________________________________________ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 23:54:22 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J79) The previous 2 Court for RFJ 79 has lapsed. Matt Kuhns, Ed Proescholdt, and Mary Tupper have been selected to replace it: The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 23:10:53 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J79) > The previous 2 Court for RFJ 79 has lapsed. Already? I was only put on the court on 27 May. R216/2 seems to imply I get 7 days to come to a decision. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 00:15:24 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: mob results Tom Mueller was burnt at the stake by the Mob on 29 May. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 00:27:59 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J79) At 12:10 AM 6/1/99 , Roger Carbol wrote: >> The previous 2 Court for RFJ 79 has lapsed. > >Already? I was only put on the court on 27 May. R216/2 seems >to imply I get 7 days to come to a decision. > > > >.. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com R216/2 refers to the Court (not the individual Judges) as having 7 days. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:22:04 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: J79 (time and time again) Statement: >The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >50 points. Ruling: FALSE. Comments: As several people have pointed out, "Ole Anderson" is not currently a player in Berserker Nomic. Therefore its rules (and judicial interpetations thereof) cannot cause him (whoever he is) to lose fifty points. Further Comments: This issue seems to have followed the wrong logic tree. Did anyone ever determine whether the original inciting referred to Ole Andersen? Or whether the name "Ole Anderson," in that long-ago judgment where it was first introduced, should be taken to mean Ole Andersen? Those questions are what I would have asked, followed by the question of whether the answers (depending on what they are) mean that Mr. Andersen lost 50 points. Matt Kuhns "Gravity doesn't exist, mjkuhns@iastate.edu the Earth sucks." http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns -anonymous ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 00:14:58 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: page updates As of this evening, the program I use to generate the rulesets (and other things now, as well) appears to work correctly. Of course, as anyone who's ever programmed knows, appearances and reality are not always commensurate. As such, I'd greatly appreciate it if everyone would let me know if they notice anything odd or wrong in the rulesets (e.g. missing rules, incorrect indentation, things generally screwed-up) so I can quickly fix the problem, whether it be in the input files or the code itself. Now that I am done with the coding end of this project, I will also be devoting FAR more energy to prompt page updates and should begin to make headway on updating some long-neglected areas (statistics, voting results) and adding new ones (judicial pool listing, expanded listing of prospective events). Suggestions for changes and additions, as always, are welcome. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:27:42 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judge selection (2 J79) Roger wrote: :> The previous 2 Court for RFJ 79 has lapsed. : :Already? I was only put on the court on 27 May. R216/2 seems :to imply I get 7 days to come to a decision. : Nope. The Court gets 7 days. When you are called in as replacement, you only get what's left of the 7 days. So you can be selected as Judge, wait 6 days, go into Limbo, and someone else gets in a real hurry. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 00:38:44 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: judge selection (2 J79) > :> The previous 2 Court for RFJ 79 has lapsed. > : > :Already? I was only put on the court on 27 May. R216/2 seems > :to imply I get 7 days to come to a decision. > : > > Nope. The Court gets 7 days. When you are called in as replacement, you only > get what's left of the 7 days. > > So you can be selected as Judge, wait 6 days, go into Limbo, and someone > else gets in a real hurry. Hrm. Sounds kinda wonky to me. In the sense that a Court isn't the same Court if you replace a Judge. Heck, if the Limbos occurred correctly, you could replace *all* the Judges -- in what sense is it still the same Court? If it is the same Court, then in what sense is a "new" Court that reselects a new batch of Judges "new"? Also note that it appears as though a Court, if it returns a majority judgement before the deadline, does *not* dissolve. The Judges remain Judges, etc. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:32:40 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Request for Judgement I want this Statement judged: "Non-Players can lose points." Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:30:10 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: J79 (time and time again) Matt wrote: :Statement: :>The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose :>50 points. : :Ruling: :FALSE. : :Comments: :As several people have pointed out, "Ole Anderson" is not currently a :player in Berserker Nomic. Therefore its rules (and judicial interpetations :thereof) cannot cause him (whoever he is) to lose fifty points. : Can't non-players lose points? But they can be burned? This is not unexciting. See separate message. :Further Comments: :This issue seems to have followed the wrong logic tree. Did anyone ever :determine whether the original inciting referred to Ole Andersen? Determine - no. I pointed out immediately after the original Judgement that _I_ wasn't Ole Anderson. So I had no reason to appeal. Nobody else appealed, nor did anyone question my not being Ole Anderson. :Or :whether the name "Ole Anderson," in that long-ago judgment where it was :first introduced, should be taken to mean Ole Andersen? Those questions are :what I would have asked, followed by the question of whether the answers :(depending on what they are) mean that Mr. Andersen lost 50 points. Apparently, I lost 50 points, anyway. I am still not too sure if Joel wasn't burned then, though. Ahhh... water under the bridge, I guess. Rule 455/0 is quite clear. Mr. Anderson _was_ burned. I still don't know why, though. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 02:44:12 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Request for Judgement "Ole Andersen" writes: >I want this Statement judged: > >"Non-Players can lose points." Eh? How would that be? There are no rules prohibiting non-players from losing, or even having, points, but since there are also currently no non-players which _have_ points this seems to be somewhat moot. Josh -- Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 02:49:33 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: J79 (time and time again) "Ole Andersen" writes: >Matt wrote: > > >:Statement: >:>The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >:>50 points. >: >:Ruling: >:FALSE. >: >:Comments: >:As several people have pointed out, "Ole Anderson" is not currently a >:player in Berserker Nomic. Therefore its rules (and judicial interpetations >:thereof) cannot cause him (whoever he is) to lose fifty points. >: > >Can't non-players lose points? But they can be burned? This is not >unexciting. See separate message. Ah. Hmmm. Now I see what you were talking about. I suppose, under the tradition-considered interpretation of the rules, a non-player could lose points only if non-players could be said to have scores, as it seems implicit in the losing of points by an entity that that entity has a score. Because "non-player" is not explicitly defined in the ruleset, it could be considered something which is unregulated, and hence scores could be ascribed to non-players. However, I think that it would be in keeping with the "spirit of the game" that properties not be ascribed to entities which are not recognized by the rules. It's not clear to me whether we would call the properties of a non-entity "undecidable," meaning that it might have properties but we couldn't know what they were until it was an entity, or whether a non-entity should be said to not have properties at all until it becomes an entity. But that we should not directly ascribe properties to non-entities seems rather clear. Josh -- Sabotage will set us free. Throw a rock in the machine. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 16:33:24 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judicial proposal In response to the malaise that has befallen our once-splendid Judiciary, I offer the following proposal to restore it to its former timely-operating glory: Especially since this is a complex proposal, comments are welcome. I am, at present, unsure whether section 7 (striking R217/1) is advisable or not -- it's inclusion in the final draft depends much on whether there is support for that provision. --------------------------------------------- 1. Create Rule 230 from the "JUDICIAL PROCESS"-delimited text: JUDICIAL PROCESS Upon each Request for Judgment, the following procedure is executed: 1. A Case is opened for the Request for Judgment. 2. A full Court is selected to rule on the Statement. 3. If, at any time after the initial selection, the Court is not full, as many new Judges are selected and added to the Court as are necessary to fill the Court. If the Court lapses, it is dissolved; if possible, a new Court is selected; if not, the procedure skips to step 7. 4. A majority Judgment is issued by the Court. 5. The Court dissolves. 6. If a legal Appeal of the Judgment is made, the Court level is incremented and the process repeated from step 2. 7. At such time as no further legal Appeals are possible, the Case is closed and former Judges on the Case are paid. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with the Judiciary. JUDICIAL PROCESS 2. Amend Rule 214/2 to read as follows: "Any Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment on a Statement to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Upon each Request for Judgment, a corresponding Case is opened. Any Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its public issuance, the same verdict has been returned in the Case fewer than three times consecutively, and 2(Case level)-1 does not does not exceed the number of Players eligible to serve as Judges on the Case." 3. Create Rule 231 from the following CASE-delimited text: CASE A Case consists of a Statement, a level, and all judicial documents produced by the Complainant; Appellants; and Courts assigned to the Statement. All Cases start at level 1. (Case level) refers to the level of the Case in question. CASE 4. Create Rule 232 from the following POOL-delimited text: POOL The Judicial Pool shall consist only of all Players having publicly consented to selection as Judges. A Player may, at any time, add or remove only emself from the Judicial Pool. Players entering Limbo are automatically removed from the Judicial Pool. In the event that no Players are in the Judicial Pool, all Players not in Limbo are automatically placed in the Judicial Pool. POOL 5. Amend Rule 215/3 to read: "Players in the Judicial Pool, with the following exceptions, are eligible to become Judges on a Case: i. Judges already serving on the Court in question ii. the Complainant and any Appellants if (Case level) < 3 iii. no more than one former Judge from the (Case level)-1 Court for the Case iv. no former Judges from the (Case level)-1 Court for the Case Exceptions ii, iii, and iv shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a full Court from being chosen. A Court is considered full when it has 2(Case level)-1 Judges serving on it. In the event that a Court is not full, sufficient eligible Players shall be selected randomly by the Administrator to become Judges and assigned to the Court." 6. Amend Rule 216/2 to read: "Each open Case shall assigned a full (Case level) Court. Each Judge on a Court must issue a public Judgment within the specified time period for the Court or be subject to a ten point fine. If a majority of a Court’s Judges do not return the same response within the allowed time, the Court lapses. Level 1 Courts lapse three days after their selection. All other Courts lapse seven days after their selection. A Court is dissolved if it lapses or a majority of its Judges return the same response within the allowed time. A Judge's tenure ends upon the dissolving of eir Court, at which time e relinquishes the title of Judge and its associated powers and privileges." 7. Strike Rule 217/1. 8. Amend Rule 220/1 to read: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the Judicial rules. Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by the the Statute of Limitations." 9. Amend Rule 228/0 to read: "A Judgment must consist of a legal response to the Statement to be judged, and either a) the Judge’s analysis of the Statement and response, or b) an explicit statement of concurrence with an opinion issued by another Judge on the Court. Majority Judgments are issued when at least a simple majority of Judges on a Court return the same response to a Statement. Only Statements and their corresponding responses are considered to have official legal standing, and only Judges chosen in accordance with the rules may issue Judgments. The set of legal responses to Statements is defined as {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false. No other responses are allowed. All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards." 10. Amend Rule 390/0 to read: "Upon the closure of a Case, former Judges on the Case's Courts having ruled in accord with the final ruling on the Case shall each receive 3 points iff the final ruling is TRUE or FALSE." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 16:58:24 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: FM election The recent activity on the INTO mailing list reminded me that no one was nominated to replace Nick Osborn when he resigned as Foreign Minister, and that we should probably have one now. Thus, I resign from the FM (that I hold as Administrator) as of the end of this sentence. Nominations are now open. The eleciton begins in 48 hours. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 17:04:46 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: INTO: Draft Treaty For those not subscribed to the internomic list, the following treaty proposal was posted to it today. Those interested in becoming our FM might want to comment on it... > >This is partly inspired by (read plagiarised from) Tom Mueller's previous >draft treaty. My main aim here is to provide a "meta-treaty" containing >terms which may be used by other treaties and so avoid a lot of repitition. >Also, I think it somehow poetic to have a kind of constitutional treaty >instead of diving head first into procedural ones. > >Please peruse and criticise at your leisure. > >Gavin Logan >(Ambassador of Ackanomic) > >*** >INT#n > >The signatories of this treaty recognise the terms and definitions presented >herein as a standard which (when used or referred to in any INTO treaty of >which they are a signatory) shall have the meanings presented here unless >such a treaty were to explicitly state otherwise. This treaty is amendable. > >Section A Nomics > >A Nomic is any grouping of one or more distinct rules which are collectively >known as a rule set. In the following list of paired descriptions, a Nomic >may possess only one from each >pair (e.g. a Nomic may not be both Public and Private) at any one time. >(However, due to the general dynamic quality of Nomics, it is recognised >that any particular Nomic's related description may change at any given >time.) > >i) Private/Public. A Public Nomic is one whose rule set is available for >public perusal either on a web site or by regular (at least weekly) email >delivery. Otherwise, that Nomic is Private. > >ii) Static/Dynamic. A Static Nomic is one whose rule set may not be >modified, in whole or in part, by any method. Otherwise that Nomic is >Dynamic. > >iii) Open/Closed. An Open Nomic is one which allows new Players to join >immediately, or after a finite, rule-defined amount of time has elapsed >since said Player applied for membership. Otherwise, that Nomic is Closed. > >iv) Dead/Alive. A Dead Nomic is one which has no Players and/or in which >further play is impossible. Otherwise, that Nomic is Alive. > >Section B Players > >i) A Player is any distinct person who participates in one or more Nomics. > >ii) A Member is any incarnation of a Player in a nomic, or any distinct >rule-defined entity within a Nomic which has the power to affect the >changing of the rule set. (n.b. A Player may exist as any number of Members, >even within the same Nomic. And a member may be an entity with no >corresponding player.) > >Section C Treaties > >A Treaty may state that it is amendable. If this is the case and there is >more than one signatory, then the following process may be used to modify >the text of that treaty. > >i) Any signatory's delegate to INTO may propose a change to that treaty on >the official INTO mailing list by posting the changes to be made. > >ii) All signatory delegates must affirm a change for the change to take >effect. > >iii) The deadline for these affirmations is two weeks after the posting of >the proposed change. > >iv) If the above precedure is followed, the text of that treaty shall be >modified in the manner described by the proposed change. > >Section D Paradox > >Any treaty signed wholly by signatories of INT#n is considered subject to >the following guidelines: > >i) If any statement in a treaty's text contradicts another statement or >produces a paradox in conjunction with others, then those statements that >occur earlier in the treaty take precedence over later portions. If a single >statement in a treaty is self-contradictory and/or paradox >inducing, it is ignored. > >ii) If any treaty contradicts another treaty, the treaty with the highest >assigned number is considered to take precedence. > >Section E Signatory Requirements > >Any Nomic may be a signatory of INT#n so long as that Nomic contains a rule >granting precedence to INT#n over all other rules in that Nomic with which >it conflicts. Should a signatory of this >treaty fail at any time to meet this requirement, it shall be considered to >have unsigned this treaty. >*** > > > J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 16:40:01 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J79) Joel Uckelman wrote: > > The previous 2 Court for RFJ 79 has lapsed. Matt Kuhns, Ed Proescholdt, and > Mary Tupper have been selected to replace it: > > The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose > 50 points. TRUE Now we just have to figure out who Ole Anderson is. Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 16:53:50 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: INTO: Draft Treaty Joel Uckelman wrote: > > For those not subscribed to the internomic list, the following treaty > proposal was posted to it today. Those interested in becoming our FM might > want to comment on it... <> > >Section E Signatory Requirements > > > >Any Nomic may be a signatory of INT#n so long as that Nomic contains a rule > >granting precedence to INT#n over all other rules in that Nomic with which > >it conflicts. Should a signatory of this > >treaty fail at any time to meet this requirement, it shall be considered to > >have unsigned this treaty. > >*** It is only this last part that I have trouble with. I don't like the idea of an outside treaty/rule taking precedence over Beserker rules. I guess it would be up to the FM to inform the Players in Beserker as to which rules may be subject to the treaty. Without some control over the FM, allowing them to sign such treaties without Player knowledge could cause some problems. Admittedly, I haven't looked up the rules on the Beserker FM, but I would hope that the Players within Beserker would be very careful about allowing such an abuse of power. Other than that, I like the idea. It would add some interesting elements to the game that could be very interesting. Xylen > > > > > > > > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 17:04:50 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: section 7 For the most part, I think the proposal to reform the judicial system is good. I haven't had a chance to really tear it apart, but I would like to comment on one thing right now. Striking 217/1 is a bad idea. Admittedly, this would keep the game from grinding to a halt, but in the event that a Case requires a revision of the rules or actions taken, it could get really messy. I am hoping that selecting Judges only from consenting Players will keep things moving. Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 18:56:38 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judging pool, selection (1 J87) According to my records, the following players are in the Judicial Pool: Ole Andersen Roger Carbol Matt Kuhns Ed Proescholdt Jeff Schroeder Mary Tupper Joel Uckelman With only seven of us in the pool, it shouldn't be so surprising that the same people were repeatedly selected to courts. ---------------------------- Matt Kuhns has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 87: Non-Players can lose points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 18:40:20 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: judging pool, selection (1 J87) Joel Uckelman wrote: > > According to my records, the following players are in the Judicial Pool: > > Ole Andersen > Roger Carbol > Matt Kuhns > Ed Proescholdt > Jeff Schroeder > Mary Tupper > Joel Uckelman > > With only seven of us in the pool, it shouldn't be so surprising that the > same people were repeatedly selected to courts. > With so few people, what about a different way of handling judgments. For example, 3 Players are selected at the begining of a turn. These 3 rule on all RFJ during that turn. Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 19:12:00 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: section 7 At 06:04 PM 6/1/99 , you wrote: >For the most part, I think the proposal to reform the judicial system is >good. I haven't had a chance to really tear it apart, but I would like >to comment on one thing right now. > >Striking 217/1 is a bad idea. Admittedly, this would keep the game from >grinding to a halt, but in the event that a Case requires a revision of >the rules or actions taken, it could get really messy. I am hoping that >selecting Judges only from consenting Players will keep things moving. > >Xylen Yeah, I wondered about that. Josh thought it was ok to kill it, but I was a little hesitant. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:21:49 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judging pool, selection (1 J87) At 07:40 PM 6/1/99 , Mary wrote: > >Joel Uckelman wrote: >> >> According to my records, the following players are in the Judicial Pool: >> >> Ole Andersen >> Roger Carbol >> Matt Kuhns >> Ed Proescholdt >> Jeff Schroeder >> Mary Tupper >> Joel Uckelman >> >> With only seven of us in the pool, it shouldn't be so surprising that the >> same people were repeatedly selected to courts. >> > >With so few people, what about a different way of handling judgments. >For example, 3 Players are selected at the begining of a turn. These 3 >rule on all RFJ during that turn. > >Xylen I meant that more as an admonition to those who are active but not in the pool to rejoin it. It really only becomes a problem if a Court keeps lapsing, and even then, I don't think it raises issues of procedural fairness or anything like that, it just causes delays. W/r/t to preselection of judges, I'm opposed to that -- I've seen it lead to collusion too many times in the past. Josh's first win and the problem last November with a judge arbitrarily declaring Nick the winner (that ultimately led to the collapse of our game 3) were both the result of it being determinable beforehand who would judge certain RFJs. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 23:05:58 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: P516 redraft A few changes to P516: I altered section 6 so judges that are selected 5 minutes before the court lapses don't get screwed. Also, I am striking section 7, and renumbering the succeeding sections accordingly. ----------------- 6. Amend Rule 216/2 to read: "Each open Case shall assigned a full (Case level) Court. Each Judge selected to a Court three or more days in advance of when the Court is scheduled to lapse must issue a public Judgment in the Case before that time or be subject to a ten point fine. If a majority of a Court’s Judges do not return the same response within the allowed time, the Court lapses. Level 1 Courts lapse three days after their selection. All other Courts lapse seven days after their selection. A Court is dissolved if it lapses or a majority of its Judges return the same response within the allowed time. A Judge's tenure ends upon the dissolving of eir Court, at which time e relinquishes the title of Judge and its associated powers and privileges." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:22:28 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: J87 Statement: Non-Players can lose points. Judgment: FALSE Comments: R399 states "Property is any game-defined object that is both ownable and tradable. Only Players and the game may possess property." Because one may own points (At last count I have 68 points that are exclusively mine and no one else's; I must conclude I own them) and one may trade points (as players have proven by doing so) points are property. Therefore only players may posess points. >From this, common sense tells us that because one cannot lose what one does not have, non-players, being unable to posess points, cannot lose them. Matt Kuhns // mjkuhns@iastate.edu // http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns "When I die, I hope to go to Heaven, whatever the Hell that is." -A. Rand ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:24:18 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #3 Carbol Omnibus #3 Contents: 1 Rant, 1 Response, 1 Request for Judgement, 1 Nomination, 1 Public Contract, and 2 Proposals. * * * * * Ha! You'd think I'd be discouraged by seeing my first three proposals all fail! Ha! They told me I was mad to try building a Nomic in a swamp... Just to prove I haven't slowed down, here's Omnibus #3. * * * * * In Response to Joel's Judicial Reform Proposed Rule 230 Section 3: You may want to specify what happens if a Court loses a Judge and for some reason *cannot* get a replacement. Proposed striking of Rule 217: A very good idea. At this point someone could postpone the game essentially indefinitely by submitting A LOT of RFJs. Proposed Amendment to Rule 330/0: Hrm. I'd rather see all the Judges get paid, not just the ones that agreed to follow the Majority. Also it would encourage Judges to wait even longer, until the last possible moment, to submit their judgements, in hopes that everyone else would submit their's first, and thus one could see where the majority would lie. * * * * * RFJ I would like the following statement judged: "Players in Limbo cannot lose points." Commentary: We just heartlessly burnt Tom Mueller at the stake. He's not even around to defend himself, as he's in Limbo. That hardly seems fair. Rule 319/2 clearly states "When a player is in Limbo, e is neither able nor required to perform any Berserker Nomic-related actions except..." and the exceptions do not include losing points. To lose something is an action. Losing one's car keys, losing points, losing score, losing one's mind, losing one's virginity...all these things point to the conclusion that "to lose" is an action. Rule 357/2 states that once a person is burnt at the stake, "This causes the Victim to lose 50 points." It is my belief that this rule requires the Victim to "perform a Berserker Nomic-related action," and thus doesn't happen due to Rule 319/2. * * * * * I nominate Josh Kortbein for Foreign Minister. War! Huh! What it is good for? BER-SER-KER NOM-IC! * * * * * I propose the creation of the following WHOOPS-delimited rule: WHOOPS {{[[Title:"Repentance"]]}} Any proposal repealing a rule must be disinterested if the player making the proposal also proposed the rule. WHOOPS * * * * * I propose the creation of the following SUCCINCT-delimited rule: SUCCINCT {{[[Title:"Brevity is the Soul of Wit"]]}} Any rule with a higher ordinal number than this rule is repealed if its text contains more than 100 words. [[Almost all of Suber's original rules are shorter than 100 words.]] SUCCINCT * * * * * Public Contract 1. This Public Contract defines the Religious Order of Narrow-Minded Fundamentalist Agnostics. All Parties to this Public Contact are Members of this Religious Order and may be referred to as Narrow-Minded Fundamentalist Agnostics. 2. The acronym "ROoNMFA" is synonymous with "Religious Order of Narrow-Minded Fundamentalist Agnostics" and the acronym "NMFA" is synonymous with "Narrow-Minded Fundamentalist Agnostic". The plural form "NMFAs" refers to one or more Narrow-Minded Fundamentalist Agnostics. There exists a Leader of the ROoNMFA, who may be referred to as the Poobah. The Rules of this Public Contract may be referred to as Commandments. 3. The Poobah may alter the Commandments at any time, with the following restrictions: a) The Poobah may never alter this rule, the Third Commandment. b) There shall never be more than ten Commandments. c) A NMFA shall always retain the right to declare that this Public Contract is no longer valid. 