________________________________________ Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 09:02:58 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Judgements wanted I want the following statements judged: 1. "The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points." -because this burning must obviously be based on Rule 357/1. 2. "The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to several persons." -because it is plural. 3. "Since Rule 002/1 conflicts with Rule 357/1, Rule 357/1 shall be entirely void." -because 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: Sat, 1 May 1999 08:53:49 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judge selection Nick judged: :>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 : Since the statement "X should be punished by The Mob" is part of the Incitor's Mob-gathering ritual, no real connection exists between this statement and the statements in the 'business' part of the rule. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that our respective Mamas would mind even the slightest, even though "What would your Mama think?" is a part of the Crowd Shamer's ritual. I appeal the Judgement. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 09:54:19 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting begins today at 14:20 CDT. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 09:59:44 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Spare Tire Creed I change my Spare Tire Creed to : "The holder of the Spare Tire shall be known as Ole Anderson" 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: Sat, 01 May 1999 14:28:02 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player Dan Waldron has been a Player since 05:06 CDT, 30 April 1999. Everyone say "hi" to Dan. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 14:42:52 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot I'll send a ballot as soon as I figure out what's on the ballot. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 15:22:50 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot P474 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. ----------------- P480 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. ----------------- P481 Transmute rule 002 to mutable. ----------------- P482 Amend 327/3 to include an attribute known as Alias. ----------------- P483 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. ---------------- P484 Make Rule 001 mutable. ---------------- P485 Make Rule 003 mutable. ---------------- P486 Make Rule 004 mutable. ---------------- P487 Make Rule 101 mutable. ---------------- P488 Make Rule 102 mutable. ---------------- P489 Make Rule 103 mutable. ---------------- P490 Make Rule 104 mutable. ---------------- P491 Make Rule 105 mutable. ---------------- P492 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. ----------------- P493 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. ------------------ P494 Transmute and repeal R109. ------------------ P495 There shall be an entity in Beserker Nomic known as the Thelma Charity Fund. Players may donate any item [[slack, UPC, Subers]] that they are in possession of to the Fund. This donation may be made at any time, except during the voting period. They 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. 3) Unique items may not be donated to the Fund. ------------------- P496 Strike paragraph two of Rule 323/0. ------------------ P497 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 -------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 15:36:20 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot Joel Uckelman writes: >P474 Doh. -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 15:32:26 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: new player Joel Uckelman writes: >Dan Waldron has been a Player since 05:06 CDT, 30 April 1999. Everyone say >"hi" to Dan. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ "hi" to Dan. -- 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: Sat, 01 May 1999 15:35:47 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot Joel Uckelman writes: >P474 yes >P480 yes >P481 yes >P482 no >P483 no >P484 yes >P485 yes >P486 yes >P487 yes >P488 yes >P489 yes >P490 yes >P491 yes >P492 no >P493 yes >P494 yes >P495 yes >P496 abstain >P497 yes 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: Sat, 01 May 1999 16:09:20 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: Subers I give 300 of my Subers to Matt Kuhns. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 16:25:50 -0600 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: Subers >I give 300 of my Subers to Matt Kuhns. > >jeff I accept these Subers. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 17:31:57 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot Here are my votes. >P474 yes >P480 no >P481 yes >P482 yes >P483 yes >P484 yes >P485 no >P486 yes >P487 yes >P488 yes >P489 yes >P490 yes >P491 yes >P492 yes >P493 yes >P494 yes >P495 yes >P496 yes >P497 yes POULENC Dan Waldron wald7330@mach1.wlu.ca ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 17:12:43 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot Dan Waldron writes: >Here are my votes. Just so you know, Dan, the idea is not to send your votes to the list. I sort of goofed. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 00:32:27 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgements wanted Ole wrote: >I want the following statements judged: > >1. >"The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >50 points." > >-because this burning must obviously be based on Rule 357/1. > > >2. >"The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to >several persons." > >-because it is plural. "Them" does not have to be plural. It can be (and is) used as a gender neutral singular. see: http://robotics.caltech.edu/~mason/they.html http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/austheir.html >3. >"Since Rule 002/1 conflicts with Rule 357/1, Rule 357/1 shall be entirely >void." > >-because >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". > False premises; irrelevant conclusion. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 07:32:15 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Judgements wanted Mueller wrote: :>3. :>"Since Rule 002/1 conflicts with Rule 357/1, Rule 357/1 shall be entirely :>void." :> :>-because :>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". :> : :False premises; irrelevant conclusion. : Would you care elaborating on this one, Mueller? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 01:24:52 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgements wanted At 12:32 AM 5/2/99 -0400, you wrote: >Ole wrote: >>I want the following statements judged: >> >>1. >>"The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >>50 points." >> >>-because this burning must obviously be based on Rule 357/1. >> >> >>2. >>"The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to >>several persons." >> >>-because it is plural. > >"Them" does not have to be plural. It can be (and is) used as a gender >neutral singular. > >see: > >http://robotics.caltech.edu/~mason/they.html > >http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/austheir.html I know that in school I was taught that "they" is used as a gender-neutral singular, and in several writings, especially older ones, it is used for that purpose instead of using "he or she." I believe that before Spivak pronouns were used in this game "they" or possibly "he" was used as a gender-neutral pronoun, so there is probably a president for its use as well. >>3. >>"Since Rule 002/1 conflicts with Rule 357/1, Rule 357/1 shall be entirely >>void." >> >>-because >>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". >> > >False premises; irrelevant conclusion. > >Tom Since all of this is based on the premise that "they" is *always* used as a plurality, which isn't true, I agree with Tom on this one. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 01:31:16 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgements wanted Jeff Schroeder writes: >gender-neutral pronoun, so there is probably a president for its use as well. and I would like to nominate myself for the position. -- 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: Sun, 02 May 1999 01:44:20 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgements wanted At 01:31 AM 5/2/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Jeff Schroeder writes: >>gender-neutral pronoun, so there is probably a president for its use as well. > >and I would like to nominate myself for the position. I second your nomination! > >-- >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: Sun, 2 May 1999 04:18:46 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgements wanted >At 01:31 AM 5/2/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Jeff Schroeder writes: >>>gender-neutral pronoun, so there is probably a president for its use as >>>well. >> >>and I would like to nominate myself for the position. > >I second your nomination! a tasteful shrubbery, Foreign Minister of Berserker Nomic, wishes to extend its most sincere congratulations to Josh Kortbein upon his appointment to the office of President of the Use of the Gender-Neutral Pronoun. The Foreign Minister eagerly anticipates working with President Kortbein on the many issues involving the usage of foreign gender-neutral pronouns. While the office is a highly respected position, it is also one of vital importance to our survival. a tasteful shrubbery fervently expresses his unpaling confidence in the new President and whole heartedly believes that a new day has dawned upon us, we who are fortunate enough to be here at such a glorious moment. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 11:23:06 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: J76 In the matter of: 'Ole Andersen' is not the same as 'Ole Anderson'. the court rules TRUE. (Tom Plagge concurs.) In the unqualified sense, "Ole Andersen" and '"Ole Anderson" are not the same because there is at least one way in which they are not identical: the composition of the strings. However, this in no way speaks to thing that the Complainant intended to have judged, i.e. whether "Ole Andersen" and "Ole Anderson" are the same qua Players. Thus, while it is a rules-releated matter (because it concerns the identity of Ole) and does not deserve dismissal, the truth of this statement does not resolve the matter at hand. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 12:03:30 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Joel Uckelman has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 79: The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points. -------- Joel Uckelman has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 80: The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to several persons. -------- Tom Plagge has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 81: Since Rule 002/1 conflicts with Rule 357/1, Rule 357/1 shall be entirely void. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 11:39:29 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection I respectfully decline judgeship on this case, due to a conflict of interest. Mary Joel Uckelman wrote: > > 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/ -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 13:04:48 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (J77) Matt Kuhns has been selected to replace Mary Tupper on 2 Court for RFJ 77. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 14:04:38 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (J77) At 01:04 PM 5/2/99 , I wrote: >Matt Kuhns has been selected to replace Mary Tupper on 2 Court for RFJ 77. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ This is wrong. Kuhns isn't eligible. Ed Proeschold has been selected to this Court instead. Sorry for the confusion this may have caused. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 15:45:59 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (J77) I'm curious why he isn't eligible? I talked to him recently and he said that he put himself in the pool. >At 01:04 PM 5/2/99 , I wrote: >>Matt Kuhns has been selected to replace Mary Tupper on 2 Court for RFJ 77. >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu >>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > >>This is wrong. Kuhns isn't eligible. Ed Proeschold has been selected to >this Court instead. > >Sorry for the confusion this may have caused. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 16:08:36 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (J77) I'm not eligible for the appeals court of J77 because I was the original judge on that case, Jeff. >I'm curious why he isn't eligible? I talked to him recently and he said >that he put himself in the pool. > >>>This is wrong. Kuhns isn't eligible. Ed Proeschold has been selected to >>this Court instead. >> ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 16:54:04 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (J77) At 03:45 PM 5/2/99 , you wrote: >I'm curious why he isn't eligible? I talked to him recently and he said >that he put himself in the pool. That's because he was the judge on the 1 Court. >>At 01:04 PM 5/2/99 , I wrote: >>>Matt Kuhns has been selected to replace Mary Tupper on 2 Court for RFJ 77. >>> >>>J. Uckelman >>>uckelman@iastate.edu >>>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ >> >>>This is wrong. Kuhns isn't eligible. Ed Proeschold has been selected to >>this Court instead. >> >>Sorry for the confusion this may have caused. