules. QED > >Also, re: The Uckelman Objection (that precedence must be maintained), I >think we could come up with some new system which involves precedence but >not two step voting. But to put that in place we need to free up some of >the rules... so vote yes on the above stuff. OK, I'm leaving limbo now and adding myself back to the judging pool if necessary. This is just too interesting to pass up. So, you're making a terrorist attempt to change the immutable rules? The result otherwise being that you win, eventually, due to UPC accumulation? Josh -- Following the tour, Mercury Rev again went their separate ways; its members found menial jobs, moved in with their parents, or earned money by participating in medical experiments. - from the AMG ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:24:47 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: enough of this Matthew J Kuhns writes: > > >This subversive attempt to eliminate from Berserker the time-honored >concept of immutable rules is dangerous! The forces of anarchy must be >stopped at once, lest they undermine the basic degree of stability which >makes this game playable. As much as Nomic is, at least orginally, a game >of change, it is also a game of rules--thus a game of order, not chaos! And >what good does reckless and unregulated change do when there is no standard >of consistency against which it can be measured? This is clearly an overly value-laden tirade (which, I suppose, is in keeping with the nature of tirades). I would like to hear some justification as to why rules are a sign of order. Look at our real life legal system, as a whole. I wouldn't call such a thing "orderly." The changes Tom promotes are clearly regulated, both by rule, and by some modicum of pace, since the changes require our approval, and because they are partitioned up into separate proposals. Your implication that goodness is relative to consistency (furthermore, consistency in a positive sense) is appalling. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:52:23 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: Mueller's mob I, too, join the mob against the anarchist Mueller. I also wish to point out the following: I will vote in the negative on any transmutations proposed by Mueller. This allows the rest of you to vote in the affirmative, keeping all of your UPCs even with Mueller's. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:28:51 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: too much of this >This is clearly an overly value-laden tirade (which, I suppose, is >in keeping with the nature of tirades). > Hell, can't I have any fun? (Never mind, I know the answer to that.) >I would like to hear some justification as to why rules are a sign >of order. Look at our real life legal system, as a whole. I wouldn't >call such a thing "orderly." I'm supposed to justify a tirade? Well, hm, let's see. I suppose I was really considering the idea of a system without any rules, in which there was no way to predict future behavior (as in the way science seeks patterns that can be treated as a "rule" for predicting things) and therefore no way to have any idea what the effect of any action would be. Though I'm getting a little abstract... > >The changes Tom promotes are clearly regulated, both by rule, and >by some modicum of pace, since the changes require our approval, >and because they are partitioned up into separate proposals. Well, naturally Tom is not proposing genuine anarchy. I was, as I implied, having some fun with my declaration of opposition to his proposals by expressing them in mock-reactionary outrage. > >Your implication that goodness is relative to consistency (furthermore, >consistency in a positive sense) is appalling. Do you mean my justification for transferring a slack to Andy? Again, that was mostly tongue-in-cheek. While I do want a degree of consistency in the game, I was actually kind of poking fun at Andy by naming him a champion of completely static behavior (such as his tendency to sit playing Everquest all day long), which is obviously not a useful goal. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:24:04 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Housekeeping I retract the following proposals 391 392 427 and make 474 active. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:32:05 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Mueller's mob a tasteful shrubbery writes: >I, too, join the mob against the anarchist Mueller. > >I also wish to point out the following: I will vote in the negative on any >transmutations proposed by Mueller. This allows the rest of you to vote in >the affirmative, keeping all of your UPCs even with Mueller's. And I'd like to point out that when the time comes, I will defend Mueller, so joining the mob is pointless. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:37:26 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: too much of this Matthew J Kuhns writes: >>This is clearly an overly value-laden tirade (which, I suppose, is >>in keeping with the nature of tirades). >> >Hell, can't I have any fun? (Never mind, I know the answer to that.) > >>I would like to hear some justification as to why rules are a sign >>of order. Look at our real life legal system, as a whole. I wouldn't >>call such a thing "orderly." > >I'm supposed to justify a tirade? Well, hm, let's see. I suppose I was >really considering the idea of a system without any rules, in which there >was no way to predict future behavior (as in the way science seeks patterns >that can be treated as a "rule" for predicting things) and therefore no way >to have any idea what the effect of any action would be. Though I'm getting >a little abstract... Essentially, science relies on cause and effect being the way we would like to be, as well as on a sort of homogeneity or uniformity - if you've got two things that happen the same way, the same results will occur. All other "rules" are merely based on our own observations and experiences. To this end, even if all rules were repealed, I believe there would still be rules, in the above sense. Or, at the very least, rules would be possible. Some things would still be predictable, happening in a regular fashion. Namely, Joel would make a Joel-face and attempt to Right things. Of course, I think it's silly to be afraid of all rules being repealed upon their becoming immutable. Take society as an example. Do we really believe that people continue to behave because of the _laws_ we've instituted, moral or governmental? It's not so clear-cut. Some do. For some, I think it's more a matter of social dynamics than fear of law. Josh -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:14:43 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Mueller's mob Josh said: : :a tasteful shrubbery writes: :>I, too, join the mob against the anarchist Mueller. :> :>I also wish to point out the following: I will vote in the negative on any :>transmutations proposed by Mueller. This allows the rest of you to vote in :>the affirmative, keeping all of your UPCs even with Mueller's. : :And I'd like to point out that when the time comes, I will defend :Mueller, so joining the mob is pointless. : Absolutely not. I'll join the Mob just to see what you're going to say. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:33:30 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Horror Vacui I propose this new rule: "No Rule numbered higher than 555 may ever exist. If a rule is ever awarded a number higher than 555, it shall immediately be renumbered to have the largest otherwise unused number below 556. If this causes several rules to be renumbered at the same time, they shall be renumbered in their original numerical order." Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:36:54 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: judge reselection I too rule False. See Nick's arguments: At 02:17 PM 4/25/99 -0500, you wrote: >>Matt Kuhns, Nick Osborn, and Jeff Schroeder have been selected to 2 Court >>for RFJ 71: >> >>All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood >>literally. > >For my part, I rule False. Literal interpretation is valid, but there are >other valid forms of interpretation. In this case, game tradition should >guide us in choosing a form of interpretation. In the past third person >pronouns were not interpreted literally, so I see no reason to change game >tradition. > >However, if we are ever in a situation where game tradition does not >indicate the preferred form of interpretation, we may have to declare a >victor. > >ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 01:20:43 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Horror Vacui "Ole Andersen" writes: >I propose this new rule: > >"No Rule numbered higher than 555 may ever exist. >If a rule is ever awarded a number higher than 555, it shall immediately be >renumbered to have the largest otherwise unused number below 556. >If this causes several rules to be renumbered at the same time, they shall >be renumbered in their original numerical order." I cannot in good conscience vote for this proposal unless the critical number n = 555 is replaced by one which meets any of the following conditions. a) n is prime b) n is 666 c) n is the number obtained by summing the ASCII values of the characters in the string "Joel is a pink." Josh -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:14:46 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: A forgotten Mob At 06:52 PM 4/25/99 -0600, you wrote: >Trying to catch up on everything that has happened the last few days, I >noticed that there is another Mob. OK, two of them, but I'm hoping one >of them goes away. :) > >I join the Mob against Tom Mueller. > >Long Live Anarchy! > >Mary Haa! and Faa! I join the Mob against Mary in retaliation. Theology: I have not sinned in Berserker, therefore if I am punished in Berserker I get all kinds of "symbol points" especially if I call the wrath down on myself. In order to further the likelyhood of an act which will pay the debt of all the In-Berserker-Sins of all Berserkers, I join the Mob against myself, too. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:26:23 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Down with the immutables! At 09:19 PM 4/25/99 CDT, you wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>I submit the following proposals: >>---------- >>Make Rule 001 mutable. >>---------- >>Make Rule 003 mutable. >>---------- >>Make Rule 004 mutable. >>---------- >>Make Rule 101 mutable. >>---------- >>Make Rule 102 mutable. >>---------- >>Make Rule 103 mutable. >>---------- >>Make Rule 104 mutable. >>---------- >>Make Rule 105 mutable. >>---------- >> >>Also, I would like once again to express my dissatisfaction with >>"mutability" in general. If we want to change something and are prevented >>then, by definition, our desires are being frustrated. We don't want things >>that frustrate our wants, also by definition. Therefore, we don't want >>immutable rules. QED >> >>Also, re: The Uckelman Objection (that precedence must be maintained), I >>think we could come up with some new system which involves precedence but >>not two step voting. But to put that in place we need to free up some of >>the rules... so vote yes on the above stuff. > >OK, I'm leaving limbo now and adding myself back to the judging >pool if necessary. This is just too interesting to pass up. > >So, you're making a terrorist attempt to change the immutable rules? >The result otherwise being that you win, eventually, due to UPC >accumulation? > >Josh Note that while we can't UPC the passage of transmuters, we can use the UPCs derived from them to try to enact a system which encourages transmution. Note that the rule which gives UPCs power is itself mutable and subject to UPC-boosted amendment. I transfer one slack from myself to Andy. Tom, Spokesman for The Pink Rebellion, Sacrificial Lamb of Berseker, Former Foreign Minister, All-Around Crackpot ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:51:15 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Horror Vacui - updated proposal I propose this new rule: "No Rule numbered higher than 666 may ever exist. If a rule is ever awarded a number higher than 666, it shall immediately be renumbered to have the largest otherwise unused number below 667. If this causes several rules to be renumbered at the same time, they shall be renumbered in their original numerical order." Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:50:09 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Horror Vacui Josh wrote: : :I cannot in good conscience vote for this proposal unless the critical :number n = 555 is replaced by one which meets any of the following conditions. : :a) n is prime :b) n is 666 :c) n is the number obtained by summing the ASCII values of the : characters in the string "Joel is a pink." Fine by me. Let it be 666, instead. Ole PS What is the ASCII value of your statement? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:33:16 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Spare Tire has changed! In the fury of last nights posts, I had passed the Spare Tire to Tom Mueller. Since he never refused it, he is now the possessor of the Spare Tire. :) Mary *Along live Anarchy--Join the Mob of your choice now!* -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:12:12 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: voting results At 07:04 PM 4/23/99 , Ole wrote: >:The Demon voted with Ole. > > >Well, did it? > >In 1 Judgement 75, Ole Anderson was judged to be burnt. >Immediately after the Judgement, I pointed out that there was no Ole >Anderson. >Still, nobody objected to the Judgement. >Therefore, Ole Anderson has been burnt. E loses 50 points. And the Demon >probably votes with em. > >According to Rule 002/1, >"A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and >only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A >Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and >surnames." > >Since we cannot know if there is an 'Ole Anderson' who consents to being a >game entity, we have a very undefined situation. > >I say we have a situation as described in Rule 213/0, since we don't know >how the Demon votes, and therefore we don't know which proposals are >adopted. > >We need a Judge. > > >Ole Regardless of the judgment, it seems pretty clear that you met the criterion for being burnt, since the shaming didn't come at the right time. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:44:26 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Down with the immutables! At 07:14 PM 4/25/99 , Mueller wrote: > >Also, I would like once again to express my dissatisfaction with >"mutability" in general. If we want to change something and are prevented >then, by definition, our desires are being frustrated. We don't want things >that frustrate our wants, also by definition. Therefore, we don't want >immutable rules. QED Immutable rules, while thwarting some immediate desires, prevent precedence problems that would defeat other more important goals we have, like having an enjoyable game. >Also, re: The Uckelman Objection (that precedence must be maintained), I >think we could come up with some new system which involves precedence but >not two step voting. But to put that in place we need to free up some of >the rules... so vote yes on the above stuff. > >Tom Mueller We don't have two step voting now -- you can transmute and amend in the same proposal. Anyway, I want to see what a new precedence system would look like before junking the old one. And I doubt that we'd even be able to implement a new one if we got rid of the one we have now and didn't immediately replace it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:13:19 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Down with the immutables! Joel Uckelman wrote: > > At 07:14 PM 4/25/99 , Mueller wrote: > > > >Also, I would like once again to express my dissatisfaction with > >"mutability" in general. If we want to change something and are prevented > >then, by definition, our desires are being frustrated. We don't want things > >that frustrate our wants, also by definition. Therefore, we don't want > >immutable rules. QED > > Immutable rules, while thwarting some immediate desires, prevent precedence > problems that would defeat other more important goals we have, like having > an enjoyable game. I would like an example of what a precedence problem would be. I personally don't see why being immutable is any more important than having a higher numerical precedence. The only reason I can see to keep a rule immutable is to ensure unanimous approval of changes. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this just means that a single person can vote against it and gain points irreguardless of what the majority of other players wish. Do we really want this game controlled by individual interests? > > >Also, re: The Uckelman Objection (that precedence must be maintained), I > >think we could come up with some new system which involves precedence but > >not two step voting. But to put that in place we need to free up some of > >the rules... so vote yes on the above stuff. > > > >Tom Mueller > > We don't have two step voting now -- you can transmute and amend in the > same proposal. Yes, we do have two step voting now. First we have to get mutability, then we can make the changes. If we fail in getting mutability, then any changes proposed at the same time are worthless. My concern is that at this time we have some people that vote against ANY proposal that involves mutability. Effectively, these few people are controlling the entire game. > Anyway, I want to see what a new precedence system would > look like before junking the old one. And I doubt that we'd even be able to > implement a new one if we got rid of the one we have now and didn't > immediately replace it. > Again I have to ask, What is wrong with numerical and date-change precedence? Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:25:11 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: We don't need no water... I hereby join the Mob. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:41:10 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: We don't need no water... Tom Plagge wrote: > > I hereby join the Mob. Which one? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:43:31 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ack I'm not sure how I got the last judging assignments so completely screwed up, but Nick Osborn wasn't eligible for 2 Court on RFJ 76. Instead, Ed Proescholdt is on that court. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:05:52 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: mob notes The mob against Tom Mueller has sufficient members to burn him. Defenders of Tom are now being looked for. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:04:26 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Horror Vacui - updated proposal At 07:51 AM 4/26/99 , Ole wrote: >I propose this new rule: > >"No Rule numbered higher than 666 may ever exist. >If a rule is ever awarded a number higher than 666, it shall immediately be >renumbered to have the largest otherwise unused number below 667. >If this causes several rules to be renumbered at the same time, they shall >be renumbered in their original numerical order." > >Ole Is the intent to 1) use up unused rule numbers, 2) limit the maximum number of rules, or both? I can't think of any compelling reason to do 1, and the last time we had a rule setting the maximum number of rules, we got rid of it as unnecessary. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:08:02 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge reselection At 02:17 PM 4/25/99 , Nick wrote: >>Matt Kuhns, Nick Osborn, and Jeff Schroeder have been selected to 2 Court >>for RFJ 71: >> >>All references to non-Spivak third person pronouns must be understood >>literally. > >For my part, I rule False. Literal interpretation is valid, but there are >other valid forms of interpretation. In this case, game tradition should >guide us in choosing a form of interpretation. In the past third person >pronouns were not interpreted literally, so I see no reason to change game >tradition. > >However, if we are ever in a situation where game tradition does not >indicate the preferred form of interpretation, we may have to declare a >victor. > >ats I concur. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:20:18 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: We don't need no water... At 11:25 AM 4/26/99 , Plagge wrote: >I hereby join the Mob. You need to specify a Mob to join. There are currently Mobs against Mary Tupper and Tom Mueller. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:29:01 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: mob notes Joel Uckelman writes: >The mob against Tom Mueller has sufficient members to burn him. Defenders >of Tom are now being looked for. "Looked for?" As in, now is a legal time to effectively defend him? Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:21:24 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Horror Vacui "Ole Andersen" writes: >Josh wrote: >: >:I cannot in good conscience vote for this proposal unless the critical >:number n = 555 is replaced by one which meets any of the following >conditions. >: >:a) n is prime >:b) n is 666 >:c) n is the number obtained by summing the ASCII values of the >: characters in the string "Joel is a pink." > > >Fine by me. > >Let it be 666, instead. > >Ole > > >PS What is the ASCII value of your statement? I believe it's 1287. Is that a problem? 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: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:23:23 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: A forgotten Mob At 03:14 AM 4/26/99 , Mueller wrote: >At 06:52 PM 4/25/99 -0600, you wrote: >>Trying to catch up on everything that has happened the last few days, I >>noticed that there is another Mob. OK, two of them, but I'm hoping one >>of them goes away. :) >> >>I join the Mob against Tom Mueller. >> >>Long Live Anarchy! >> >>Mary > >Haa! and Faa! > >I join the Mob against Mary in retaliation. > >Theology: I have not sinned in Berserker, therefore if I am punished in >Berserker I get all kinds of "symbol points" especially if I call the wrath >down on myself. > >In order to further the likelyhood of an act which will pay the debt of all >the In-Berserker-Sins of all Berserkers, I join the Mob against myself, too. > >Tom The Mob against you was already closed when you tried to join it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:34:58 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: mob notes At 01:29 PM 4/26/99 , you wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>The mob against Tom Mueller has sufficient members to burn him. Defenders >>of Tom are now being looked for. > >"Looked for?" As in, now is a legal time to effectively defend him? > >Josh I believe so, yes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:37:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Down with the immutables! At 11:13 AM 4/26/99 , Mary wrote: > >Joel Uckelman wrote: >> >> At 07:14 PM 4/25/99 , Mueller wrote: >> > >> >Also, I would like once again to express my dissatisfaction with >> >"mutability" in general. If we want to change something and are prevented >> >then, by definition, our desires are being frustrated. We don't want things >> >that frustrate our wants, also by definition. Therefore, we don't want >> >immutable rules. QED >> >> Immutable rules, while thwarting some immediate desires, prevent precedence >> problems that would defeat other more important goals we have, like having >> an enjoyable game. > >I would like an example of what a precedence problem would be. I >personally don't see why being immutable is any more important than >having a higher numerical precedence. The only reason I can see to keep >a rule immutable is to ensure unanimous approval of changes. As I >mentioned in an earlier post, this just means that a single person can >vote against it and gain points irreguardless of what the majority of >other players wish. Do we really want this game controlled by individual >interests? > >> >> >Also, re: The Uckelman Objection (that precedence must be maintained), I >> >think we could come up with some new system which involves precedence but >> >not two step voting. But to put that in place we need to free up some of >> >the rules... so vote yes on the above stuff. >> > >> >Tom Mueller >> >> We don't have two step voting now -- you can transmute and amend in the >> same proposal. > >Yes, we do have two step