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 20:57:35 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (J77) That reminds me. I put myself back in the judging pool. Tom Jeff wrote: >I'm curious why he isn't eligible? I talked to him recently and he said >that he put himself in the pool. > >>At 01:04 PM 5/2/99 , I wrote: >>>Matt Kuhns has been selected to replace Mary Tupper on 2 Court for RFJ 77. >>> >>>J. Uckelman >>>uckelman@iastate.edu >>>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ >> >>>This is wrong. Kuhns isn't eligible. Ed Proeschold has been selected to >>this Court instead. >> >>Sorry for the confusion this may have caused. > > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 19:22:14 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P474 passed (9-3-0-1). P480 passed (7-5-0-1). P481 failed (8-4-0-1). P482 passed (10-2-0-1). P483 passed (10-2-0-1). P484 failed (8-4-0-1). P485 failed (8-4-0-1). P486 failed (8-4-0-1). P487 failed (8-4-0-1). P488 failed (8-4-0-1). P489 failed (8-4-0-1). P490 failed (8-4-0-1). P491 failed (8-4-0-1). P492 failed (5-7-0-1). P493 passed (8-4-0-1). P494 failed (6-6-0-1). P495 failed (6-6-0-1). P496 passed (8-3-1-1). P497 passed (8-4-0-1). The next turn cannot begin until all level 1 Judgments have been issued. Scoring, UPC's, and other page updates will follow as finals week winds down. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 13:44:29 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Proposal Create the following rule: Upon the passage of this rule, all players are automatically put into Limbo. This rule takes precedence over rule 319. This rule shall delete itself one day after it passes. It shall be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. -------- The purpose here is to make sure that any slackers who don't put themselves in limbo before break will be in limbo sooner than we'd have to wait. The rest of us can just leave limbo. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 15:51:31 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Alias Proposal Proposal: I shall be known by the alias "Poulenc", and said Alias may be used in all references to me within the game of Beserker Nomic POULENC Dan Waldron wald7330@mach1.wlu.ca ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 15:48:33 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal With the passage of this rule the game will crash because we will be unable to determine which player's turn it is. When all players are in limbo, the player whose turn it is forfeits eir turn in favor of the next player, who forfeits eir turn as well. I am thinking this would not be a good thing. Dan Waldron >Create the following rule: > >Upon the passage of this rule, all players are automatically put >into Limbo. This rule takes precedence over rule 319. > >This rule shall delete itself one day after it passes. It >shall be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. > >-------- > >The purpose here is to make sure that any slackers who don't put >themselves in limbo before break will be in limbo sooner than >we'd have to wait. The rest of us can just leave limbo. > >Josh > >-- >I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 16:06:05 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 01:44 PM 5/4/99 , Josh wrote: > >Create the following rule: > >Upon the passage of this rule, all players are automatically put >into Limbo. This rule takes precedence over rule 319. > >This rule shall delete itself one day after it passes. It >shall be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. > >-------- > >The purpose here is to make sure that any slackers who don't put >themselves in limbo before break will be in limbo sooner than >we'd have to wait. The rest of us can just leave limbo. > >Josh Due to the way offices are filled and the way the Admin is defined, it would be better if you excluded me from this (to avoid problems). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 16:12:15 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Joel Uckelman writes: >At 01:44 PM 5/4/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Create the following rule: >> >>Upon the passage of this rule, all players are automatically put >>into Limbo. This rule takes precedence over rule 319. >> >>This rule shall delete itself one day after it passes. It >>shall be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. >> >>-------- >> >>The purpose here is to make sure that any slackers who don't put >>themselves in limbo before break will be in limbo sooner than >>we'd have to wait. The rest of us can just leave limbo. >> >>Josh > >Due to the way offices are filled and the way the Admin is defined, it >would be better if you excluded me from this (to avoid problems). Hmmm, I suppose. It would also then be your turn (see my last message - or next, depending on how soon they both show up to the majordomo server). Add a paragraph The Administrator shall not be put into Limbo with the rest of the players. after the paragraph ending in "319." Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 16:10:27 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Dan Waldron writes: >With the passage of this rule the game will crash because we will be unable >to determine which player's turn it is. When all players are in limbo, the >player whose turn it is forfeits eir turn in favor of the next player, who >forfeits eir turn as well. I am thinking this would not be a good thing. >Dan Waldron That's a good point, but I don't think it would be a problem. When all players are in limbo, the player whose turn it is is constantly changing - each player in limbo passes the turn on to someone else, who passes it on to someone else, etc. This means that the first person to leave limbo, when all people are in limbo, will also take a turn then, as whoever might have (theoretically - we can't determine it) had the turn right before them gave up the turn the instant before they left limbo. Make sense? Josh >>Create the following rule: >> >>Upon the passage of this rule, all players are automatically put >>into Limbo. This rule takes precedence over rule 319. >> >>This rule shall delete itself one day after it passes. It >>shall be replaced by a tasteful shrubbery. >> >>-------- >> >>The purpose here is to make sure that any slackers who don't put >>themselves in limbo before break will be in limbo sooner than >>we'd have to wait. The rest of us can just leave limbo. -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 18:07:07 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal >The purpose here is to make sure that any slackers who don't put >themselves in limbo before break will be in limbo sooner than >we'd have to wait. The rest of us can just leave limbo. > >Josh If this is such an issue that we have to have a rule, then the Limbo rules don't work in a way that we want them to. Do slackers really hold up the game? I believe the rules we presently have prevent slacking from slowing game play. At the end of May, I will start my summer job and leave everything internet behind. I plan on entering Limbo. If I don't enter Limbo, someone will simply call for a Limbo check at the appropriate time, at which point I will then enter Limbo. What's the big deal? ats ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 18:11:27 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: all this pronoun crap I believe that a Player represents each of us in Berserker. We are not the Players. So, Players are things without gender. A Player is an "it," a gender-neutral pronoun. When a tasteful shrubbery writes props, it will accept the above as fact. ats ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 20:23:28 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: J79, 80 In the matter of: The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points. I rule FALSE, for the following reason: J75 makes no statement about what _has_ happened, only about what _should_ happen (note also that there is no implication that anything _must_ happen). Additionally, it isn't clear what sense of "should" is meant here. That he should be burnt? By whom? And when? Due to a lack of clarity in J75, I can only rule that whoever "Ole Anderson" is, it has no clear effect on him. ------------------- In the matter of: The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to several persons. I rule FALSE for the following reason: "Them" appears to refer to the Provocateur in R357/1, because 1) based on the rest of the rule's text, it appears logical for the Provocateur to be the recipient of any determental effects mentioned, and 2) "them" can (or so I've been told) assume the place of singular gendered pronouns. Although I personally would dispute the correctness of replacing a singular pronoun with a (usually) plural one, it should be noted that R357 became a rule almost two months prior to the introduction of Spivak pronouns, and that such a solution is often found acceptable in modern English. Thus, based on the history of the rule and the surrounding context, the "them" in question refers only to the Provocateur. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 20:52:28 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal a tasteful shrubbery writes: >>The purpose here is to make sure that any slackers who don't put >>themselves in limbo before break will be in limbo sooner than >>we'd have to wait. The rest of us can just leave limbo. >> >>Josh > >If this is such an issue that we have to have a rule, then the Limbo rules >don't work in a way that we want them to. Do slackers really hold up the >game? I believe the rules we presently have prevent slacking from slowing >game play. At the end of May, I will start my summer job and leave >everything internet behind. I plan on entering Limbo. If I don't enter >Limbo, someone will simply call for a Limbo check at the appropriate time, >at which point I will then enter Limbo. What's the big deal? No sense in holding things up. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 21:11:19 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 08:52 PM 5/4/99 , Josh wrote: > >a tasteful shrubbery writes: >>>The purpose here is to make sure that any slackers who don't put >>>themselves in limbo before break will be in limbo sooner than >>>we'd have to wait. The rest of us can just leave limbo. >>> >>>Josh >> >>If this is such an issue that we have to have a rule, then the Limbo rules >>don't work in a way that we want them to. Do slackers really hold up the >>game? I believe the rules we presently have prevent slacking from slowing >>game play. At the end of May, I will start my summer job and leave >>everything internet behind. I plan on entering Limbo. If I don't enter >>Limbo, someone will simply call for a Limbo check at the appropriate time, >>at which point I will then enter Limbo. What's the big deal? > >No sense in holding things up. > > >Josh But I think Nick's point was that nothing is held up in the first place. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 21:22:31 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Joel Uckelman writes: >But I think Nick's point was that nothing is held up in the first place. Blarney. -- 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, 04 May 1999 22:42:26 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 09:22 PM 5/4/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>But I think Nick's point was that nothing is held up in the first place. > >Blarney. I can't vote for this (nor do I think that anyone else should) if you can't show the existence of the problem it purports to solve. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 22:02:29 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: Proposal and stuff Joel Uckelman wrote: > > At 09:22 PM 5/4/99 , Josh wrote: > > > >Joel Uckelman writes: > >>But I think Nick's point was that nothing is held up in the first place. > > > >Blarney. > > I can't vote for this (nor do I think that anyone else should) if you can't > show the existence of the problem it purports to solve. > I don't see where a problem exist either. Perhaps if all players had the same schedule, the the problem might exist, but Beserker has people on different schedules, so there is a very low possibility of everybody going awol at the same time. Considering the upcoming summer, I know I will be here and I'll have lots of time to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate (Ummm... I mean make proposals). In other business, I declare that my Alias shall be Xylen. Xylen -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 06:53:27 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: J79, 80 Joel judged: :The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose :50 points. : :I rule FALSE, for the following reason: : :J75 makes no statement about what _has_ happened, only about what _should_ :happen (note also that there is no implication that anything _must_ :happen). Additionally, it isn't clear what sense of "should" is meant here. :That he should be burnt? By whom? And when? Due to a lack of clarity in :J75, I can only rule that whoever "Ole Anderson" is, it has no clear effect :on him. I appeal this Judgement. 1. _should_ equals _must_. If not, it would be a matter of personal preference, and not a Berserker-related question. 2. The key word is _burnt_. If J75 refers to Berserker-related matters, it _must_ refer to the only place in the rules that deals with burning: R357. 3. And the fact that _nobody_ appealed J75 clearly supports that it _does_ refer to Berserker-related matters. : :------------------- :In the matter of: : :The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to :several persons. : :I rule FALSE for the following reason: : :"Them" appears to refer to the Provocateur in R357/1, because 1) based on :the rest of the rule's text, it appears logical for the Provocateur to be :the recipient of any determental effects mentioned, and 2) "them" can (or :so I've been told) assume the place of singular gendered pronouns. I appeal this one too. Your 1): It _could_ point to 'X' instead. We know that 'X' is not necessarily the Provocateur. It could point to any other person mentioned in R357, but that might be less likely - though still possible. Your 2): If 'them' is singular, it is not at all a clear expression of singularity. In fact, since the introduction of Spivak, it is hardly an expression of singularity at all. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 02:14:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: Proposal and stuff Xylen writes: > > >Joel Uckelman wrote: >> >> At 09:22 PM 5/4/99 , Josh wrote: >> > >> >Joel Uckelman writes: >> >>But I think Nick's point was that nothing is held up in the first place. >> > >> >Blarney. >> >> I can't vote for this (nor do I think that anyone else should) if you can't >> show the existence of the problem it purports to solve. >> > >I don't see where a problem exist either. Perhaps if all players had the >same schedule, the the problem might exist, but Beserker has people on >different schedules, so there is a very low possibility of everybody >going awol at the same time. Considering the upcoming summer, I know I >will be here and I'll have lots of time to deceive, inveigle and >obfuscate (Ummm... I mean make proposals). Fine, then, since I don't have time to make my case I withdraw that proposal. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 17:49:49 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (1J81, 2J79, 2J80) Mary Tupper has been selected to replace Tom Plagge on 1 Court for RFJ 81: Since Rule 002/1 conflicts with Rule 357/1, Rule 357/1 shall be entirely void. -------------- Matt Kuhns, Jeff Schroeder, and Ed Proescholdt have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 79: The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points. -------------- Tom Plagge, Tom Mueller, and Matt Kuhns have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 80: The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to several persons. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 17:50:20 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: points Tom Plagge loses 10 points for not delivering a judgment on RFJ 81 within 3 days. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 18:10:29 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: about page updates My last final is tomorrow afternoon, so I will have LOTS of time to make the necessary updates tomorrow evening and Friday. I appologize for being so remiss about this, but classes have a little higher prioirity this time of year. As for what's in store over the summer: I plan to begin work next week on rewriting the rules munge and automating even more of the things that I currently do by hand. As a result, update lag should decrease over the course of the summer, and with luck, remain so throughout next year. Again, thanks for your patience. J. Uckelman, Administrator, Berserker Nomic uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 23:00:43 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: just in case I'm out of Limbo or anything else that could be preventing me from being placed on a court. ats ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 22:28:02 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: RFJ81 "Since Rule 002/1 conflicts with Rule 357/1, Rule 357/1 shall be entirely void." I rule FALSE. Comments: Rule002/1 states that a Player shall be identified by his of her real name. There is no conflict at all with anything in 357. Provocateur, X, Crowd Shamer, and Mob are merely titles for a position (or office) where the position is defined in rule 357. I find no conflict between referring to a Player by their name, and referring to them by thier position title. Xylen -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 23:45:41 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: J79, 80 At 11:53 PM 5/4/99 , Ole wrote: >Joel judged: > > >:The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >:50 points. >: >:I rule FALSE, for the following reason: >: >:J75 makes no statement about what _has_ happened, only about what _should_ >:happen (note also that there is no implication that anything _must_ >:happen). Additionally, it isn't clear what sense of "should" is meant here. >:That he should be burnt? By whom? And when? Due to a lack of clarity in >:J75, I can only rule that whoever "Ole Anderson" is, it has no clear effect >:on him. > > >I appeal this Judgement. > >1. _should_ equals _must_. If not, it would be a matter of personal >preference, and not a Berserker-related question. I disagree. "Should" does not carry the necessity that "must" does. >2. The key word is _burnt_. If J75 refers to Berserker-related matters, it >_must_ refer to the only place in the rules that deals with burning: R357. >3. And the fact that _nobody_ appealed J75 clearly supports that it _does_ >refer to Berserker-related matters. Or that no one thought it was worth appealing. >:------------------- >:In the matter of: >: >:The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to >:several persons. >: >:I rule FALSE for the following reason: >: >:"Them" appears to refer to the Provocateur in R357/1, because 1) based on >:the rest of the rule's text, it appears logical for the Provocateur to be >:the recipient of any determental effects mentioned, and 2) "them" can (or >:so I've been told) assume the place of singular gendered pronouns. > > >I appeal this one too. > >Your 1): It _could_ point to 'X' instead. We know that 'X' is not >necessarily the Provocateur. It could point to any other person mentioned in >R357, but that might be less likely - though still possible. I suppose that it could point to anything, but it seems most likely to refer to the Provocateur. Also, X and the Provocateur, although they need not be the same, always have been, and were in this particular case. >Your 2): If 'them' is singular, it is not at all a clear expression of >singularity. In fact, since the introduction of Spivak, it is hardly an >expression of singularity at all. >From J72: "In the past third person pronouns were not interpreted literally, so I see no reason to change game tradition." (I'm sorry this isn't up on the page yet, it will be tomorrow.) So, the indroduction of the Spivak pronouns did not change the meaning of pre-existing pronouns. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 06:45:28 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: RFJ81 Mary judged: :"Since Rule 002/1 conflicts with Rule 357/1, Rule 357/1 shall be :entirely void." : :I rule FALSE. : OK, I did not word this one entirely as I should. I'll try again (for the last time, hopefully): "The 'where X refers unambiguously to one player' in Rule 357/1 is to be understood within the context of Rule 002/1, which says 'A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames'." I'd like that sentence judged. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 06:59:19 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Sv: Nomic: J79, 80 Joel wrote: :> :>Your 1): It _could_ point to 'X' instead. We know that 'X' is not :>necessarily the Provocateur. It could point to any other person mentioned in :>R357, but that might be less likely - though still possible. : :I suppose that it could point to anything, but it seems most likely to :refer to the Provocateur. Also, X and the Provocateur, although they need :not be the same, always have been, and were in this particular case. : In fact, Joel, I seem to remember that _you_ were being tied up. *evil grin* You protested, but people always do that... Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 03:08:27 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (1J81, 2J79, 2J80) Joel wrote: >Tom Plagge, Tom Mueller, and Matt Kuhns have been selected to 2 Court for >RFJ 80: > >The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to >several persons. I already commented... "them" is not necessarily plural. Again, see: http://robotics.caltech.edu/~mason/they.html http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/austheir.html I rule FALSE Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 02:12:33 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: points Damn it, damn it. I've been busy lately, obviously. I'm entering limbo right now for the rest of the week. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 15:00:15 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposals The proposal that Josh made and withdrew was not a legal proposal, as it was made during dead time (q.v. R202/4). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 15:11:23 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals Joel Uckelman writes: >The proposal that Josh made and withdrew was not a legal proposal, as it >was made during dead time (q.v. R202/4). Man, I told you we should have gotten rid of dead time. What exactly was the point of bringing that up, then, since I both made and withdrew the proposal? Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 15:28:39 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals At 03:11 PM 5/6/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>The proposal that Josh made and withdrew was not a legal proposal, as it >>was made during dead time (q.v. R202/4). > >Man, I told you we should have gotten rid of dead time. > >What exactly was the point of bringing that up, then, since >I both made and withdrew the proposal? > >Josh So no one asks why it never made it into the event log. You're right, it is rather pointless to have dead time, now that I think about it. What was the rationale for having it in the first place? I know we had one... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 15:44:39 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals Joel Uckelman writes: >At 03:11 PM 5/6/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>The proposal that Josh made and withdrew was not a legal proposal, as it >>>was made during dead time (q.v. R202/4). >> >>Man, I told you we should have gotten rid of dead time. >> >>What exactly was the point of bringing that up, then, since >>I both made and withdrew the proposal? >> >>Josh > >So no one asks why it never made it into the event log. You're right, it is >rather pointless to have dead time, now that I think about it. What was the >rationale for having it in the first place? I know we had one... Something about not having turns start in the middle of the night. Josh who is often awake in the middle of the night -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 22:57:45 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: proposals Josh wrote: (quoting Joel) :>So no one asks why it never made it into the event log. You're right, it is :>rather pointless to have dead time, now that I think about it. What was the :>rationale for having it in the first place? I know we had one... : :Something about not having turns start in the middle of the :night. Speaking of turns: What impact does the 'ownership' of turns have? Did I overlook a rule about this? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 16:28:13 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: proposals "Ole Andersen" writes: >Josh wrote: >(quoting Joel) >:>So no one asks why it never made it into the event log. You're right, it >is >:>rather pointless to have dead time, now that I think about it. What was >the >:>rationale for having it in the first place? I know we had one... >: >:Something about not having turns start in the middle of the >:night. > > >Speaking of turns: > >What impact does the 'ownership' of turns have? > >Did I overlook a rule about this? If the game breaks during someone's turn, that person wins. Otherwise, they have no meaning. They are a remnant of the old turn-based system. One that should have been gotten rid of long ago. -- In such an ugly time the real protest is beauty. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 16:35:00 -0500 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals >So no one asks why it never made it into the event log. You're right, it is >rather pointless to have dead time, now that I think about it. What was the >rationale for having it in the first place? I know we had one... > Was it so there was time for votes to be counted so we know what rules passed or failed in the last round of voting? Ed ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 16:31:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals At 03:44 PM 5/6/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 03:11 PM 5/6/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>>The proposal that Josh made and withdrew was not a legal proposal, as it >>>>was made during dead time (q.v. R202/4). >>> >>>Man, I told you we should have gotten rid of dead time. >>> >>>What exactly was the point of bringing that up, then, since >>>I both made and withdrew the proposal? >>> >>>Josh >> >>So no one asks why it never made it into the event log. You're right, it is >>rather pointless to have dead time, now that I think about it. What was the >>rationale for having it in the first place? I know we had one... > >Something about not having turns start in the middle of the >night. > >Josh >who is often awake in the middle of the night It seems to be more important that voting starts at a normal time so I can send out a ballot in a timely fashion. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 16:42:42 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals Andrew Proescholdt writes: > > >>So no one asks why it never made it into the event log. You're right, it is >>rather pointless to have dead time, now that I think about it. What was the >>rationale for having it in the first place? I know we had one... >> > >Was it so there was time for votes to be counted so we know what rules >passed or failed in the last round of voting? Why would that ever make a difference? :) -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 16:42:18 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: proposals Joel Uckelman writes: >At 03:44 PM 5/6/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>At 03:11 PM 5/6/99 , Josh wrote: >>>> >>>>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>>>The proposal that Josh made and withdrew was not a legal proposal, as it >>>>>was made during dead time (q.v. R202/4). >>>> >>>>Man, I told you we should have gotten rid of dead time. >>>> >>>>What exactly was the point of bringing that up, then, since >>>>I both made and withdrew the proposal? >>>> >>>>Josh >>> >>>So no one asks why it never made it into the event log. You're right, it is >>>rather pointless to have dead time, now that I think about it. What was the >>>rationale for having it in the first place? I know we had one... >> >>Something about not having turns start in the middle of the >>night. >> >>Josh >>who is often awake in the middle of the night > >It seems to be more important that voting starts at a normal time so I can >send out a ballot in a timely fashion. Timely shmimely, the ballot's just a convenience. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 18:15:51 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Scoring from last turn: +42 Josh Kortbein +37 Mary Tupper +29 Matt Kuhns +28 Joel Uckelman +27 Nick Osborn +27 Jeff Schroeder +14 Ed Proescholdt +14 Aaron Woell +6 Dan Waldron +4 Ole Andersen -78 Tom Mueller J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 18:22:02 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: scoring Joel Uckelman writes: >Scoring from last turn: > >+42 Josh Kortbein >+37 Mary Tupper >+29 Matt Kuhns >+28 Joel Uckelman >+27 Nick Osborn >+27 Jeff Schroeder >+14 Ed Proescholdt >+14 Aaron Woell > +6 Dan Waldron > +4 Ole Andersen >-78 Tom Mueller Ouch!! -- 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, 06 May 1999 18:47:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: UPCs UPCs earned last turn: +11 Josh Kortbein +11 Tom Mueller +11 Mary Tupper +10 Dan Waldron +10 Aaron Woell +9 Ed Proescholdt +8 Jeff Schroeder +2 Ole Andersen +1 Nick Osborn J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 18:40:18 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: scoring At 06:22 PM 5/6/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>Scoring from last turn: >> >>+42 Josh Kortbein >>+37 Mary Tupper >>+29 Matt Kuhns >>+28 Joel Uckelman >>+27 Nick Osborn >>+27 Jeff Schroeder >>+14 Ed Proescholdt >>+14 Aaron Woell >> +6 Dan Waldron >> +4 Ole Andersen >>-78 Tom Mueller > >Ouch!! I have a feeling that Mueller wants to keep the Demon voting with him for a long time to come. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 20:48:15 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: scoring Joel wrote: >At 06:22 PM 5/6/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>Scoring from last turn: >>> >>>+42 Josh Kortbein >>>+37 Mary Tupper >>>+29 Matt Kuhns >>>+28 Joel Uckelman >>>+27 Nick Osborn >>>+27 Jeff Schroeder >>>+14 Ed Proescholdt >>>+14 Aaron Woell >>> +6 Dan Waldron >>> +4 Ole Andersen >>>-78 Tom Mueller >> >>Ouch!! > >I have a feeling that Mueller wants to keep the Demon voting with him for a >long time to come. Silly mortals. In your quest for glory you have ignored the quest for power. I give the Tire to Josh. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 10:56:51 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: problems with voting Due to Rule 108/4, which reads, in part: "Proposals to create multiple new Rules must specify a legal Rule number for each new rule to be created." it appears that what we had previously called P497 was never a legal proposal, and thus could not have come to a vote. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 11:05:28 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: problems with voting At 10:56 AM 5/7/99 , I wrote: >Due to Rule 108/4, which reads, in part: > >"Proposals to create multiple new Rules must specify a legal Rule number for >each new rule to be created." > >it appears that what we had previously called P497 was never a legal proposal, >and thus could not have come to a vote. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ Also, as a consequence of this, Nick, Jeff, Mary, and I have 7 fewer points, and Josh has 13 fewer points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 12:35:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: WOOHOO! (and judging assignments) The page is finally back up to date (for the most part). At least it's usuable now. ---------- Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 82: The 'where X refers unambiguously to one player' in Rule 357/1 is to be understood within the context of Rule 002/1, which says 'A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames'. ---------- Tom Mueller, Nick Osborn, and Mary Tupper have been selected to 2 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: Fri, 07 May 1999 12:47:27 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 2 J77 In the matter: Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary. I rule TRUE. I essentially concur with Mr. Kuhns' analysis, i.e. transactions are completed upon all parties agreeing to them. Nick gave his consent in his offer of slack, and Mary did so by accepting it. Thus, the transaction is done and may not be reversed without the consent of all parties. Q.E.D. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 12:43:35 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: WOOHOO! (and judging assignments) Joel Uckelman writes: >The page is finally back up to date (for the most part). At least it's >usuable now. > >---------- > >Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 82: > >The 'where X refers unambiguously to one player' in Rule 357/1 is to be >understood within the context of Rule 002/1, which says 'A Player shall be >identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames'. I judge false. It seems clear that though players are to be identified by eir real names, there may be other ways to refer unambigiously to players. Until it is demonstrated that there aren't, the "is to be" in the statement to be judged has not been shown. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 12:54:01 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J77) Jeff Schroeder has been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 77 (to replace Tom Plagge): Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 15:24:45 -0500 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J77) I geuss I'm a judge for this one.... I rule false. Nick (a tasteful shrubbery) may not stop Mary from transferring slack, but he need not transfer it himself. If she's going to use her one slack transfer per turn to transfer from Nick to herself, that seems legal to me. But there is nothing stopping ats from transferring it back to himself with his slack transfer. Ed At 12:54 PM 5/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >Jeff Schroeder has been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 77 (to replace Tom Plagge): > >Nick may not halt his sale of slack to Mary. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 16:00:29 -0500 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: proposal, CFJ, etc. beginprop: Create rule 117 from the MUTATE! delimited text: MUTATE! The phrase "unanimous among" in Rule 109 means "greater than a two-thirds majority of". MUTATE! endprop. Is this actually legal? ================================================ I make a call for judgement: Andrew Proescholdt is still the proxy voter for Aaron Woell. Comments: I believe the passage of prop 496 only removed the mechanism for assigning a proxy. It did not make voting by proxy illegal or deassign already assigned proxies. ================================================ I withdraw prop 459. ================================================ I transfer 1 slack from myself to Andy Palacek. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 16:49:25 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: 2 Court for RFJ 78 >---------- > >Tom Mueller, Nick Osborn, and Mary Tupper have been selected to 2 Court for >RFJ 78: > >In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players. > >---------- FALSE. Yes, it is still false. ats ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 17:27:40 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: RFJ 78 RFJ 78: In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players. Ruling: TRUE 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: Fri, 7 May 1999 18:56:52 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: RFJ 79 and RFJ 80 >The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >50 points. > I dismiss this appeal. Recent judgments have required a lot of interpretation and guesswork of not only the rules but the significance of the very statement to be judged. People need to be more specific with the wording of RFJs than they have lately, and definitly more specific than this turkey of an RFJ. It assumes that Ole Anderson was burnt based on J75, when J75 said only that Anderson should be burnt. I can figure out what issue this RFJ is meant to resolve anyway, of course, but that is not enough to issue a proper judgment, because judgments can often hinge on specific technical qualities which cannot be asessed in relation to a statement so vague. >-------------- > >The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to >several persons. > FALSE This seemed pretty obvious once I considered the word "refers." It is clear based on game tradition and the plain intention of the public lynching rule that in that instance, "them" refers to the Provocateur. When I use the phrase "get something off the net" the word "net" refers to the world wide web, even though many standard dictionaries probably won't even give that as one of the meanings of "net." In this case, "them" is a commonly-used and generally-understood synonym for "he or she," and considering that together with the very plain intent of the phrase, "them" does indeed refer to the Provocateur only. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 19:01:21 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: monetary transfer I give 300 Subers to Jeff Schroeder. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 21:46:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Proposal I'm re-submitting the proposal concerning theology which I made last turn, only with each "make this rule" section also containing {{This rule shall have number n.}} where n is 600, 601, etc., up to however many rules the proposal created. By the way, thanks for completely deleting it from the page, Joel. Josh -- In such an ugly time the real protest is beauty. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 22:49:07 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: 2 Court for RFJ 78 Mr Shrubbery Himself wrote: >>---------- >> >>Tom Mueller, Nick Osborn, and Mary Tupper have been selected to 2 Court for >>RFJ 78: >> >>In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players. >> >>---------- >FALSE. > >Yes, it is still false. > >ats > FALSE. This is ultimately a matter of the interpretation of some text. I think that game custom would support a common sense reading that "Provocateurs" are the sort of people who induce cries of "There outta be a law"... In short, the intent of the rule is clear. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 22:20:39 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal, CFJ, etc. Ed wrote: >beginprop: > >Create rule 117 from the MUTATE! delimited text: > >MUTATE! > >The phrase "unanimous among" in Rule 109 means "greater than a two-thirds >majority of". > >MUTATE! > >endprop. > >Is this actually legal? Hmmmm... I remember that in Acka we had established "custom" regarding the meaning of words and these kind of "meta" rule issues, but ultimately, I don't see that that anything in Berserker prevents us from using some rules to redefine the function of words in other rules. Perhaps it would be stronger if you included a statement formally explaining the relation of "words in rules" and the "effects of rules". I assume that you'd want to put in something that _supported_ the scam you're trying to push through. >================================================ > >I make a call for judgement: > > Andrew Proescholdt is still the proxy voter for Aaron Woell. > >Comments: > > I believe the passage of prop 496 only removed the mechanism for assigning >a proxy. It did not make voting by proxy illegal or deassign already >assigned proxies. Ouch! Finally a good RFJ. Do we have any sort of tradition with respect to the status of things who's rules have been repealed? And what about permisibility of the unprohibited? For all that this is an interesting RFJ, I don't envy the Judge on this one. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 22:37:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal, CFJ, etc. At 04:00 PM 5/7/99 , Ed wrote: >beginprop: > >Create rule 117 from the MUTATE! delimited text: > >MUTATE! > >The phrase "unanimous among" in Rule 109 means "greater than a two-thirds >majority of". > >MUTATE! > >endprop. > >Is this actually legal? I am of the opinion that it is not, because it changes (although indirectly) an immutable rule. While I am not specifically opposed to such a change, I *am* opposed to redifining things like unanimity. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 21:44:36 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Proposal Proposal: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There shall be an entity in Beserker Nomic known as the Thelma Charity Fund. Players may donate any item [[slack, UPC, Subers]] that they are in possession of to the Fund. This donation may be made at any time, except during the voting period. They may donate any non-negative amount to a maximum of 25% 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. 3) Unique items may not be donated to the Fund. =================================================== I made a change to this that should make it more acceptable to people. Instead of allowing a Player to donate everything, they are limited to a max of 25%. Besides, I have a s**tload of UPC's now. :) Xylen -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 22:22:20 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Where are the Subers? There have been a lot of Subers being passed about, and I am wondering exactly how many Subers I have. I know the points from Subers are on the standings page, but I would like to see the actual Suber count on a page somewhere. If my Subers have been transferred to ats, then I want to start transferring the slack that I have paid for if ats doesn't want to transfer it. Xylen -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 03:26:42 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: The Beginning Of The Pink Laws I transfer one slack from myself to Joel. I create the following proposals: --------------------------------------- Each proposal which includes a transmutation and does not pass, causes those who voted for it to gain a UPC and each player who votes against it to have all the UPCs e owns destroyed destroyed. --------------------------------------- Transmute and repeal R109. --------------------------------------- While proposals are being voted on, any player use two UPCs to block create a Vote Block on a proposal which is being voted on; this causes the UPC used to be destroyed. To do this, the player should publicly post an announcement of the act, the proposal, indicate some player. A Vote Block causes the indicated player's votes on the proposal which is blocked to be destroyed an infinitesimal amount of time before the voting period for the proposal resoves. --------------------------------------- Transmute and repeal R109. --------------------------------------- It is the Crime Of Monarchy to votes against a proposal such that your vote is partly or fully responsible for the failure of that proposal and it is not in the majority. It is known that the Crime of Monarchy is not a victimless crime, the victim being the author of the proposal so defeated. The punishment for the Crime Of Monarchy is to have your name put on the List Of Pain. Players whose name is on the List Of Pain may only remove eir name by transfering 5 UPCs to each player that has been victimized by the criminal. Players whose names are on the List Of Pain are not able to use Vote Blocks (should Vote Blocks exist) and if any rules-based schemes for getting more votes than the normal one which is entitled to all players would go eir way, such votes are destroyed an infinitesimal amount of time before the voting period resolves. This rule takes precedence over any rules it must, to take effect. --------------------------------------- Transmute and repeal R109. --------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 09:29:13 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: proposal, CFJ, etc. Joel answered Ed: :>MUTATE! :> :>The phrase "unanimous among" in Rule 109 means "greater than a two-thirds :>majority of". :> :>MUTATE! :> :>endprop. :> :>Is this actually legal? : :I am of the opinion that it is not, because it changes (although :indirectly) an immutable rule. I believ that it is legal enough in itself. I belive it will have no force, though, since the common sense interpretation of 109 would overrule this new rule. If, however, one of the rules was mutated afterwards, we could have a whole new situation. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 10:00:35 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: 2 Court for RFJ 78 Nick wrote: :>---------- :> :>Tom Mueller, Nick Osborn, and Mary Tupper have been selected to 2 Court for :>RFJ 78: :> :>In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players. :> :>---------- :FALSE. : :Yes, it is still false. : :ats : How come he was Judge both on Level 1 and 2? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 03:43:59 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 79 and RFJ 80 >>The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >>50 points. >> >I dismiss this appeal. > >Recent judgments have required a lot of interpretation and guesswork of not >only the rules but the significance of the very statement to be judged. >People need to be more specific with the wording of RFJs than they have >lately, and definitly more specific than this turkey of an RFJ. It assumes >that Ole Anderson was burnt based on J75, when J75 said only that Anderson >should be burnt. I can figure out what issue this RFJ is meant to resolve >anyway, of course, but that is not enough to issue a proper judgment, >because judgments can often hinge on specific technical qualities which >cannot be asessed in relation to a statement so vague. > > >>-------------- >> >>The sentence 'This causes them to lose 50 points' in Rule 357/1 refers to >>several persons. >> >FALSE > >This seemed pretty obvious once I considered the word "refers." It is clear >based on game tradition and the plain intention of the public lynching rule >that in that instance, "them" refers to the Provocateur. When I use the >phrase "get something off the net" the word "net" refers to the world wide >web, even though many standard dictionaries probably won't even give that >as one of the meanings of "net." >In this case, "them" is a commonly-used and generally-understood synonym >for "he or she," and considering that together with the very plain intent >of the phrase, "them" does indeed refer to the Provocateur only. > > >--- > Matt Kuhns > mjkuhns@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns Kuhns rocks. ats nominates Kuhns to the Supreme Court of Berserker Nomic. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 03:56:36 -0500 From: a tasteful shrubbery Subject: Nomic: An open invitation to duel I would be interested in dueling with someone. Under a Public Contract, we both put up 15 Subers. The Player with the most votes in the affirmative in the next voting period wins. Anyone interested? ats ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 12:26:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Proposal: Amend rule #453 Ament Rule 472 by appending the "-------" delimited text ------- If ever a smitten Player's slack is greater than zero, that player ceases to be smitten. ------- Poulenc. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 12:49:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Proposal: Boundary Crossing 1 Create a rule with the "+++++++" delimited text +++++++ The rule that contains the text "Boundary Crossing 1" exists in both Berserker Nomic and the Nomic Mu. If this rule fails to exist in one game or the other, then the members of the game in which it does not exists shall submit it by whatever means is provided for enacting new rules. Any change made to this rule in one ruleset is automatically applied to it in the other. +++++++ Yeah maybe it's a cheap gimmick or takeoff of someone else's but it's still good. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 11:02:54 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Boundary Crossing 1 Dan Waldron wrote: > > Create a rule with the "+++++++" delimited text > > +++++++ > The rule that contains the text "Boundary Crossing 1" exists in both > Berserker Nomic and the Nomic Mu. If this rule fails to exist in one > game or the other, then the members of the game in which it does not > exists shall submit it by whatever means is provided for enacting new > rules. Any change made to this rule in one ruleset is automatically > applied to it in the other. > +++++++ > > Yeah maybe it's a cheap gimmick or takeoff of someone else's but it's > still good. Wouldn't this sort of thing be the responsibility of the Foreign Ministry? I don't like the idea that common citizens in a nomic can make or change rules in another nomic. It is my opinion that only the Foreign Minister can make such a proposal. Otherwise, why have the office? Xylen -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 13:10:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Revised Proposal this is a revision of my previous proposal, and unless I specify otherwise, is the form in which it is to be voted. Enact a new rule with the "+++++++" delimited text. +++++++ This rule may be referred to by the Alias "Boundary Crossing 1". The Rule "Boundary Crossing 1" exists both in Berserker Nomic, and the Nomic MU. If this rule fails to exist in one game or the other, then the members of the game in which it does not exist shall submit it by whatever meas exist for enacting new rules. Any change made to this rule in one ruleset is automatically applied to it in the other. +++++++ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 13:46:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Boundary Crossing 1 (fwd) Re: Xylen Poulenc (On the Nomic MU) is the holds the ofice of outside comunications: the equivalent of the foreign minister. I don't believe that there is anything preventing ordinary mortals from doing this kind of bill. Of course it is not possible to change bills on one nomic from another unless it is allowed by the rules. I think we could have some very neat developments from this one. Perhaps I should have consulted with the foreign minister first. This bill is simmilar to the hostile one from Acka that e reported on, but is not hostile in it's intent. Poulenc of the Nomic MU has submitted an identical bill in their system. The Nomic MU is a MUD based nomic, that began in October of 1998. The ruleset is available at http://129.97.38.133 Poulenc. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 12:50:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: The Beginning Of The Pink Laws Mueller writes: >While proposals are being voted on, any player use two UPCs to block create "may use"? Josh -- Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 12:52:00 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Boundary Crossing 1 (fwd) Dan Waldron writes: > > > >Re: Xylen > >Poulenc (On the Nomic MU) is the holds the ofice of outside >comunications: the equivalent of the foreign minister. I don't believe >that there is anything preventing ordinary mortals from doing this kind >of bill. Of course it is not possible to change bills on one nomic from >another unless it is allowed by the rules. I think we could have some >very neat developments from this one. > >Perhaps I should have consulted with the foreign minister first. This >bill is simmilar to the hostile one from Acka that e reported on, but is >not hostile in it's intent. > >Poulenc of the Nomic MU has submitted an identical bill in their system. > >The Nomic MU is a MUD based nomic, that began in October of 1998. The >ruleset is available at http://129.97.38.133 I am an isolationalist and will vote against any proposals that embiggen our contact with other Nomics, whatever those are. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 14:10:01 -0500 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: Revised Proposal At 01:10 PM 5/8/99 -0400, you wrote: >this is a revision of my previous proposal, and unless I specify >otherwise, is the form in which it is to be voted. > >Enact a new rule with the "+++++++" delimited text. > >+++++++ >This rule may be referred to by the Alias "Boundary Crossing 1". >The Rule "Boundary Crossing 1" exists both in Berserker Nomic, and the >Nomic MU. If this rule fails to exist in one game or the other, then the >members of the game in which it does not exist shall submit it by >whatever meas exist for enacting new rules. Any change made to this rule >in one ruleset is automatically applied to it in the other. >+++++++ > Letting one Nomic change the rule in both Nomics seems dangerous. As long as Nomic Mu can change it without our approval, I'm going to vote against it. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 07:50:15 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Alisases? How are these Aliases supposed to work? We are supposed to make proposals on the point. I suppose those proposals will be added to the ballot - at least that would be the common sense (and game spirit) interpretation of 'proposal'. So far we have three Alias Proposals, of which I doubt the validity of the third: ### Proposal: I shall be known by the alias "Poulenc", and said Alias may be used in all references to me within the game of Beserker Nomic ### In other business, I declare that my Alias shall be Xylen. ### This rule may be referred to by the Alias "Boundary Crossing 1". The Rule "Boundary Crossing 1" exists both in Berserker Nomic, and the Nomic MU. If this rule fails to exist in one game or the other, then the members of the game in which it does not exist shall submit it by whatever meas exist for enacting new rules. Any change made to this rule in one ruleset is automatically applied to it in the other. ### Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 01:47:55 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Alisases? "Ole Andersen" writes: >How are these Aliases supposed to work? > >We are supposed to make proposals on the point. I suppose those proposals >will be added to the ballot - at least that would be the common sense (and >game spirit) interpretation of 'proposal'. IIRC aren't our usual "proposals" proposals to change rules? These don't get submitted for voting because they're not proposed rule changes. What does become of them, then, is perhaps a little unclear. I suppose some rules lawyer out there will look it up. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 09:38:16 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Alisases? Ole Andersen wrote: > > How are these Aliases supposed to work? > > We are supposed to make proposals on the point. I suppose those proposals > will be added to the ballot - at least that would be the common sense (and > game spirit) interpretation of 'proposal'. > > So far we have three Alias Proposals, of which I doubt the validity of the > third: > > ### > Proposal: I shall be known by the alias "Poulenc", and said Alias may be > used in all references to me within the game of Beserker Nomic > ### > In other business, I declare that my Alias shall be Xylen. > ### > This rule may be referred to by the Alias "Boundary Crossing 1". > The Rule "Boundary Crossing 1" exists both in Berserker Nomic, and the > Nomic MU. If this rule fails to exist in one game or the other, then the > members of the game in which it does not exist shall submit it by > whatever meas exist for enacting new rules. Any change made to this rule > in one ruleset is automatically applied to it in the other. > ### > > Ole IMHO, since the proposal to be known as an Alias isn't a rule change, it doesn't need to be voted upon. >From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: "Propose \Pro*pose"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Proposed; p. pr. & vb. n. Proposing.] [F. proposer; pref. pro- (L. pro for, forward) + poser to place. See Pose, v.] 1. To set forth. [Obs.] 2. To offer for consideration, discussion, acceptance, or adoption; as, to propose terms of peace; to propose a question for discussion; to propose an alliance; to propose a person for office. 3. To set before one's self or others as a purpose formed; hence, to purpose; to intend." As author of the Alias rule, I had definition #3 in mind. I 'intend' to be known as Xylen. With regards to "Boundary Crossing 1", rule 483 clearly states "A Player may make a proposal that e shall also be known by an Alias". Thus a rule can't be known by an alias. Unless someone comes up with a reason that rules are Players too. Xylen -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 11:55:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Alises re: Xylen I would suggest that a rule may be known by an alias if this is specified in the ruleset. My proposed rule was not an attempt to apply the player alias mechanism to rules. I think it is ridiculous that a player may declare that a rule is now known as something else by the player alias mechanism. On the other hand, if the rules specify that one of the rules may be referred to by an alias, I don't see any reason why that would not be a valid way to refer to that rule. Of course I am still new to this game and I may not be seeing things correctly. If anyone sees a better way to fit the spirit of my proposal, let me know, I think there is still time to change it. Poulenc. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 13:44:34 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Alises Dan Waldron writes: > >re: Xylen > >I would suggest that a rule may be known by an alias if this is specified >in the ruleset. My proposed rule was not an attempt to apply the player >alias mechanism to rules. I think it is ridiculous that a player may >declare that a rule is now known as something else by the player alias >mechanism. On the other hand, if the rules specify that one of the rules >may be referred to by an alias, I don't see any reason why that would not >be a valid way to refer to that rule. > >Of course I am still new to this game and I may not be seeing things >correctly. If anyone sees a better way to fit the spirit of my proposal, >let me know, I think there is still time to change it. > >Poulenc. Are you meaning that you want the rule to be named? -- 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: Sun, 09 May 1999 14:40:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player proposal I propose that Roger Carbol be added as a Player. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 14:45:34 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal Add as the last paragraph of Rule 473/1: Slack may only be possessed by Players. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 14:47:39 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Where are the Subers? At 11:22 PM 5/7/99 , Mary wrote: >There have been a lot of Subers being passed about, and I am wondering >exactly how many Subers I have. I know the points from Subers are on the >standings page, but I would like to see the actual Suber count on a page >somewhere. If my Subers have been transferred to ats, then I want to >start transferring the slack that I have paid for if ats doesn't want to >transfer it. > >Xylen I've been meaning to do that. You had S500.00 before the transfer. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 14:38:38 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: 2 Court for RFJ 78 At 03:00 AM 5/8/99 , Ole wrote: >Nick wrote: > > >:>---------- >:> >:>Tom Mueller, Nick Osborn, and Mary Tupper have been selected to 2 Court >for >:>RFJ 78: >:> >:>In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players. >:> >:>---------- >:FALSE. >: >:Yes, it is still false. >: >:ats >: > >How come he was Judge both on Level 1 and 2? > >Ole That would be because I screwed up. I need to select another judge. Due to the high number of RFJs of late, my selection system has broken down -- in the coming week, I hope to develop a better one that can handle the increased volume. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 13:38:32 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ I request judgment on the following statement: The GRAND PRIZE cannot vote during a rounnd if it cannot be dermined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE votes with em. ------ As per R466/1, "The GRAND PRIZE's votes are cast immediately after the Player or Players turning in the most UPCs cast their ballot(s)." I contend that this clause relies on information that is available during voting only in two cases: 1) no one turns in UPCs, and 2) when the GRAND PRIZE is guaranteed to vote with a certain Player. 2 could only come about for Player X if the following conditions are met: 1. No Players turn in UPCs before X votes. 2. X turns in more UPCs than are possessed by any Player who has not yet voted. Unless these two conditions are met, the GRAND PRIZE's votes cannot be "cast immediately after the Player or Players turning in the most UPCs cast their ballot(s)." Thus, in all cases save the two described here, the rule's provisions cannot be executed. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 11:54:34 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Alisases? At 01:47 AM 5/9/99 , Josh wrote: > >"Ole Andersen" writes: >>How are these Aliases supposed to work? >> >>We are supposed to make proposals on the point. I suppose those proposals >>will be added to the ballot - at least that would be the common sense (and >>game spirit) interpretation of 'proposal'. > >IIRC aren't our usual "proposals" proposals to change rules? These >don't get submitted for voting because they're not proposed rule >changes. > >What does become of them, then, is perhaps a little unclear. >I suppose some rules lawyer out there will look it up. > >Josh I would say they fall in the same category as the informal proposals to add new players, and thus do not need to be voted on. In any case, it seems a little strange that everyone else would have to approve of your changing your name. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 14:59:21 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal Amend the sentence of Rule 466/1 to read: Players receive one UPC for each failed Proposal for which they voted but did not propose. ------ At present, UPCs reward those who make lots of proposals intending them to fail. This discourages such action by denying UPCs to the proposers. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 16:06:08 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (1 J83) Tom Mueller has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 83: Andrew Proescholdt is still the proxy voter for Aaron Woell. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 15:53:28 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (1 J84) Nick Osborn has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 84: The GRAND PRIZE cannot vote during a rounnd if it cannot be dermined immediately after a Player votes whether or not the GRAND PRIZE votes with em. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 16:12:07 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 02:59 PM 5/9/99 , I wrote: >Amend the sentence of Rule 466/1 to read: > >Players receive one UPC for each failed Proposal for which they voted but >did not propose. > That should read "Amend the first sentence..." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 18:21:08 -0700 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Nomic: Alphanomic GWIB Join Persuant to Rule 1 of the Main Ruleset of the Alphanomic GWIB ("1. Any person can join the game as a player, at any time.") I hereby become a player of the Alphanomic GWIB prior to becoming a player of the Berserker Nomic. In addition, Tom Knight, Cher, and Genghis Khan become players of the Alphanomic GWIB. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 21:15:11 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Alphanomic GWIB Join Roger Carbol writes: >Persuant to Rule 1 of the Main Ruleset of the Alphanomic >GWIB ("1. Any person can join the game as a player, at any time.") >I hereby become a player of the Alphanomic GWIB prior to becoming >a player of the Berserker Nomic. > > >In addition, Tom Knight, Cher, and Genghis Khan become players >of the Alphanomic GWIB. > > > >.. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com Um, as far as I know, Alphanomic is no longer joinable because it ceased to exist upon someone (several someones, in fact) meeting its winning conditions. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 16:30:30 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J78) Josh Kortbein has been selected to 2 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: Sun, 09 May 1999 21:39:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Alphanomic GWIB Join At 09:15 PM 5/9/99 , Josh wrote: > >Roger Carbol writes: >>Persuant to Rule 1 of the Main Ruleset of the Alphanomic >>GWIB ("1. Any person can join the game as a player, at any time.") >>I hereby become a player of the Alphanomic GWIB prior to becoming >>a player of the Berserker Nomic. >> >> >>In addition, Tom Knight, Cher, and Genghis Khan become players >>of the Alphanomic GWIB. >> >> >> >>.. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com > >Um, as far as I know, Alphanomic is no longer joinable because >it ceased to exist upon someone (several someones, in fact) >meeting its winning conditions. > >Josh Alphanomic has been dead for several months, but I'm not sure of the exact time because I lost all of my email from that period a while back. As soon as I take care of a few other things, I'll look in the message logs, as it should be there somewhere. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 21:40:33 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection and judicial updates The 2 Court for RFJ 77 (Ed Proescholdt, Jeff Schroeder, Joel Uckelman) is dissolved due to time, reconstituted with Tom Mueller, Dan Waldron, and Mary Tupper, and must issue a judgment within 7 days of the date this message was sent. The 2 Court for RFJ 78 (Mary Tupper, Tom Mueller, Josh Kortbein) has until 12:35 CDT, 14 May 1999 to issue a judgment. The 2 Court for RFJ 79 (Matt Kuhns, Jeff Schroeder, Ed Proescholdt) has until 17:49 CDT, 12 May 1999 to issue a judgment. The 1 Court for RFJ 83 (Tom Mueller) has until 16:06 CDT, 12 May 1999 to issue a judgment. The 1 Court for RFJ 84 (Nick Osborn) has until 15:53 CDT, 12 May 1999 to issue a judgment. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 21:47:56 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: correction Matt Kuhns was the third member of the new 2 Court for RFJ 77 rather than Mary Tupper (who was not eligible). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 04:45:41 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Alisases? Joel wrote: (on Aliases) : :I would say they fall in the same category as the informal proposals to add :new players, and thus do not need to be voted on. In any case, it seems a :little strange that everyone else would have to approve of your changing :your name. I absolutely agree. It is a little strange. But Rule 483 reads: 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. If 'proposal' has been 'statement', 'announcement' or something like that, the case would have been clearer. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 21:08:32 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection and judicial updates Joel Uckelman wrote: > > The 2 Court for RFJ 77 (Ed Proescholdt, Jeff Schroeder, Joel Uckelman) is > dissolved due to time, reconstituted with Tom Mueller, Dan Waldron, and > Mary Tupper, and must issue a judgment within 7 days of the date this > message was sent. Matt Kuhns, Tom Mueller, and Dan Waldron are the three names listed on the web page for this court. > > The 2 Court for RFJ 78 (Mary Tupper, Tom Mueller, Josh Kortbein) has until > 12:35 CDT, 14 May 1999 to issue a judgment. > > The 2 Court for RFJ 79 (Matt Kuhns, Jeff Schroeder, Ed Proescholdt) has > until 17:49 CDT, 12 May 1999 to issue a judgment. > > The 1 Court for RFJ 83 (Tom Mueller) has until 16:06 CDT, 12 May 1999 to > issue a judgment. > > The 1 Court for RFJ 84 (Nick Osborn) has until 15:53 CDT, 12 May 1999 to > issue a judgment. I admit, this is a good way to keep people from coming up with complicated proposals. Keep everyone in court. :) Xylen -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 22:22:34 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Nomic: Suber transfer I accept Matt's transfer of 300 subers. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 22:37:04 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J78) Joel Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein has been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 78: > >In Rule 357/1, the Provocateur and 'X' refer to two different players. FALSE There does not seem to be any text in the rule which indicates that "X" should be bound to "Provocateur." This could lead one to judge TRUE. However, the context of the rule implies that "X" is to stand for whoever is chosen as the Provocateur, especially since the sentences in which "X" appears are in quotes, and as such have a signatory status similar to that of "example" appositive phrases, set off by "for example:" or "e.g." An amendment to the rule would be appreciated, however, because technically, X is a free variable. Josh -- Sabotage will set us free. Throw a rock in the machine. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 23:29:00 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Boundary Crossing 1 > > Create a rule with the "+++++++" delimited text > > +++++++ > The rule that contains the text "Boundary Crossing 1" exists in both > Berserker Nomic and the Nomic Mu. If this rule fails to exist in one > game or the other, then the members of the game in which it does not > exists shall submit it by whatever means is provided for enacting new > rules. Any change made to this rule in one ruleset is automatically > applied to it in the other. To what rule, the above or some other, does "to this rule refer"? Does "in the other" refer to the other game of Nomic? At the least, this should be more clear. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 23:34:08 CDT From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Boundary Crossing 1 > Wouldn't this sort of thing be the responsibility of the Foreign > Ministry? I don't like the idea that common citizens in a nomic can make > or change rules in another nomic. It is my opinion that only the Foreign > Minister can make such a proposal. Otherwise, why have the office? > > Xylen The office of the Foreign Minister has no actual power. I do have the responsibility to submit a report if it is requested, but that is the extent of the office. I wouldn't mind having more power, but that would require a new rule. The proposal which you are refering to would have no detrimental effects upon us, anyway. We may reap benefits from it, but it has to many holes to do anything we don't want it to. ats ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 23:02:10 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Proposal Amend rule #357 to read as follows: It is possible for a Player to be burned at the stake. For a Player, hereafter called the Victim, to be burned at the stake, someone, called the Inciter, must make a public statement including nothing more than "I can't believe what X did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, X should be punished by the Mob." where X refers to the Victim. For the next 72 hours, players may make statements to the effect that they join The Mob. At the end of 72 hours, if three or more players, excluding the Victim and the Inciter, have joined the Mob then, the Mob becomes active. 24 hours later [[96 hours after the inciting]], the Victim is burned at the stake. During the 24 hour period after the Mob becomes active, a player who has not participated in the above process, referred to as The Crowd Shamer, may make a public statement of more than 20 lines outlining exactly why each member of The Mob should be ashamed of themselves and how "What would your Mama think?" if she saw this. It is considered good form for The Crowd Shamer to be inventive. If no Crowd Shamer rose up to protect the Victim, the Victim is burned at the stake at the appointed hour. This causes the Victim to lose 50 points. If a Crowd Shamer defended the Victim, then the Victim is not burned at the stake. ================================= I believe this takes care of several problems that we have encountered with this rule. Xylen -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 07:09:38 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Proposal: Boundary Crossing 1 ats wrote: :The proposal which you are refering to would have no :detrimental effects upon us, anyway. We may reap benefits from it, but it :has to many holes to do anything we don't want it to. : Which benefits might that be? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 07:21:24 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Proposal Xylen, proposing to be Mary, wrote: :Amend rule #357 to read as follows: : :It is possible for a Player to be burned at the stake. For a Player, :hereafter called the Victim, to be burned at the stake, someone, called :the Inciter, must make a public statement including nothing more than "I :can't believe what X did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since :there isn't one, X should be punished by the Mob." where X refers to the :Victim. : :For the next 72 hours, players may make statements to the effect that :they join The Mob. At the end of 72 hours, if three or more players, :excluding the Victim and the Inciter, have joined the Mob then, the Mob :becomes active. 24 hours later [[96 hours after the inciting]], the :Victim is burned at the stake. During the 24 hour period after the Mob :becomes active, a player who has not participated in the above process, :referred to as The Crowd Shamer, may make a public statement of more :than 20 lines outlining exactly why each member of The Mob should be :ashamed of themselves and how "What would your Mama think?" if she saw :this. It is considered good form for The Crowd Shamer to be inventive. : :If no Crowd Shamer rose up to protect the Victim, the Victim is burned :at the stake at the appointed hour. :This causes the Victim to lose 50 points. If a Crowd Shamer defended the :Victim, then the Victim is not burned :at the stake. :================================= :I believe this takes care of several problems that we have encountered :with this rule. Very fine, except: 'Victim'? - The whole point with this rule is that e _deserved_ it. *evil grin* Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 12:34:19 -0700 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 508 Joel Uckelman wrote: > Add as the last paragraph of Rule 473/1: > > Slack may only be possessed by Players. That would certainly end the entire "fist full of slack transfers" debacle. If slack could only be possessed, that is. Did you perhaps mean "Slack may be possessed only by Players."? (In general, rules like this would be clearer if moved from the passive voice to the active voice: "Players may only possess Slack." "Only Players may possess Slack." and another alternative: "Players may possess only Slack." ) .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 13:07:12 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 508 Roger Carbol wrote: > > Joel Uckelman wrote: > > > Add as the last paragraph of Rule 473/1: > > > > Slack may only be possessed by Players. > > That would certainly end the entire "fist full of slack > transfers" debacle. If slack could only be possessed, that is. > > Did you perhaps mean "Slack may be possessed only by Players."? Of course my slack is 'possessed'. But since I am a nice person, it is exorcised prior to being transferred. *eg* > "Players may only possess Slack." You mean I couldn't 'possess' the Spare Tire, if I had it? Gee, no more evil spirits there. > "Only Players may possess Slack." Good, I would hate to think that the rules could 'possess' my slack. I want to control the evil spirits in my slack. Xylen *who is in a strange mood. Now if I can find my list of rules for Evil Overlords, I could take over the World!!* -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is out there? Does anyone know the URL? http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 20:01:56 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 508 At 02:34 PM 5/11/99 , Roger Carbol wrote: >Joel Uckelman wrote: > >> Add as the last paragraph of Rule 473/1: >> >> Slack may only be possessed by Players. > > >That would certainly end the entire "fist full of slack >transfers" debacle. If slack could only be possessed, that is. > > >Did you perhaps mean "Slack may be possessed only by Players."? > > >(In general, rules like this would be clearer if moved from the >passive voice to the active voice: > >"Players may only possess Slack." >"Only Players may possess Slack." > >and another alternative: > >"Players may possess only Slack." >) Your point is well taken. Make that: "Only Players may possess slack." instead. In gratitude, I transfter one slack to Roger Carbol. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:06:16 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting begins tomorrow at 23:28 CDT. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:59:25 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player Roger Carbol was added as a Player at 02:40 CDT, 10 May 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:00:38 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 508 At 08:01 PM 5/11/99 , I wrote: > >In gratitude, I transfter one slack to Roger Carbol. > Roger wasn't a player yet when I did this, so it wasn't a legal transfer. I now transfer one slack to Roger Carbol. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:19:15 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Revised Proposal There is an error in this proposal: To make it compatible with the nomic MU version, the word "the" in the first line of the rule text is replaced by "its" Poulenc. >this is a revision of my previous proposal, and unless I specify >otherwise, is the form in which it is to be voted. > >Enact a new rule with the "+++++++" delimited text. > >+++++++ >This rule may be referred to by the Alias "Boundary Crossing 1". >The Rule "Boundary Crossing 1" exists both in Berserker Nomic, and the >Nomic MU. If this rule fails to exist in one game or the other, then the >members of the game in which it does not exist shall submit it by >whatever meas exist for enacting new rules. Any change made to this rule >in one ruleset is automatically applied to it in the other. >+++++++ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:54:50 -0700 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #01 Introduction: I find I often have A LOT of things to say on a variety of Nomic topics. I usually lump them all into a big omnibus message rather than split each topic off into a message. Replies that deal with only one topic may, of course, change the subject line to something a bit more useful. * * * Commentary on Live Proposals: p509: It doesn't seem clear that voting "for" a proposal strongly implies voting "yes"; it seems to me that voting "for" a proposal is just too close to voting "on" a proposal. Furthermore, it's not really clear that the rule only fires once per failed Proposal and not once per turn for ALL failed Proposals. It's also unclear as to how Withdrawn Proposals fit in. I'm not sure these problems can be really resolved without a rule defining the status of proposals and the meaning of active, inactive, live, dead, withdrawn, failed, passed. Without those definitions, my recommended wording would be: For each unadopted nonwithdrawn Proposal, every Player who voted equivalent to "yes" for that Proposal, except the Player who proposed the Proposal, receives one UPC at the end of the Voting Period in which the Proposal was voted upon. [[Yuck!]] p508: Looks good to me, Joel. Thanks for slacking me. p507: interesting idea, but open to abuse. For example, assuming that Nomic MU also adopts it, I don't see anything preventing us from modifying the rule to something like "Nomic MU does not exist." or "Within Nomic MU, 'mutable' shall be defined as having exactly the same meaning as 'immutable'" since the changes are "automatically applied." p506: (presumable "Amend"): Seems eminently reasonable. p505, p503, p501: Hrm. I'd prefer to see the transmutation and the repeal broken up into two seperate proposals; in fact, I think as an amendment to r109 it might be worthwhile to put in a clause something along the lines of "A proposal to transmute a rule from immutable to mutable must have no other effect on the rules." p504: It seems like this rule would only come into effect with respect to non-simple majorities. Presumably non-simple majorities are designated in certain cases explicitly to protect small dissenting minorities; enacting a rule with no other purpose but to punish that protected group seems counter-productive. If non-simple majorities bother Tom that much, he could propose changes to them on a case-by-case basis (or all at once, if desired.) p502: An interesting idea, but it seems to dance around its own fundamental purpose of destroying a Player's vote (perhaps because such action is explicitly prohibited by r207.) I'd prefer a wording something closer to: A Vote Block causes the indicated player's votes on the proposal which is blocked to be changed permanently and irrevocably to neutral. Which does not have quite the same effect, but I think it's more meaningful within the definitions of the game. p500: Interesting. It implies that a trusted Player may become a "UPC Bank" whose only purpose is to never vote and hold onto people's UPCs for them. Of course if such a Player *were* to vote, things could get...interesting... Still, I have many of the same concerns about p500 as I do about p509, in terms of how the proposed rule is defined without strong definitions relating to the status of Proposals. p499: Also interesting. "They may donate any non-negative amount to a maximum of 25% of the items or property" should probably be clarified a bit; it's not clear that the 25% refers to the items in that Player's possession and not simply, for example, 25% of all Subers in existance in the game. I'm not sure being able to donate and receive Slack is really within the theme, and would run afoul of p509 if adopted. r399/3 would also require amendment ("Only Players and the game may possess property") or an explicit notice within p499 that it supercedes r399/3. Actually, that sentence in r399 seems to imply that the Treasury cannot hold any funds. p498: [[General note: I don't like huge proposals, in general.]] I'm not sure it's clear what is meant by Religious Opinions "agreeing" with each other. For instance, consider the following Religious Opinions: A) Sporty Spice is the best Spice Girl. B) Scary Spice is the worst Spice Girl. C) All Spice Girls are equal. D) The Spice Girls do not exist. E) The Spice Girls may exist. F) My cat smells like cat food. Which of these Opinions are in "agreement" with one another, if any? Something closer to the Spare Tire Creeds, in which the STCs must be identical, would be more practicable, I think. I like the sense of the proposed rule, but the formation of Religions is quite weak in my opinion and just asking for a fistful of judgement calls. If this Proposal had been split up into Proposals proposing Religious Opinions, Religions, Agonists, etc I'd almost certainly end up voting for at least one of them. p497: Nice try, but I'd rather not see immutability dodged that easily. * * * Miscellaneous Comments: + I hereby add myself to the judicial pool by publicly consenting to selection as a Judge. + r319 should probably use "Forfeitting" rather than "Quitting" + it doesn't seem clear as to what might occur if there were suspicions that the Administrator has gone Limbo (although it's likely that the game itself would collapse if that were ever the case.) + I like the footnote system that Joel has implemented. I wonder if it might be worthwhile to be able to add non-judicial commentary to rules. A bit of restraint would need to be exercised...I think it could be useful, though. + r480: "The Administrator shall keep a public record of the last time each player entered Limbo and the time they spent there." Does such a public record exist? The rule has only been around since 3 May 99, so quite possibly it does not. Just wondering. + "X" is defined in r216/2; it is also implied in 214/2 and r215, but not explicitly defined -- some sort of fix might be in order. + with respect to r394, how far away are we from the fifth-turn elections? .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 15:24:32 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Revised Proposal Okay in light of the potential abuse problems I am changing this to something a little more robust. It's got an easy escape door too. Here is the revised text +++++++ This rule may be referred to by its Alias "Boundary Crossing 1". The Rule "Boundary Crossing 1" exists both in Berserker Nomic, and the Nomic MU. If this rule is ever removed from the ruleset of one Nomic, it is also removed from the ruleset of the other. The text of this rule may not be changed unless the change is made by both Nomics. These changes do not have to be simultaneous: a change that would otherwise be made is preserved outside of the ruleset until such time as it is approved by the other game. If the change would be to remove the rule entirely, then the rule is removed from both Nomics. +++++++ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 16:45:24 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #01 Roger Carbol writes: >Introduction: I find I often have A LOT of things to say on a variety >of Nomic topics. I usually lump them all into a big omnibus message >rather >than split each topic off into a message. Replies that deal with only >one >topic may, of course, change the subject line to something a bit more >useful. There's a reason mail clients make that "reply" button so easy to hit. Use it more frequently. -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:27:42 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #01 Roger Carbol writes: >p498: [[General note: I don't like huge proposals, in general.]] > >I'm not sure it's clear what is meant by Religious Opinions "agreeing" >with each >other. For instance, consider the following Religious Opinions: > >A) Sporty Spice is the best Spice Girl. >B) Scary Spice is the worst Spice Girl. >C) All Spice Girls are equal. >D) The Spice Girls do not exist. >E) The Spice Girls may exist. >F) My cat smells like cat food. > >Which of these Opinions are in "agreement" with one another, if any? > >Something closer to the Spare Tire Creeds, in which the STCs must be >identical, >would be more practicable, I think. > > >I like the sense of the proposed rule, but the formation of Religions is >quite >weak in my opinion and just asking for a fistful of judgement calls. If >this >Proposal had been split up into Proposals proposing Religious Opinions, >Religions, >Agonists, etc I'd almost certainly end up voting for at least one of >them. Ponder, for a moment, the nature of religions, in general. I believe I have accomplished what I set out to do. Josh -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 22:56:37 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #01 At 02:54 PM 5/12/99 , Roger wrote: > >+ it doesn't seem clear as to what might occur if there were suspicions >that >the Administrator has gone Limbo (although it's likely that the game >itself >would collapse if that were ever the case.) Don't worry -- I don't plan to put myself into Limbo. > >+ I like the footnote system that Joel has implemented. I wonder if it >might be worthwhile to be able to add non-judicial commentary to rules. >A bit of restraint would need to be exercised...I think it could be >useful, >though. > > >+ r480: "The Administrator shall keep a public record of the last >time each player entered Limbo and the time they spent there." > >Does such a public record exist? The rule has only been around since >3 May 99, so quite possibly it does not. Just wondering. Yes and no. I have the information to construct one, I just haven't done it yet. >+ "X" is defined in r216/2; it is also implied in 214/2 and r215, but >not >explicitly defined -- some sort of fix might be in order. > > >+ with respect to r394, how far away are we from the fifth-turn >elections? I'll look into that... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 00:24:03 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: regarding P500, P502, P504 Proposals 500, 502, and 504 (by Mueller), if passed, would essentially deny other players the opportunity to oppose anything whatsoever that Tom Mueller would want to add to the ruleset. P500 encourages transmutations by destroying the UPCs of those who oppose them, but it also further encourages Tom to propose transmutations that are intended to fail, thus ensuring that the Demon will continue to vote with him and widening the UPC gap between him and eveyrone else. P502, by allowing vote blocks, not only denies selected players their votes, but also augments Mueller's position -- as the player most likely to have UPCs in abundance, he will often be able to block the votes of those who disagree with him. P504 further denies UPCs to those voting against Tom's transmutations -- again, it degrades everyone else's ability to resist. I implore you, if you desire to maintain your right to make your votes count, vote against these proposals! J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 00:24:25 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot P497 The phrase "unanimous among" in Rule 109 means "greater than a two-thirds majority of". ------------------ P498 Create a rule containing the following SEYLABENHABIB-delimited text SEYLABENHABIB {{This rule shall be titled "Everybody's Got One"}} {{This rule shall have number 600.}} 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"}} {{This rule shall have number 601.}} 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 a