voting now. First we have to get mutability, >then we can make the changes. If we fail in getting mutability, then any >changes proposed at the same time are worthless. My concern is that at >this time we have some people that vote against ANY proposal that >involves mutability. Effectively, these few people are controlling the >entire game. > >> Anyway, I want to see what a new precedence system would >> look like before junking the old one. And I doubt that we'd even be able to >> implement a new one if we got rid of the one we have now and didn't >> immediately replace it. >> > >Again I have to ask, What is wrong with numerical and date-change >precedence? > >Mary Numerical and date-change precedence makes for lots of "This rule takes precedence over..." statements. We end up with the ruleset analog of spaghetti code. Also, it protects us from inadvertantly wiping out things that are necessary for the continuation of the game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:55:31 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: A forgotten Mob Joel Uckelman wrote: > > At 03:14 AM 4/26/99 , Mueller wrote: > >At 06:52 PM 4/25/99 -0600, you wrote: > >>Trying to catch up on everything that has happened the last few days, I > >>noticed that there is another Mob. OK, two of them, but I'm hoping one > >>of them goes away. :) > >> > >>I join the Mob against Tom Mueller. > >> > >>Long Live Anarchy! > >> > >>Mary > > > >Haa! and Faa! > > > >I join the Mob against Mary in retaliation. > > > >Theology: I have not sinned in Berserker, therefore if I am punished in > >Berserker I get all kinds of "symbol points" especially if I call the wrath > >down on myself. > > > >In order to further the likelyhood of an act which will pay the debt of all > >the In-Berserker-Sins of all Berserkers, I join the Mob against myself, too. > > > >Tom > > The Mob against you was already closed when you tried to join it. How can a mob be closed? There may be enough Players involved to qualify for a Mob, and thus enough to call for a Crowd Shamer, but there is nothing to prevent additional Players from joining a Mob. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:17:19 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: We don't need no water... At 11:41 AM 4/26/99 , you wrote: >Tom Plagge wrote: >> >> I hereby join the Mob. > >Which one? All available mobs. Duh...I'm an anarchist! ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:59:53 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Down with the immutables! Joel Uckelman writes: >Numerical and date-change precedence makes for lots of "This rule takes >precedence over..." statements. We end up with the ruleset analog of >spaghetti code. Also, it protects us from inadvertantly wiping out things >that are necessary for the continuation of the game. Saying things this way implies that our current ruleset is not analagous to spaghetti code, which it is. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:36:43 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Down with the immutables! At 03:59 PM 4/26/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>Numerical and date-change precedence makes for lots of "This rule takes >>precedence over..." statements. We end up with the ruleset analog of >>spaghetti code. Also, it protects us from inadvertantly wiping out things >>that are necessary for the continuation of the game. > >Saying things this way implies that our current ruleset is not >analagous to spaghetti code, which it is. > >Josh No, it doesn't. I agree that the ruleset is that way now, but I contend that, ceteris paribus, it would be worse without immutable rules. I think a more productive route would be to begin discussion of a categorical/sectional numbering system. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:43:10 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: Sorry, Mary. I've decided to halt all of my Slack sales to Mary. I believe that she has already purchased 1 (one) unit of Slack. However, she wasn't willing to share, so I will not be delivering the rest of the Slack. I believe that this leaves me with 20 (twenty) units of Slack. The auction continues, per current policy. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:46:51 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: quasi-proposal To solve the precedence problem, I suggest that we convert the ruleset to a categorical/sectional numbering system. What this would mean: Rules would be numbered for their category, subcategory, sub-subcategory ... n-subcategory as in the following examples: 1.1.2 10.24.1.3.56 The first number would be a category like in the Logical Ruleset (thereby merging the Logical and Numerical), and the following numbers would be furhter breakdowns within the categories. Precedence would cascade downward -- the deeper rules would be more specific and contain exceptions, while the less-deep rules would be more general. Does such a system sound like something anyone would want? It would require that many rules be rewritten, as well as some work on the administrative end for me (which I won't have time to do until the end of next week), but I think it would be worth it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:01:38 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: new prop, contracts I realize that backing out on my deal with Mary wasn't very nice, so I'm putting together a prop to discourage such actions in the future. ---- Players may agree to Public Contracts. A Public Contracts must be stated publicly and be identified within the statement as a "Public Contract." A Public Contract is no longer valid when all Parties of the Public Contract hae publicly stated that it is no longer valid. Valid Public Contracts have the force of Rule for all Players who are Party to the Public Contract. Players becomes a Party to a Public Contract by publicly declaring that they are a Party to a Public Contract identified by its assigned number. Public Contracts may have no direct efect upon Players who are not a Party to the Public Contract. Public Contracts are assigned positive integers starting with 1 (one) and progressing by increments of 1 (one). Public Contracts have less precedence than all rules, but more precedence than all Public Contracts assigned a lesser number. ---- This is isn't set in stone, so please let me know of anyway this prop could better fulfill its purpose. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:20:10 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: quasi-proposal >To solve the precedence problem, I suggest that we convert the ruleset to a >categorical/sectional numbering system. > >What this would mean: > >Rules would be numbered for their category, subcategory, sub-subcategory >... n-subcategory as in the following examples: > >1.1.2 >10.24.1.3.56 > >The first number would be a category like in the Logical Ruleset (thereby >merging the Logical and Numerical), and the following numbers would be >furhter breakdowns within the categories. Precedence would cascade downward >-- the deeper rules would be more specific and contain exceptions, while >the less-deep rules would be more general. > >Does such a system sound like something anyone would want? It would require >that many rules be rewritten, as well as some work on the administrative >end for me (which I won't have time to do until the end of next week), but >I think it would be worth it. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ Are you planning on making this change during legal play, or will you do something like last summer's Administrative Review? ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 19:18:07 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Sorry, Mary. a tasteful shrubbery writes: >I've decided to halt all of my Slack sales to Mary. I believe that she has >already purchased 1 (one) unit of Slack. However, she wasn't willing to >share, so I will not be delivering the rest of the Slack. I believe that >this leaves me with 20 (twenty) units of Slack. The auction continues, per >current policy. I present a statement for judgment: Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary. Argument: Nick made an open offer of slack, in any amount, to any party, given that that party "share." An offer of this sort is just like any specific trade between two people (i.e., of Subers, monkey's paws, etc.), except that by making the offer open Nick essentially accepted any comers without knowing who they were in advance. One might say that Nick only accepted offers from those who met his conditions, i.e., "sharing." I contend that because his notion of sharing was not made clear, it is unfair of him to back out of the verbal contract into which he entered. According to Nick's offer, Mary is entitled to the rest of the slack that she wanted, as he made the offer all at once. One possible interpretation of "share" which Nick seems not to have considered is that in which Mary takes slack, then later distributes it to other players. It's important to set a strict precedent here regarding legality of trade under agreement. If Nick was willing to agree to a trade in which the terms were not well-defined, that's his own fault. The party to which he was tradying (Mary) should not lose the benefits of the trade. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:21:05 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Sorry, Mary. a tasteful shrubbery wrote: > > I've decided to halt all of my Slack sales to Mary. I believe that she has > already purchased 1 (one) unit of Slack. However, she wasn't willing to > share, so I will not be delivering the rest of the Slack. I believe that > this leaves me with 20 (twenty) units of Slack. The auction continues, per > current policy. > > ats I don't believe you can halt the sale. But since you have indicated your desire to halt delivery, I can do nothing but refuse to pay you for the slack. I could claim that I owe you no payment at all for the slack that has been transferred, but I'm not vindictive, so I will pay you for the one slack that I have received, (1 Suber). Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 19:20:19 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: quasi-proposal At 06:20 PM 4/26/99 , Nick wrote: >>To solve the precedence problem, I suggest that we convert the ruleset to a >>categorical/sectional numbering system. >> >>What this would mean: >> >>Rules would be numbered for their category, subcategory, sub-subcategory >>... n-subcategory as in the following examples: >> >>1.1.2 >>10.24.1.3.56 >> >>The first number would be a category like in the Logical Ruleset (thereby >>merging the Logical and Numerical), and the following numbers would be >>furhter breakdowns within the categories. Precedence would cascade downward >>-- the deeper rules would be more specific and contain exceptions, while >>the less-deep rules would be more general. >> >>Does such a system sound like something anyone would want? It would require >>that many rules be rewritten, as well as some work on the administrative >>end for me (which I won't have time to do until the end of next week), but >>I think it would be worth it. >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu >>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > >Are you planning on making this change during legal play, or will you do >something like last summer's Administrative Review? > >ats The only way an Admin Review would happen would be if the game should, for whatever reason, become unplayable. I was suggesting this in the context of the normal proposal process. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 20:29:11 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Sorry, Mary. >a tasteful shrubbery wrote: >> >> I've decided to halt all of my Slack sales to Mary. I believe that she has >> already purchased 1 (one) unit of Slack. However, she wasn't willing to >> share, so I will not be delivering the rest of the Slack. I believe that >> this leaves me with 20 (twenty) units of Slack. The auction continues, per >> current policy. >> >> ats > >I don't believe you can halt the sale. But since you have indicated your >desire to halt delivery, I can do nothing but refuse to pay you for the >slack. I could claim that I owe you no payment at all for the slack that >has been transferred, but I'm not vindictive, so I will pay you for the >one slack that I have received, (1 Suber). > >Mary Don't overpay me of the Slack. I'm selling Slack for 0 (zero) Subers. Please pay me only 0 (zero) Subers. ats ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 19:40:21 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: Sorry, Mary. a tasteful shrubbery wrote: > > >a tasteful shrubbery wrote: > >> > >> I've decided to halt all of my Slack sales to Mary. I believe that she has > >> already purchased 1 (one) unit of Slack. However, she wasn't willing to > >> share, so I will not be delivering the rest of the Slack. I believe that > >> this leaves me with 20 (twenty) units of Slack. The auction continues, per > >> current policy. > >> > >> ats > > > >I don't believe you can halt the sale. But since you have indicated your > >desire to halt delivery, I can do nothing but refuse to pay you for the > >slack. I could claim that I owe you no payment at all for the slack that > >has been transferred, but I'm not vindictive, so I will pay you for the > >one slack that I have received, (1 Suber). > > > >Mary > > Don't overpay me of the Slack. I'm selling Slack for 0 (zero) Subers. > Please pay me only 0 (zero) Subers. > Since you are being difficult about this, I will pay 5 Subers for the one slack I have received. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 21:02:44 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: Sorry, Mary. >Since you are being difficult about this, I will pay 5 Subers for the >one slack I have received. > >Mary I would prefer that you donate them to a worthwhile charity. ats ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 00:52:49 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: quasi-proposal Joel Uckelman writes: >To solve the precedence problem, I suggest that we convert the ruleset to a >categorical/sectional numbering system. > >What this would mean: > >Rules would be numbered for their category, subcategory, sub-subcategory >... n-subcategory as in the following examples: > >1.1.2 >10.24.1.3.56 > >The first number would be a category like in the Logical Ruleset (thereby >merging the Logical and Numerical), and the following numbers would be >furhter breakdowns within the categories. Precedence would cascade downward >-- the deeper rules would be more specific and contain exceptions, while >the less-deep rules would be more general. > >Does such a system sound like something anyone would want? It would require >that many rules be rewritten, as well as some work on the administrative >end for me (which I won't have time to do until the end of next week), but >I think it would be worth it. If we obsolece the numerical ruleset, I think replacing it with a chronological one would be helpful. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:09:05 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Jokes, Slack, & Mutability Here's something I picked up off of Agora-Discussion that amused me... <---QUOTE---> FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk. PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need. BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need. FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk. RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment. MILITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you. PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk. AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate". BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheeps' brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything. BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.. ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows. CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly - listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother - in - law at the bank, then execute a debt / equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the fung shiu is bad. ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them. FEMINISM: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf. TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned. COUNTER CULTURE: Wow, dude, there's like... these two cows, man. You got to have some of this milk. SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. LIBERTARIANISM: You have two cows. One has actually read the constitution, believes in it, and has some really good ideas about government. The cow runs for office, and while most people agree that the cow is the best candidate, nobody except the other cow votes for her because they think it would be "throwing their vote away." AGORA NOMIC: You create a Rule giving each Player two Cows. Another Player finds a loophole which allows em to create for himself an infinite number of Cows, and turn the Milk into Voting Tokens, which e uses to pass another Rule declaring em Grand Poohbah of All Agora. The legality of this move is hotly disputed on the discussion list, causing two Kudo Wars, one Writ of FAGE, and a stream of CFJs and Appeals which eventually prove that the original Proposal was not properly submitted, and none of this actually happened. <---Quote---> Also, Joel gets one of my Slack via a transfer. And here's a prop in the SWIFTFIX delimited text: SWIFTFIX Transmute and repeal R109. SWIFTFIX Note that the only effect of this will be to eliminate the hostage-monarchy effect. I've heard no defenses of this particular quality, so it should make everyone happy. Also, I believe that this is my tenth proposal and so I'm at this turn's limit, if my count is off and this bumps me over then I'll just retract the most recently listed "simple transmution" prop to make room for this one. Tom, Keepor Of The Tire ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:11:17 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: quasi-proposal >Joel Uckelman writes: >>To solve the precedence problem, I suggest that we convert the ruleset to a >>categorical/sectional numbering system. >> >>What this would mean: >> >>Rules would be numbered for their category, subcategory, sub-subcategory >>... n-subcategory as in the following examples: >> >>1.1.2 >>10.24.1.3.56 >> >>The first number would be a category like in the Logical Ruleset (thereby >>merging the Logical and Numerical), and the following numbers would be >>furhter breakdowns within the categories. Precedence would cascade downward >>-- the deeper rules would be more specific and contain exceptions, while >>the less-deep rules would be more general. >> >>Does such a system sound like something anyone would want? It would require >>that many rules be rewritten, as well as some work on the administrative >>end for me (which I won't have time to do until the end of next week), but >>I think it would be worth it. > >If we obsolece the numerical ruleset, I think replacing it with >a chronological one would be helpful. > Josh may have a point. The more complicated the precedence system, the more likely it is to have loopholes. ats ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:21:07 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: quasi-proposal a tasteful shrubbery writes: >Josh may have a point. The more complicated the precedence system, the more >likely it is to have loopholes. No, I just mean that I'd want the rules arranged chronologically so that I could find things. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:35:15 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: Two cows Berserker Nomic: You create a poorly worded proposal giving everyone two cows. Someone discovers a loophole flooding Berserker with cows. Someone else argues against the cow-happy interpretation on grounds that require the use of a Latin phrase. Everyone gets tired of talking about cows. The cows go completely ignored for the remainder of the game. ats ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:07:24 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: quasi-proposal At 12:52 AM 4/27/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>To solve the precedence problem, I suggest that we convert the ruleset to a >>categorical/sectional numbering system. >> >>What this would mean: >> >>Rules would be numbered for their category, subcategory, sub-subcategory >>... n-subcategory as in the following examples: >> >>1.1.2 >>10.24.1.3.56 >> >>The first number would be a category like in the Logical Ruleset (thereby >>merging the Logical and Numerical), and the following numbers would be >>furhter breakdowns within the categories. Precedence would cascade downward >>-- the deeper rules would be more specific and contain exceptions, while >>the less-deep rules would be more general. >> >>Does such a system sound like something anyone would want? It would require >>that many rules be rewritten, as well as some work on the administrative >>end for me (which I won't have time to do until the end of next week), but >>I think it would be worth it. > >If we obsolece the numerical ruleset, I think replacing it with >a chronological one would be helpful. > > >Josh Chronological, as in the rules are arranged by when they were enacted? That's what we had way back when the game started -- the rule numbers changed when rules were amended. I though that way of arranging thing was sort of icky for keeping records. Is this what you mean, or am I misunderstanding? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:13:42 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Matt Kuhns has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 77: Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:23:34 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Jokes, Slack, & Mutability At 01:09 AM 4/27/99 , Mueller wrote: > >Also, Joel gets one of my Slack via a transfer. Thanks. >And here's a prop in the SWIFTFIX delimited text: > >SWIFTFIX >Transmute and repeal R109. >SWIFTFIX > >Note that the only effect of this will be to eliminate the hostage-monarchy >effect. I've heard no defenses of this particular quality, so it should >make everyone happy. > >Also, I believe that this is my tenth proposal and so I'm at this turn's >limit, if my count is off and this bumps me over then I'll just retract the >most recently listed "simple transmution" prop to make room for this one. > >Tom, Keepor Of The Tire I will vote for this, provided that some modifications are made: 1. Delete only the first sentence of R109. The second sentence is important regardless of whether you want it to still require unanimity for transmutations. 2. Add a provision to keep the unanimity requirement for R001, R101, and R109. 3. Transmute R109 back to immutable. Why this is a good compromise: It (mostly) removes the barrier to changing immutable rules [what you want], but maintains immutability as a precedence tool until we are ready to dispense with it [what I want]. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:34:27 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Jokes, Slack, & Mutability At 10:23 AM 4/27/99 , I wrote: >At 01:09 AM 4/27/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>Also, Joel gets one of my Slack via a transfer. > >Thanks. > >>And here's a prop in the SWIFTFIX delimited text: >> >>SWIFTFIX >>Transmute and repeal R109. >>SWIFTFIX >> >>Note that the only effect of this will be to eliminate the hostage-monarchy >>effect. I've heard no defenses of this particular quality, so it should >>make everyone happy. >> >>Also, I believe that this is my tenth proposal and so I'm at this turn's >>limit, if my count is off and this bumps me over then I'll just retract the >>most recently listed "simple transmution" prop to make room for this one. >> >>Tom, Keepor Of The Tire > >I will vote for this, provided that some modifications are made: > >1. Delete only the first sentence of R109. The second sentence is important >regardless of whether you want it to still require unanimity for >transmutations. > >2. Add a provision to keep the unanimity requirement for R001, R101, and R109. > >3. Transmute R109 back to immutable. > > >Why this is a good compromise: > >It (mostly) removes the barrier to changing immutable rules [what you >want], but maintains immutability as a precedence tool until we are ready >to dispense with it [what I want]. An oversight on my part: add R110 to the above list -- it's necessary to maintain the precedence relationships. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:09:51 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Re: RFJ 77 Statement: Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary. Ruling: TRUE Comments: The current rules are very unclear on a lot of the issues involved in this case, and my decision ultimately rested more on extrapolation from custom and intent than on actual rules. Having said that, I saw the issue this way: Rule 399 really only specifically addresses the sale of property through auction. Based on the way auctions and suber exchanges work, however, it can be considered a generally-accepted game custom that a sale would be complete immediately upon both the seller and buyer publicly announcing the sale. Therefore upon A Tasteful Shrubbery's (Nick's) pronouncement that he would sell the slack to Mary for zero subers, the sale was complete. As a result it was not possible for ATS to halt the sale because it was already over. Off the record: I tried as best I could to address only the specific issue judgment had been requested for: the sale of Nick's slack. Other matters, such as whether Nick could still halt the transfer of the slack (let alone whether or not it was even possible for him to sell or transfer 20 slack to one player at once) are anyone's guess. We really need to clear up a lot of things in regards to this slack deal gone bad. I would suggest in particular that we give some attention to better defining terms like "sale," "trade," and "transfer" and what rules apply to which. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:14:35 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Thelma Charity Fund Since ATS has requested that I give my Subers to a charity, and since there are no charities in Beserker Nomic, I make the following proposal. ============== There shall be an entity in Beserker Nomic known as the Thelma Charity Fund. Players may donate any item [[slack, UPC, Subers]] that ey are in possession of to the Fund. This donation may be made at any time, except during the voting period. Ey may donate any non-negative amount of the items or property. After the voting period has ended, but prior to the beginning of the next turn, the administrator will distribute all items and property within the Fund as follows: 1) The Player with the least amount of that particular item will receive the entire amount of those items in the Fund. 2) If there are two or more Players tied for the least amount of a particular item, then the administrator will split it evenly between the qualifying Players, with any leftovers remaining in the Fund. ========================= Since the Thelma Charity Fund is an entity, it is not bound by the single slack per turn transfer. 473 restricts transfers between Players, not between an entity and a Player. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:38:33 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: mob update The mob against Tom Mueller burnt him at the stake this morning at 2:21 CDT (because Josh forgot to defend him like he said he would). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:31:43 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new proposal I'm making this proposal again because there seems to be no compelling reason to have proxy voting, and since the voting on it last time was so close. --------- Strike paragraph two of Rule 323/0. --------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:41:21 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: mob update Joel Uckelman writes: >The mob against Tom Mueller burnt him at the stake this morning at 2:21 CDT >(because Josh forgot to defend him like he said he would). Didn't forget. Tom's cause needs a martyr. Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:57:48 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Thelma Charity Fund >Since ATS has requested that I give my Subers to a charity, and since >there are no charities in Beserker Nomic, I make the following proposal. > >============== >There shall be an entity in Beserker Nomic known as the Thelma Charity >Fund. Players may donate any item [[slack, UPC, Subers]] that ey are in >possession of to the Fund. This donation may be made at any time, except >during the voting period. Ey may donate any non-negative amount of the >items or property. After the voting period has ended, but prior to the >beginning of the next turn, the administrator will distribute all items >and property within the Fund as follows: > >1) The Player with the least amount of that particular item will >receive the entire amount of those items in the Fund. > >2) If there are two or more Players tied for the least amount of a >particular item, then the administrator will split it evenly between the >qualifying Players, with any leftovers remaining in the Fund. > >========================= >Since the Thelma Charity Fund is an entity, it is not bound by the >single slack per turn transfer. 473 restricts transfers between Players, >not between an entity and a Player. > >Mary >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >A program is a device used to convert data into error messages >http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen >Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ >----------------------------------------------------------------------- This will only serve as a dumping ground for Players who wish to rid themselves of detrimental items. What wouid happen if a unique item, such as the spare tire, were donated? ats ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:55:05 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: RFJ 77 >Statement: >Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary. > >Ruling: TRUE > >Comments: >The current rules are very unclear on a lot of the issues involved in this >case, and my decision ultimately rested more on extrapolation from custom >and intent than on actual rules. >Having said that, I saw the issue this way: Rule 399 really only >specifically addresses the sale of property through auction. Based on the >way auctions and suber exchanges work, however, it can be considered a >generally-accepted game custom that a sale would be complete immediately >upon both the seller and buyer publicly announcing the sale. Therefore upon >A Tasteful Shrubbery's (Nick's) pronouncement that he would sell the slack >to Mary for zero subers, the sale was complete. As a result it was not >possible for ATS to halt the sale because it was already over. > >Off the record: >I tried as best I could to address only the specific issue judgment had >been requested for: the sale of Nick's slack. Other matters, such as >whether Nick could still halt the transfer of the slack (let alone whether >or not it was even possible for him to sell or transfer 20 slack to one >player at once) are anyone's guess. >We really need to clear up a lot of things in regards to this slack deal >gone bad. I would suggest in particular that we give some attention to >better defining terms like "sale," "trade," and "transfer" and what rules >apply to which. > > >--- > Matt Kuhns > mjkuhns@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns I wish to appeal the decision delivered by Kuhns. He makes a reference to game custom but does not state any specific examples. I believe this is because there are no examples, so there is no precedent, so there is no game tradition. He says it is possible to halt transfers only before they take place. As of yet, I have only transferred 1 (one) Slack to Mary. By Kuhns own reasoning, I should be able to prevent the transfer of the remaining 19 (nineteen). In Kuhns' off the record statement, it is clear that he did not properly judge the statement. "I tried as best I could to address only the specific issue judgment had been requested for: the sale of Nick's slack." In fact, the judgement addresses the issue of halting the sale of Slack, not just the sale of Slack. "[W]hether Nick could still halt the transfer of the slack... [is] anyone's guess." As this issue would appear to be the heart of the RFJ, I believe Kuhns' confession that he didn't consider it demands that the statement be reexamined by the court. I patiently await the validation of my actions. ats ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:03:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Thelma Charity Fund a tasteful shrubbery writes: >>Since ATS has requested that I give my Subers to a charity, and since >>there are no charities in Beserker Nomic, I make the following proposal. >> >>============== >>There shall be an entity in Beserker Nomic known as the Thelma Charity >>Fund. Players may donate any item [[slack, UPC, Subers]] that ey are in >>possession of to the Fund. This donation may be made at any time, except >>during the voting period. Ey may donate any non-negative amount of the >>items or property. After the voting period has ended, but prior to the >>beginning of the next turn, the administrator will distribute all items >>and property within the Fund as follows: >> >>1) The Player with the least amount of that particular item will >>receive the entire amount of those items in the Fund. >> >>2) If there are two or more Players tied for the least amount of a >>particular item, then the administrator will split it evenly between the >>qualifying Players, with any leftovers remaining in the Fund. >> >>========================= >>Since the Thelma Charity Fund is an entity, it is not bound by the >>single slack per turn transfer. 473 restricts transfers between Players, >>not between an entity and a Player. >> >>Mary >>-- >>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>A program is a device used to convert data into error messages >>http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen >>Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ >>----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >This will only serve as a dumping ground for Players who wish to rid >themselves of detrimental items. What wouid happen if a unique item, such >as the spare tire, were donated? Clearly the prop. states that such an item would be split. The effects of splittin the Spare Tire are open to speculation, I think. -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:07:14 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: Thelma Charity Fund a tasteful shrubbery wrote: > > >Since ATS has requested that I give my Subers to a charity, and since > >there are no charities in Beserker Nomic, I make the following proposal. > > > >============== > >There shall be an entity in Beserker Nomic known as the Thelma Charity > >Fund. Players may donate any item [[slack, UPC, Subers]] that ey are in > >possession of to the Fund. This donation may be made at any time, except > >during the voting period. Ey may donate any non-negative amount of the > >items or property. After the voting period has ended, but prior to the > >beginning of the next turn, the administrator will distribute all items > >and property within the Fund as follows: > > > >1) The Player with the least amount of that particular item will > >receive the entire amount of those items in the Fund. > > > >2) If there are two or more Players tied for the least amount of a > >particular item, then the administrator will split it evenly between the > >qualifying Players, with any leftovers remaining in the Fund. > > > >========================= > >Since the Thelma Charity Fund is an entity, it is not bound by the > >single slack per turn transfer. 473 restricts transfers between Players, > >not between an entity and a Player. > > > >Mary > This will only serve as a dumping ground for Players who wish to rid > themselves of detrimental items. Sure, they can dump it, but at the end of the turn they may just get it all back. Some interesting possibilities there. ;) > What wouid happen if a unique item, such > as the spare tire, were donated? Darn it, I knew there were supposed to be three clauses in my proposal, but I couldn't remember the third. 3) Unique items may not be donated to the Fund. Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:26:07 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: defending RFJ 77 > >I wish to appeal the decision delivered by Kuhns. In coming up with my judgment, I realized that were I to return a "FALSE" it would almost certainly be appealed. Apparently RFJ 77 was a no-win situation from the beginning... so glad I invested time and effort trying to come up with and explain a sensible judgment... =P > >He makes a reference to game custom but does not state any specific >examples. I believe this is because there are no examples, so there is no >precedent, so there is no game tradition. One of the difficulties I faced in this decision was the fact that I have been back in the game for all of, what, a week? Is it a game custom to need specific examples of game custom when referring to it in a judgment? I probably should have used the term "sprit of the game" but either way it's unlikely to convince someone unhappy with the decision, so screw it. > >He says it is possible to halt transfers only before they take place. As of >yet, I have only transferred 1 (one) Slack to Mary. By Kuhns own reasoning, >I should be able to prevent the transfer of the remaining 19 (nineteen). Excuse me? I said no such thing--I said the SALE of slack may not be halted after it has been publicly acknowledged by both parties. Transfer may be another issue entirely--or it may not be; I wasn't asked to rule on that and so I didn't deal with it in my judgment. So depending on how other issues are defined, YES, my judgment may very well permit halting of the transfer of slack in this instance, as I stated clearly in my OTR comments. > >In Kuhns' off the record statement, it is clear that he did not properly >judge the statement. "I tried as best I could to address only the specific >issue judgment had been requested for: the sale of Nick's slack." I was referring to "the sale of slack" as opposed to the transfer of slack, not specifically the sale of slack as opposed to halting the sale of slack. In fact, >the judgement addresses the issue of halting the sale of Slack, not just >the sale of Slack. "[W]hether Nick could still halt the transfer of the >slack... [is] anyone's guess." As this issue would appear to be the heart >of the RFJ, I believe Kuhns' confession that he didn't consider it demands >that the statement be reexamined by the court. I was asked to rule on the statement "Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary." Whether transfer of slack was actually "the heart of the RFJ" is immaterial--it was not mentioned in the statement. Maybe the sale of slack and transfer of slack are the same thing, maybe they aren't, but that was not my task to decide either. It isn't a judge's responsibility to solve broad inadequecies of the game, no matter how badly they need solving--a judge is responsible for examining one specific statement and determining it true or false. If a ruling still does not resolve an issue because of related questions, then the solution is to answer those questions with proposals or other RFJs, not by expecting judges to overstep the bounds of their authority. Matt Kuhns <<>> mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns Nobody ever says "I wanna be a graphic designer when I grow up." ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:03:51 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: defending RFJ 77 Pardon my, Kuhns, I hadn't considered the difference between the sale and the transfer. I do not desire that a judge ever overstep his authority. In this case, I did not realize that it would be necessary for you to do so so as to have any effect upon the matter at hand. My apologies. ats ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 01:25:18 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: mob update At 09:38 PM 4/27/99 -0500, you wrote: >The mob against Tom Mueller burnt him at the stake this morning at 2:21 CDT >(because Josh forgot to defend him like he said he would). > And the Angel of Fiery Rulesets came down from the rubish heap in the sky And the Angel of Fiery Rulesets DID flap about scaring children a good bit And the Angel of Fiery Rulesets DID glare menacingly at all Berserker players and various voting entities after their kind, and pigeons and birds after their kind, and subers and currency after its kind, and nick and shrubberies after his kind And the Angel of Fiery Rulesets DID then break forth to spake, most mightily quothing: Yea, and on the 17th day shall he rise again in fulfillment of ancient prophesies, n'stuff. ----- I give one slack to Josh for being the Judas (only helpful) in this story. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 01:26:01 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Thelma Charity Fund At 06:14 PM 4/27/99 -0600, you wrote: >Since ATS has requested that I give my Subers to a charity, and since >there are no charities in Beserker Nomic, I make the following proposal. > >============== >There shall be an entity in Beserker Nomic known as the Thelma Charity >Fund. Players may donate any item [[slack, UPC, Subers]] that ey are in >possession of to the Fund. This donation may be made at any time, except >during the voting period. Ey may donate any non-negative amount of the >items or property. After the voting period has ended, but prior to the >beginning of the next turn, the administrator will distribute all items >and property within the Fund as follows: > >1) The Player with the least amount of that particular item will >receive the entire amount of those items in the Fund. > >2) If there are two or more Players tied for the least amount of a >particular item, then the administrator will split it evenly between the >qualifying Players, with any leftovers remaining in the Fund. > >========================= >Since the Thelma Charity Fund is an entity, it is not bound by the >single slack per turn transfer. 473 restricts transfers between Players, >not between an entity and a Player. > I am opposed to charity for two reasons: 1. I'm a stingy stinker who thinks the poor get what they deserve in a game like this, where the poor are just as enfranchised as everybody else. 2. I don't want anyone going and ruining my pinkness by backhandedly donating a bunch of slack to me. Needless to say, I will be voting for this prop anyway. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:41:11 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: mob update Mueller wrote and the Angel of Fiery Rulsets spake: <> > Yea, and on the 17th day shall he rise again in fulfillment of ancient > prophesies, n'stuff. Boy, good thing you are arising two days before The Phantom Menace. You will still have time to stand in line. ;0 Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A program is a device used to convert data into error messages http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 03:33:11 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Jokes, Slack, & Mutability Uckelman wrote: >At 01:09 AM 4/27/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>Also, Joel gets one of my Slack via a transfer. > >Thanks. No problem :) >>And here's a prop in the SWIFTFIX delimited text: >> >>SWIFTFIX >>Transmute and repeal R109. >>SWIFTFIX >> >>Note that the only effect of this will be to eliminate the hostage-monarchy >>effect. I've heard no defenses of this particular quality, so it should >>make everyone happy. >> >>Also, I believe that this is my tenth proposal and so I'm at this turn's >>limit, if my count is off and this bumps me over then I'll just retract the >>most recently listed "simple transmution" prop to make room for this one. >> >>Tom, Keepor Of The Tire > >I will vote for this, provided that some modifications are made: > >1. Delete only the first sentence of R109. The second sentence is important >regardless of whether you want it to still require unanimity for >transmutations. The entire text of the rule in question: Rule 109/2(i) : Transmutation of Rules Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules, or mutable rules into immutable rules, may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the non-neutral voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect. Why does it matter? Are you worried that some normal action might cause a transmutation? I don't think that can happen, given the "Definition of a rule change" rule. So why not kill it all. >2. Add a provision to keep the unanimity requirement for R001, R101, and R109. > >3. Transmute R109 back to immutable. > > >Why this is a good compromise: > >It (mostly) removes the barrier to changing immutable rules [what you >want], Except I want it totally. I dislike the monarchy effect everywhere. >but maintains immutability as a precedence tool until we are ready >to dispense with it [what I want]. Your proposed modification of this prop has nothing to do with precedence worries and everything to do with keeping monarchy on particular things, so to claim these changes represent a compromise of the type above is nonsensical. I AGREE that the precedence functions of immutables is useful until we work out a better system, but unanimity requirments are unnecessary, nay, EVIL. I'll leave it as it is and if you veto then I'll just use the UPC to go at it some other way. Vive la transformed ruleset! Tom ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:42:03 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: regarding alphanomic Alphanomic had been dead for some time now, but I'm having difficulty figuring out when the internal rule that killed it was adopted. Does anyone have this information? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:12:06 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: the appeal >Pardon my, Kuhns, I hadn't considered the difference between the sale and >the transfer. I do not desire that a judge ever overstep his authority. In >this case, I did not realize that it would be necessary for you to do so so >as to have any effect upon the matter at hand. My apologies. 'S alright. Based on these comments, though, perhaps the judges for the appeal ats requested (whenever they are named) should consider simply dismissing the case... --- Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns "Anyone who would letterspace black letter would steal sheep." --Frederic Goudy ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:43:38 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Request for a sponsor I would like to join this game of Berserker Nomic. Therefore I request a sponsor from among the existing players. Dan Waldron wald7330@mach1.wlu.ca ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:43:38 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Request for a sponsor I would like to join this game of Berserker Nomic. Therefore I request a sponsor from among the existing players. Dan Waldron wald7330@mach1.wlu.ca ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:06:08 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Request for a sponsor Ok, I'll sponsor Dan, if he doesn't double-send again. OK, I'll sponsor him anyway. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 18:23:19 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Request for a sponsor >Ok, > >I'll sponsor Dan, if he doesn't double-send again. > >OK, I'll sponsor him anyway. > > >Ole sorry for double-sending. I tried to cancel before it went through the first time but I must have been too late. DW ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:26:45 -0500 From: Nick Osborn Subject: Nomic: sponsorship As token of my attempts to bring peace to the Balkans, I wish to express my desire to sponsor all displaced ethnic Albanians as well as all Serbians. This is on one condition: each must join the game in conjunction with a member of the opposite faction. This is just one facet of my plan to use my Nomic powers for the good of all humankind. ats ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:33:43 -0500 From: exodus Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Request for a sponsor Maybe I should make dan my proxy voter? Hahaha!!!! Or maybe he would like to nominate Ed? ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:33:42 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: sponsorship Nick Osborn writes: >As token of my attempts to bring peace to the Balkans, I wish to express my >desire to sponsor all displaced ethnic Albanians as well as all Serbians. >This is on one condition: each must join the game in conjunction with a >member of the opposite faction. > >This is just one facet of my plan to use my Nomic powers for the good of >all humankind. I object to this sponsorship, and call for the votes allowable under the rules. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:30:41 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: sponsorship At 07:33 PM 4/28/99 , Josh wrote: > >Nick Osborn writes: >>As token of my attempts to bring peace to the Balkans, I wish to express my >>desire to sponsor all displaced ethnic Albanians as well as all Serbians. >>This is on one condition: each must join the game in conjunction with a >>member of the opposite faction. >> >>This is just one facet of my plan to use my Nomic powers for the good of >>all humankind. > >I object to this sponsorship, and call for the votes allowable under >the rules. > >Josh This only expresses Nicks desire to do so, rather than actually doing so. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 21:25:22 -0500 From: Nick Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: sponsorship >Nick Osborn writes: >>As token of my attempts to bring peace to the Balkans, I wish to express my >>desire to sponsor all displaced ethnic Albanians as well as all Serbians. >>This is on one condition: each must join the game in conjunction with a >>member of the opposite faction. >> >>This is just one facet of my plan to use my Nomic powers for the good of >>all humankind. > >I object to this sponsorship, and call for the votes allowable under >the rules. > >Josh > It's a joke, son, but what the hell are you talking about? ats ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 21:36:20 CDT From: Andrew D Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: Request for a sponsor I don't think anyone has done this yet, so: I propose we add Dan Waldron as a player. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 07:29:55 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Judgement wanted Statement: "In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players." The two are mentioned separately, and no mention is made of their being the same. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:07:23 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement wanted "Ole Andersen" writes: >Statement: > >"In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players." > > >The two are mentioned separately, and no mention is made of their being the >same. > > >Ole > Man, Tom, you sure generated a stinker with that rule. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:21:41 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement wanted At 07:29 AM 4/29/99 +0200, you wrote: >Statement: > >"In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players." > > >The two are mentioned separately, and no mention is made of their being the >same. > I give a slack to Joel. In other business, I'd like to register a religious opinion: Ole is clearly a dirty ratfink who is trying to retroactively steal my glorious sacrifice from the good people of Berseker, and for this I declare Ole the Burning Heresiarch, may he be spurned lots by angels, or whatever. On a more substantive level: I disagree! Tom ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:24:57 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: sponsorship Nick Osborn writes: >>Nick Osborn writes: >>>As token of my attempts to bring peace to the Balkans, I wish to express my >>>desire to sponsor all displaced ethnic Albanians as well as all Serbians. >>>This is on one condition: each must join the game in conjunction with a >>>member of the opposite faction. >>> >>>This is just one facet of my plan to use my Nomic powers for the good of >>>all humankind. >> >>I object to this sponsorship, and call for the votes allowable under >>the rules. >> >>Josh >> > >It's a joke, son, but what the hell are you talking about? Well. Hmph. Suppose you were serious, whatever that means for ATS. Plus suppose you didn't simply desire this (as Joel pointed out). Then if no one protested, after the set number of days all these displaced Albanians and Serbs would "become" members of the game. Of course they wouldn't because they don't want to, but given our past experience with adding players I think you'll agree that in dealing with such an issue, we might run into problems. There are a lot of Albanians and Serbs. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:32:54 -0500 From: Nick Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement wanted >"Ole Andersen" writes: >>Statement: >> >>"In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players." >> >> >>The two are mentioned separately, and no mention is made of their being the >>same. >> >> >>Ole >> > >Man, Tom, you sure generated a stinker with that rule. > > > > >Josh I don't know. I've written much worse, but most of those were never made rules. The stinker is that we actually voted it into the ruleset. ats Clarus the dogcow says, "Moof!" ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:41:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement wanted Nick Osborn writes: >>"Ole Andersen" writes: >>>Statement: >>> >>>"In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players." >>> >>> >>>The two are mentioned separately, and no mention is made of their being the >>>same. >>> >>> >>>Ole >>> >> >>Man, Tom, you sure generated a stinker with that rule. >> >> >> >> >>Josh > >I don't know. I've written much worse, but most of those were never made >rules. The stinker is that we actually voted it into the ruleset. > >ats >Clarus the dogcow says, "Moof!" Both Clarus' name and his sound have got to be the lamest things that ever came out of Claris and the Laserwriter division. Why couldn't they just leave it at "dogcow?" -- Following the tour, Mercury Rev again went their separate ways; its members found menial jobs, moved in with their parents, or earned money by participating in medical experiments. - from the AMG ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:00:21 -0500 From: Nick Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: sponsorship >>It's a joke, son, but what the hell are you talking about? > >Well. Hmph. > >Suppose you were serious, whatever that means for ATS. Plus >suppose you didn't simply desire this (as Joel pointed out). >Then if no one protested, after the set number of days all these >displaced Albanians and Serbs would "become" members of the game. >Of course they wouldn't because they don't want to, but given our >past experience with adding players I think you'll agree that >in dealing with such an issue, we might run into problems. >There are a lot of Albanians and Serbs. > > > > >Josh Yes, there are many Albanians and Serbs, but Berserker Nomic is a large enough world that we could shelter many refugees. It's not really, completely a joke. I gladly sponsor all oppressed minorities and enemies of the state, as long as they're not pinks. On a heavier note: is there a need for a "Consent Check" rule, following in the "Limbo Check" paradigm. Gotta love that "para-dig'um." The Gods of the Power Plant are angry with us. They've been roaring all night, and last night, too. We must find a suitable sacrifice. ats ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:11:20 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement wanted Mueller writes: >At 07:29 AM 4/29/99 +0200, you wrote: >>Statement: >> >>"In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players." >> >> >>The two are mentioned separately, and no mention is made of their being the >>same. >> > >I give a slack to Joel. > >In other business, I'd like to register a religious opinion: > >Ole is clearly a dirty ratfink who is trying to retroactively steal my >glorious sacrifice from the good people of Berseker, and for this I declare >Ole the Burning Heresiarch, may he be spurned lots by angels, or whatever. > >On a more substantive level: I disagree! This is a proposal. ----------- Create a rule containing the following SEYLABENHABIB-delimited text SEYLABENHABIB {{This rule shall be titled "Everybody's Got One"}} Any player may register a Religious Opinion. Religious Opinions are registered by sending them to the mailing list. Religious Opinions consist of sequences of text; no further classification of Religious Opinions shall be made at the meta-level. If a player already holds a Religious Opinion, that player may not change eir Religious Opinion within two turns of the time at which eir Religious Opinion was last changed. A player who does not hold a Religious Opinion, then registers one, is said to have changed eir Religious Opinion for the first time for the purposes of this paragraph. SEYLABENHABIB Create a rule containing the following DOMINATEDCONVERGENCETHEOREM-delimited text DOMINATEDCONVERGENCETHEOREM {{This rule shall be titled "Sacred Cows"}} A Religion comes into existence at any time at which more than four players' Religious Opinions agree on some point, however small. Those players whose Religious Opinions agree on such a point are said to be "members" of said Religion. A Religion is named according to the first public utterance (to the mailing list) by one of its members after the religion forms. Said name shall be the complete and total utterance, including signature lines, garish ASCII drawings, and punctuation, so namers of Religions shall be warned thusly, yea verily. Members of a Religion may not change their Religious Opinions without first coming to an agreement. Said agreements shall be called Bulls, and are official documents which become Bulls only upon receiving the approval of every member of the Religion. Bulls shall detail the manners in which members' Religious Opinions shall change after the adoption of the Bulls, and said adoption and subsequent change shall occur immediately after all individuals in the Religion have consented to the appropriate Bull. Members of a Religion who change their Religious Opinions without first coming to an agreement with their Religions are said to be Dirty Stinking Filthy Rotten American Pigdog Heretics. A Dirty Stinking Filthy Rotten American Pigdog Heretic may not make any changes to eir Religious Opinion which would cause them to join a Religion. Said prohibition shall last for forty days and forty nights, or until the next voting period ends, whichever is first. The points on which the Religious Opinions of a Religion agree shall be called its Dogma. Dogma is considered inherently bad, unless a Religion's Dogma states explicitly otherwise, and hence arguments of Dogmatism should concern most firebrands and choirboys. Religions whose Dogmas disagree are said to be Agonistic toward one another. DOMINATEDCONVERGENCETHEOREM Create a rule containing the following IFINALLYGOTMYFUCKINGGINGERBEER-delimited text IFINALLYGOTMYFUCKINGGINGERBEER {{This rule shall be titled "People's Liberation Front of Judea"}} Upon becoming Agonistic to one another, two Religions must immediately change their names. Each new name must contain some combination of the words "People," "Liberation," "Front," and "Judea," making use of at least three of said words or grammatical variations upon them. Said name must be chosen immediately via a Bull. No other Religon-related action is possible, by any member of a Religion in such a circumstance, until it has issued this name-changing Bull. If a player is a member of a Religion which is Agonistic toward some different player's Religion, the first player may not vote in the affirmative on any proposals which the second player makes. IFINALLYGOTMYFUCKINGGINGERBEER ---------- Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:57:11 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: sponsorship >The Gods of the Power Plant are angry with us. They've been roaring all >night, and last night, too. We must find a suitable sacrifice. No shit--I think she's gonna blow! ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:26:07 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement wanted > >Create a rule containing the following IFINALLYGOTMYFUCKINGGINGERBEER-delimited >text > >IFINALLYGOTMYFUCKINGGINGERBEER >{{This rule shall be titled "People's Liberation Front of Judea"}} > >Upon becoming Agonistic to one another, two Religions must immediately >change their names. Each new name must contain some combination of >the words "People," "Liberation," "Front," and "Judea," making >use of at least three of said words or grammatical variations upon >them. Said name must be chosen immediately via a Bull. No other >Religon-related action is possible, by any member of a Religion >in such a circumstance, until it has issued this name-changing Bull. > >If a player is a member of a Religion which is Agonistic toward >some different player's Religion, the first player may not vote >in the affirmative on any proposals which the second player makes. >IFINALLYGOTMYFUCKINGGINGERBEER I have to object to this on the grounds that the People's Front of Judea is a political rather than a religious organization. Splitter! J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:07:41 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement wanted Joel Uckelman writes: >> >>Create a rule containing the following >IFINALLYGOTMYFUCKINGGINGERBEER-delimited >>text >> >>IFINALLYGOTMYFUCKINGGINGERBEER >>{{This rule shall be titled "People's Liberation Front of Judea"}} >> >>Upon becoming Agonistic to one another, two Religions must immediately >>change their names. Each new name must contain some combination of >>the words "People," "Liberation," "Front," and "Judea," making >>use of at least three of said words or grammatical variations upon >>them. Said name must be chosen immediately via a Bull. No other >>Religon-related action is possible, by any member of a Religion >>in such a circumstance, until it has issued this name-changing Bull. >> >>If a player is a member of a Religion which is Agonistic toward >>some different player's Religion, the first player may not vote >>in the affirmative on any proposals which the second player makes. >>IFINALLYGOTMYFUCKINGGINGERBEER > >I have to object to this on the grounds that the People's Front of Judea is >a political rather than a religious organization. Splitter! Religion and politics have a long and tangled history, in the real world. I'm just getting things off to the appropriate start. -- 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: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:42:21 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Thelma Charity Fund At 07:14 PM 4/27/99 , Mary wrote: >Since ATS has requested that I give my Subers to a charity, and since >there are no charities in Beserker Nomic, I make the following proposal. > >============== >There shall be an entity in Beserker Nomic known as the Thelma Charity >Fund. Players may donate any item [[slack, UPC, Subers]] that ey are in >possession of to the Fund. This donation may be made at any time, except >during the voting period. Ey may donate any non-negative amount of the >items or property. After the voting period has ended, but prior to the >beginning of the next turn, the administrator will distribute all items >and property within the Fund as follows: > >1) The Player with the least amount of that particular item will >receive the entire amount of those items in the Fund. > >2) If there are two or more Players tied for the least amount of a >particular item, then the administrator will split it evenly between the >qualifying Players, with any leftovers remaining in the Fund. > >========================= >Since the Thelma Charity Fund is an entity, it is not bound by the >single slack per turn transfer. 473 restricts transfers between Players, >not between an entity and a Player. > >Mary "Ey" ? That isn't the right spivak pronoun. "They" is fine. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:53:50 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: mob update At 12:25 AM 4/28/99 , Mueller wrote: > >I give one slack to Josh for being the Judas (only helpful) in this story. > >Tom You can't do this, because you already made a slack transfer this turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:51:23 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Thelma Charity Fund Joel Uckelman writes: >"Ey" ? That isn't the right spivak pronoun. "They" is fine. I wondered why that looked so funny. I thought it was just because I had never seen it capitalized before. Josh -- Sabotage will set us free. Throw a rock in the machine. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:38:32 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Nick Osborn has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 78: In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:55:13 -0500 From: Nick Osborn Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection >Nick Osborn has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 78: > >In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players. FALSE There is the implication within Rule 357 that the Provacateur and "X" are the same Player. This has been carried out in game tradition, as the have always been assumed to be the same Player. I cannot ignore the connection between the statements "X should be punished by The Mob" and "This causes [the Provocateur] to lose 50 points." ats ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:12:33 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Thelma Charity Fund Josh Kortbein wrote: > > Joel Uckelman writes: > >"Ey" ? That isn't the right spivak pronoun. "They" is fine. > > I wondered why that looked so funny. I thought it was just because > I had never seen it capitalized before. That's what I get for talking to Canadians. :) Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:26:21 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: mob update Joel Uckelman writes: >At 12:25 AM 4/28/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>I give one slack to Josh for being the Judas (only helpful) in this story. >> >>Tom > >You can't do this, because you already made a slack transfer this turn. Wasn't the one to me dated before the one to you? -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:19:16 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Is the Game over? Since the legality of burning Ole cannot be determined by rule 357, even after several RFJ (63, 68,69, and 70) then by rule 213, this game is over. At least that is how I see it. (Now Joel can rewrite the rules with his new idea of precedence.) Mary -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:05:31 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: mob update At 06:26 PM 4/29/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 12:25 AM 4/28/99 , Mueller wrote: >>> >>>I give one slack to Josh for being the Judas (only helpful) in this story. >>> >>>Tom >> >>You can't do this, because you already made a slack transfer this turn. > >Wasn't the one to me dated before the one to you? No. The one to me was on the 27th, while the one to you was on the 28th. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:09:53 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Is the Game over? At 06:19 PM 4/29/99 , you wrote: >Since the legality of burning Ole cannot be determined by rule 357, even >after several RFJ (63, 68,69, and 70) then by rule 213, this game is >over. At least that is how I see it. > >(Now Joel can rewrite the rules with his new idea of precedence.) > >Mary Just because we've disputed the same matter more than once doesn't make it undecidable -- it's those situations to which R213 applies. It seems pretty clear that Ole was burned, due to the times. The issues under review now are just peripheral. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:20:57 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Is the Game over? Joel Uckelman writes: >At 06:19 PM 4/29/99 , you wrote: >>Since the legality of burning Ole cannot be determined by rule 357, even >>after several RFJ (63, 68,69, and 70) then by rule 213, this game is >>over. At least that is how I see it. >> >>(Now Joel can rewrite the rules with his new idea of precedence.) >> >>Mary > >Just because we've disputed the same matter more than once doesn't make it >undecidable -- it's those situations to which R213 applies. > >It seems pretty clear that Ole was burned, due to the times. The issues >under review now are just peripheral. Like a toaster! -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:44:00 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Is the Game over? But how about this Anderson-guy? Was e burned, too? We have a Judgement that says so. And, no, it could not be me, since Rule 002 says: "A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames." That has, btw, precedence before Rule 357. And, if e _was_ burned, wouldn't Mary's call for the burning of 'Ole' be ambiguous? Ole Joel Uckelman wrote: : :Just because we've disputed the same matter more than once doesn't make it :undecidable -- it's those situations to which R213 applies. : :It seems pretty clear that Ole was burned, due to the times. The issues :under review now are just peripheral. : ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 23:44:24 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Is the Game over? At 09:44 PM 4/29/99 , Ole wrote: >But how about this Anderson-guy? Was e burned, too? It is not clear what, if any, impact J75 has on the matter at hand. That analysis provided in it, if applied to your case, clearly shows that I did not shame the Mob at the appropriate time. Thus, by rights, you were burnt. As for the statement itself -- "Ole Anderson should be burned at the stake." -- nothing in the past is implied. Odd as it may seem, there is now a proscription floating around out there that we (in some sense of the word) _should_ burn Ole Anderson, whoever that is. Due to the verb tense, it is directed at the future, not the past. >We have a Judgement that says so. > >And, no, it could not be me, since Rule 002 says: >"A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- >and surnames." That's also true. However, there seems no disputing that you were actually burnt. >That has, btw, precedence before Rule 357. > >And, if e _was_ burned, wouldn't Mary's call for the burning of 'Ole' be >ambiguous? I would be inclined to say no, as when Mary called for the burning, there had, to that date, been no mention of any other Ole. It seems that "Ole Anderson" is a creation that post-dates the Mob against you, and thus could not have been the referent here named. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 00:43:46 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judging assignments, on the lateness of I'll assign judges to the remaining cases tomorrow. The backlog should disappear over the course of the next few days. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 07:43:09 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Sv: Nomic: Is the Game over? Joel Uckelman wrote: (quoting me) :>And, no, it could not be me, since Rule 002 says: :>"A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- :>and surnames." : :That's also true. However, there seems no disputing that you were actually :burnt. Sad to say so, but you are probably right. : :>That has, btw, precedence before Rule 357. :> This might perhaps be a problem. 002 says that I shall be identified by my names (plural). 357 says one name is enough. But 110 says that 002 rulez. It in fact says that 357 "shall be entirely void". Ole ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:33:38 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Thelma Charity Fund At 06:12 PM 4/29/99 , Mary wrote: > > >Josh Kortbein wrote: >> >> Joel Uckelman writes: >> >"Ey" ? That isn't the right spivak pronoun. "They" is fine. >> >> I wondered why that looked so funny. I thought it was just because >> I had never seen it capitalized before. > >That's what I get for talking to Canadians. :) > >Mary So you are actually changing the "ey"s to "they"s, right? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:36:34 -0600 (MDT) From: Mary Tupper Subject: Re: Nomic: Thelma Charity Fund On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Joel Uckelman wrote: > At 06:12 PM 4/29/99 , Mary wrote: > > > > > >Josh Kortbein wrote: > >> > >> Joel Uckelman writes: > >> >"Ey" ? That isn't the right spivak pronoun. "They" is fine. > >> > >> I wondered why that looked so funny. I thought it was just because > >> I had never seen it capitalized before. > > > >That's what I get for talking to Canadians. :) > > > >Mary > > So you are actually changing the "ey"s to "they"s, right? Yes, that is correct. Mary ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:54:02 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Tom Plagge, Mary Tupper, and Joel Uckelman have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 77: Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/