4. The Poobah is Roger Carbol. 5. Any player who becomes a Party to this Public Contract shall have transferred to er the amount of 50 Subers by the Poobah. The Religious Opinion of the new NMFA becomes identical to the Religious Opinion of the Poobah. 6. NMFAs may be a Party to this Public Contract, but they may not become a Party to this Public Contract. [[This prevents people from joining more than once in an attempt to scam the Poobah senseless.]] 7. All NMFAs have a Religious Opinion that is identical to the Religious Opinion of the Poobah. The Poobah is the only NMFA who may change er Religious Opinion; when this change occurs, the Religious Opinions of all other NMFAs automatically change to become identical to the Religious Opinion of the Poobah. 8. No Member of a Religious Order shall join any Mob which is lynching a Provocateur who is a Member of the same Religious Order. * * * * * .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 23:19:30 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: INTO: Draft Treaty At 05:53 PM 6/1/99 , Mary wrote: > >Joel Uckelman wrote: >> >> For those not subscribed to the internomic list, the following treaty >> proposal was posted to it today. Those interested in becoming our FM might >> want to comment on it... > ><> > >> >Section E Signatory Requirements >> > >> >Any Nomic may be a signatory of INT#n so long as that Nomic contains a rule >> >granting precedence to INT#n over all other rules in that Nomic with which >> >it conflicts. Should a signatory of this >> >treaty fail at any time to meet this requirement, it shall be considered to >> >have unsigned this treaty. >> >*** > >It is only this last part that I have trouble with. I don't like the >idea of an outside treaty/rule taking precedence over Beserker rules. I >guess it would be up to the FM to inform the Players in Beserker as to >which rules may be subject to the treaty. Without some control over the >FM, allowing them to sign such treaties without Player knowledge could >cause some problems. Admittedly, I haven't looked up the rules on the >Beserker FM, but I would hope that the Players within Beserker would be >very careful about allowing such an abuse of power. Heh heh heh. At present, the FM has NO - you heard right! NO! - powers whatsoever. No one bothered to give the FM any powers because we haven't found anything for the FM to do requiring them yet. Also, though, such a provision would make it very difficult for us to become party to any treaties at all, since to engage in any, we'd need to transmute a bunch of rules to insert the required rule. >Other than that, I like the idea. It would add some interesting elements >to the game that could be very interesting. > >Xylen Does that count as our "Tautology of the Day"? Interesting thing do tend to be interesting. :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 00:24:54 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Pool of Judge Add myself to it I do. -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 00:34:51 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: FM nomination I nominate Dan Waldron, as he seemed to have some interest in internomic relations. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 00:06:06 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: J79 (time and time again) At 02:30 AM 6/1/99 , Ole wrote: >Matt wrote: > >:Statement: >:>The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >:>50 points. >: >:Ruling: >:FALSE. >: >:Comments: >:As several people have pointed out, "Ole Anderson" is not currently a >:player in Berserker Nomic. Therefore its rules (and judicial interpetations >:thereof) cannot cause him (whoever he is) to lose fifty points. >: > >Can't non-players lose points? But they can be burned? This is not >unexciting. See separate message. > >:Further Comments: >:This issue seems to have followed the wrong logic tree. Did anyone ever >:determine whether the original inciting referred to Ole Andersen? > >Determine - no. I pointed out immediately after the original Judgement that >_I_ wasn't Ole Anderson. So I had no reason to appeal. Nobody else appealed, >nor did anyone question my not being Ole Anderson. > >:Or >:whether the name "Ole Anderson," in that long-ago judgment where it was >:first introduced, should be taken to mean Ole Andersen? Those questions are >:what I would have asked, followed by the question of whether the answers >:(depending on what they are) mean that Mr. Andersen lost 50 points. > > >Apparently, I lost 50 points, anyway. I am still not too sure if Joel wasn't >burned then, though. > >Ahhh... water under the bridge, I guess. > >Rule 455/0 is quite clear. Mr. Anderson _was_ burned. I still don't know >why, though. > >Ole I still don't see how this Ole Anderson character could have ever been burnt in the first place, since there was never a mob against him. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 07:13:44 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: J87 Matt wrote: :Statement: :Non-Players can lose points. : :Judgment: :FALSE : :Comments: :R399 states "Property is any game-defined object that is both ownable and :tradable. Only Players and the game may possess property." : :Because one may own points (At last count I have 68 points that are :exclusively mine and no one else's; I must conclude I own them) and one may :trade points (as players have proven by doing so) points are property. :Therefore only players may posess points. But you can also have a negative number of them, which seems to imply that they are a player (or possibly also non-player) attribute rather than a possession. I hereby give 100000 points to Matt, btw. I also appeal his Judgement. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:07:09 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Sv: Nomic: J79 (time and time again) Joel wrote: : :I still don't see how this Ole Anderson character could have ever been :burnt in the first place, since there was never a mob against him. : : Define 'a mob against him'. We already know that X and the Provocateur need not be the same person. The person to be burnt was 'Ole'. And, Joel, you were tied up shortly, while I was untied. I guess there is a little too much free-form about the Burning thing. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:05:17 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: why do I waste my time? >But you can also have a negative number of them, which seems to imply that >they are a player (or possibly also non-player) attribute rather than a >possession. >I hereby give 100000 points to Matt, btw. >I also appeal his Judgement. > Keep your nonexistent 100000 points. (Someone already tried that once, btw.) I'm getting really, really frustrated with the complete futility of first-level judgments. I really ought to put together statistics, but it seems that nearly every one of mine has been appealed. So what's the point? Can we pass some kind of judicial reform to either make first-level judgments more binding, or perhaps just skip them? If nearly every first-level court judgment is appealed, they are accomplishing nothing except making it take longer to reach decisions. Matt Kuhns "Gravity doesn't exist, mjkuhns@iastate.edu the Earth sucks." http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns -anonymous ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 12:16:00 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: J87 At 12:13 AM 6/2/99 , Ole wrote: >I hereby give 100000 points to Matt, btw. With regard to this, I refer you to R310/1 and R327/4. These together prohibit such alteration of your score. If you really want to press this one, you should call for a judgment on it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:56:26 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: why do I waste my time? Matt wrote: : :I'm getting really, really frustrated with the complete futility of :first-level judgments. I really ought to put together statistics, but it :seems that nearly every one of mine has been appealed. So what's the point? : :Can we pass some kind of judicial reform to either make first-level :judgments more binding, or perhaps just skip them? If nearly every :first-level court judgment is appealed, they are accomplishing nothing :except making it take longer to reach decisions. : We could introduce a court fee. Say 10 Subers for a RFJ, 100 Subers for first appeal, 1000 Subers for second appeal etc. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:14:40 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Sv: Nomic: J87 and new RFJs Joel wrote: :At 12:13 AM 6/2/99 , Ole wrote: :>I hereby give 100000 points to Matt, btw. : :With regard to this, I refer you to R310/1 and R327/4. These together :prohibit such alteration of your score. If you really want to press this :one, you should call for a judgment on it. : Matt said that points are property. R327/4 implies that 'score' and 'property' are two separate Player Attributes. They may be related, but one is not part of the other. Therefore 'points' (the unit in which we measure 'score') are not 'property'. Just to be sure, I hereby call for a judgement on: 1) "A Player can not give points to another Player." 2) "A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many points as e gives away." 3) "Ole Andersen has given Matt Kuhns 100000 points." I believe that 1) must be FALSE for 2) or 3) to be TRUE. I also believe that 2) must be FALSE for 3) to be TRUE. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 17:53:24 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: why do I waste my time? "Ole Andersen" writes: >Matt wrote: >: >:I'm getting really, really frustrated with the complete futility of >:first-level judgments. I really ought to put together statistics, but it >:seems that nearly every one of mine has been appealed. So what's the point? >: >:Can we pass some kind of judicial reform to either make first-level >:judgments more binding, or perhaps just skip them? If nearly every >:first-level court judgment is appealed, they are accomplishing nothing >:except making it take longer to reach decisions. >: > > >We could introduce a court fee. >Say 10 Subers for a RFJ, 100 Subers for first appeal, 1000 Subers for second >appeal etc. What, and opress the poor, you capitalist pigdog? Josh -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 18:15:14 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: why do I waste my time? Josh Kortbein wrote: > > "Ole Andersen" writes: > >Matt wrote: > >: > >:I'm getting really, really frustrated with the complete futility of > >:first-level judgments. I really ought to put together statistics, but it > >:seems that nearly every one of mine has been appealed. So what's the point? > >: > >:Can we pass some kind of judicial reform to either make first-level > >:judgments more binding, or perhaps just skip them? If nearly every > >:first-level court judgment is appealed, they are accomplishing nothing > >:except making it take longer to reach decisions. > >: > > > > > >We could introduce a court fee. > >Say 10 Subers for a RFJ, 100 Subers for first appeal, 1000 Subers for second > >appeal etc. > > What, and opress the poor, you capitalist pigdog? So we just institute lawsuits for defamation of character. Then a poor Player could sue a richer Player for some sort of an insult, and get a few hundred subers for 'Pain and Suffering". Mueller could sue everybody in the two mobs and win a fortune. :) Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 12:29:13 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: why do I waste my time? At 10:05 AM 6/2/99 , Kuhns wrote: > >I'm getting really, really frustrated with the complete futility of >first-level judgments. I really ought to put together statistics, but it >seems that nearly every one of mine has been appealed. So what's the point? Overall, 9 of the last 12 judgments (J76-J87) have been appealed. However, only 11 of 25 were appeals among J51-J75. >Can we pass some kind of judicial reform to either make first-level >judgments more binding, or perhaps just skip them? If nearly every >first-level court judgment is appealed, they are accomplishing nothing >except making it take longer to reach decisions. Would a provision allowing the complainant to set the initial level of the case be a good way to solve this problem? I.e. if I wanted to, I could start my case at 2 or even 3, and forego the lower-level courts. Does anyone see any potential problems with this? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:04:15 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: why do I waste my time? > So we just institute lawsuits for defamation of character. Then a poor > Player could sue a richer Player for some sort of an insult, and get a > few hundred subers for 'Pain and Suffering". Mueller could sue everybody > in the two mobs and win a fortune. :) I like this in principle. Perhaps an easy way to implement it would be to give Judges the discretionary power to award damages and/or punitive measures (within some sort of limit.) .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:00:56 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: why do I waste my time? > Would a provision allowing the complainant to set the initial level of the > case be a good way to solve this problem? I.e. if I wanted to, I could > start my case at 2 or even 3, and forego the lower-level courts. Does > anyone see any potential problems with this? Might as well start at level 3 all the time, because, hey, you might get lucky and be picked as a Judge. I *do* like the idea of fees for submitting RFJ's; they could be used to pay the Judge's Salaries and keep a nice zero-sum-ness in the system. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:24:23 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87, 1 J88, J89, 1 J90) Ed Proescholdt, Mary Tupper, and Joel Uckelman have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 87: Non-Players can lose points. ------------------------------------- Mary Tupper has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 88: A Player can not give points to another Player. ------------------------------------- Ed Proescholdt has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 89: A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many points as e gives away. ------------------------------------- Roger Carbol has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 90: Ole Andersen has given Matt Kuhns 100000 points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:28:01 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: why do I waste my time? At 08:00 PM 6/2/99 , Roger Carbol wrote: > >> Would a provision allowing the complainant to set the initial level of the >> case be a good way to solve this problem? I.e. if I wanted to, I could >> start my case at 2 or even 3, and forego the lower-level courts. Does >> anyone see any potential problems with this? > > >Might as well start at level 3 all the time, because, hey, you >might get lucky and be picked as a Judge. > >I *do* like the idea of fees for submitting RFJ's; they could be >used to pay the Judge's Salaries and keep a nice zero-sum-ness >in the system. Which is fine until you're denied you're rights because you can't afford to make an RFJ. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:39:32 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (1 J88) and numbering mistake Joel Uckelman has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 88: Players in Limbo cannot lose points. ----------------- I made a mistake in numbering the RFJs in the last judge selection post -- this RFJ came before Ole's three, so Ole's should be 89, 90, and 91 instead. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:43:06 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: why do I waste my time? Joel Uckelman wrote: > > Which is fine until you're denied you're rights because you can't afford to > make an RFJ. So a portion of the fees paid to the judiciary goes into a Victims Compensation Fund administered by the Thelma Charity Fund. Then the destitute players can get Subers for there just causes. Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:59:45 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: 2 J87 Joel Uckelman wrote: > > Ed Proescholdt, Mary Tupper, and Joel Uckelman have been selected to 2 > Court for RFJ 87: > > Non-Players can lose points. Ruling: TRUE Comments: Since we have no rules governing attributes, scores or points of non-players, then by 116, they can lose points. An interesting thing to consider is the effect of 101/1. Players are bound by the rules, conversely non-players are not bound by the rules. Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:48:04 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #3 At 11:24 PM 6/1/99 , Roger Carbol wrote: > >I propose the creation of the following WHOOPS-delimited rule: > >WHOOPS > >{{[[Title:"Repentance"]]}} > >Any proposal repealing a rule must be disinterested >if the player making the proposal also proposed the rule. > >WHOOPS You do realize that this would make it impossible for players to make proposals to repeal rules they created unless those rules were immutable, since disinterestedness can apply only to proposals for transmutations. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:54:08 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #3 At 11:24 PM 6/1/99 , Roger wrote: > >I propose the creation of the following SUCCINCT-delimited rule: > >SUCCINCT > >{{[[Title:"Brevity is the Soul of Wit"]]}} > >Any rule with a higher ordinal number than this rule is >repealed if its text contains more than 100 words. >[[Almost all of Suber's original rules are >shorter than 100 words.]] > >SUCCINCT > Yes, but Suber's initial ruleset is also rife with problems. Besides, a 100-word limit is arbitrary. Are 100-word rules that much different from 101-word rules? While I tend to oppose proposals that create extremely long rules, I see no reason to set an explicit limit. Voting should weed out proposals that create verbose rules. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:56:09 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: J89 > Mary Tupper has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 89: > > A Player can not give points to another Player. > > ------------------------------------- Ruling: TRUE Comments: By 310/1, attributes can not be altered except in accordance with the rules. A statement in the mailing list is not a rule, therefore points can not be altered in that manner. The only way points could be transferred from one Player to another Player, is by proposing a rule authorizing such a transfer and having it approved by the voters. Thus a Player cannot 'give' points, but a rule can allow the transfer. It should be noted that there is a difference in between transferring points a Player already possess, and giving away points that don't exist yet or are not in the Players possession. Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 01:10:52 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Sv: Nomic: why do I waste my time? Josh wrote: (quoting me) :> :>We could introduce a court fee. :>Say 10 Subers for a RFJ, 100 Subers for first appeal, 1000 Subers for second :>appeal etc. : :What, and opress the poor, you capitalist pigdog? : Yep! : : : :Josh : :-- :i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? : : Are you sure you wanna know? ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:28:36 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: why do I waste my time? Joel Uckelman writes: >Would a provision allowing the complainant to set the initial level of the >case be a good way to solve this problem? I.e. if I wanted to, I could >start my case at 2 or even 3, and forego the lower-level courts. Does >anyone see any potential problems with this? More peoples' time being wasted when THOSE cases are appealed? -- In such an ugly time the real protest is beauty. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:27:10 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #3 > Yes, but Suber's initial ruleset is also rife with problems. Besides, a > 100-word limit is arbitrary. True. Then again, maybe all limits are arbitrary. Maybe all the Rules are arbitrary. I just thought it might have some interesting effects. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:28:42 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: 2 J87 > An interesting thing > to consider is the effect of 101/1. Players are bound by the rules, > conversely non-players are not bound by the rules. That doesn't follow. Women are bound by the Law of Gravity, that does not imply that non-women are not bound by the Law of Gravity. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:25:02 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #3 > You do realize that this would make it impossible for players to make > proposals to repeal rules they created unless those rules were immutable, > since disinterestedness can apply only to proposals for transmutations. I never really understood what "transmutation" meant; I've thought that it implies any change to a rule, including the repeal thereof. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:32:00 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: why do I waste my time? >>Would a provision allowing the complainant to set the initial level of the >>case be a good way to solve this problem? I.e. if I wanted to, I could >>start my case at 2 or even 3, and forego the lower-level courts. Does >>anyone see any potential problems with this? > > More peoples' time being wasted when THOSE cases are appealed? If you could set the initial level high enough, you could make a case impossible to appeal -- it would be impossible to choose enough Judges for Case X+1. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 00:56:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #3 At 11:25 PM 6/2/99 , Roger wrote: > >> You do realize that this would make it impossible for players to make >> proposals to repeal rules they created unless those rules were immutable, >> since disinterestedness can apply only to proposals for transmutations. > > >I never really understood what "transmutation" meant; I've >thought that it implies any change to a rule, including >the repeal thereof. > > > >.. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com Transmutations are changes from immutable to mutable or vice versa. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:34:48 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: judging pool I declare myself to be back in the judging pool. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 02:14:18 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Carbol Omnibus #3 Roger Carbol writes: > >> You do realize that this would make it impossible for players to make >> proposals to repeal rules they created unless those rules were immutable, >> since disinterestedness can apply only to proposals for transmutations. > > >I never really understood what "transmutation" meant; I've >thought that it implies any change to a rule, including >the repeal thereof. Transmutation involves a change in the mutability of a rule. It does not involve anything else. -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:11:05 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: why do I waste my time? Roger wrote: :>>Would a provision allowing the complainant to set the initial level of the :>>case be a good way to solve this problem? I.e. if I wanted to, I could :>>start my case at 2 or even 3, and forego the lower-level courts. Does :>>anyone see any potential problems with this? :> :> More peoples' time being wasted when THOSE cases are appealed? : : :If you could set the initial level high enough, you could make :a case impossible to appeal -- it would be impossible to choose :enough Judges for Case X+1. : If you could set the initial level high enough, you could make a case impossible to judge -- it would be impossible to choose enough Judges for Case X. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:08:01 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: why do I waste my time? Joel asked: : :Would a provision allowing the complainant to set the initial level of the :case be a good way to solve this problem? I.e. if I wanted to, I could :start my case at 2 or even 3, and forego the lower-level courts. Does :anyone see any potential problems with this? : Yes. The problem with our courts is not in the number of appeals, but in the quality of the judgements. If a Judge misses obvious points, the judgement is almost sure to be appealed. Maybe we should allow 1 Courts to issue Preliminary Judgements (or somesuch), which could then be discussed for a day or two, after which the Final Judgement could be issued. We could also ask the Complainants to come up with arguments - not requiring them to, but asking them. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:56:46 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Re: J89 Mary wrote: :> Mary Tupper has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 89: :> :> A Player can not give points to another Player. :> :> ------------------------------------- : : :Ruling: TRUE :Comments: By 310/1, attributes can not be altered except in accordance :with the rules. A statement in the mailing list is not a rule, therefore :points can not be altered in that manner. A statement can be in accordance with the rules. Most statements are in accordance with R116/1. The only way points could be :transferred from one Player to another Player, is by proposing a rule :authorizing such a transfer and having it approved by the voters. Thus a :Player cannot 'give' points, but a rule can allow the transfer. This is hazy, at best. : :It should be noted that there is a difference in between transferring :points a Player already possess, and giving away points that don't exist :yet or are not in the Players possession. : This is being evaluated in 1 Court 90. Sorry to add to the bad side of the statistics here, but I appeal. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:08:01 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: why do I waste my time? Ole Andersen wrote: > > Joel asked: > : > :Would a provision allowing the complainant to set the initial level of the > :case be a good way to solve this problem? I.e. if I wanted to, I could > :start my case at 2 or even 3, and forego the lower-level courts. Does > :anyone see any potential problems with this? > : > > Yes. > The problem with our courts is not in the number of appeals, but in the > quality of the judgements. > > If a Judge misses obvious points, the judgement is almost sure to be > appealed. > > Maybe we should allow 1 Courts to issue Preliminary Judgements (or > somesuch), which could then be discussed for a day or two, after which the > Final Judgement could be issued. > We could also ask the Complainants to come up with arguments - not requiring > them to, but asking them. > > Ole I like this idea. Not all of us are great judges with the wisdom of the ages. The discussion phase would make rendering a reasonable judgment easier. Also, we could allow, or even encourage judge panels in higher courts to discuss the case among themselves prior to rendering a verdict. Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:45:03 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: I'm not wasting my time, everyone else is > >Yes. >The problem with our courts is not in the number of appeals, but in the >quality of the judgements. > >If a Judge misses obvious points, the judgement is almost sure to be >appealed. EVERY judgment is almost sure to be appealed (most of them by YOU.) I suspect that in close to, if not more than, half of our judgments, there would be an appeal whether the decision were true or false. Especially when people insist on appealing judgments when they agree with the ruling but not with the comments. That's not a good use of our judicial system's resources. And I shouldn't take offense at that "quality of the judgments" comment, but it was an excessively snotty way to phrase the idea, at the very least. I transfer one slack from Ole Andersen to Jeff Schroeder. Matt Kuhns "Gravity doesn't exist, mjkuhns@iastate.edu the Earth sucks." http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns -anonymous ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 16:27:57 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: I'm not wasting my time, everyone else is For Matt's comment: :EVERY judgment is almost sure to be appealed (most of them by YOU.) , I transfer one slack from him to Mary. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:05:20 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: P516 redraft & voting In response to the debate over our judicial system, a few suggestions have come up which I am incorporating into the judicial reform proposal. Which it appears I will do later because I need to catch a bus in 6 minutes.... Also, voting begins today at 20:02 CDT. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:48:34 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: P516 redraft & voting > Also, voting begins today at 20:02 CDT. I withdraw the "Repentance" proposal. I'd like to see how the voting goes on the "Brevity is...Wit" proposal though. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 16:24:57 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judicial proposal Here is what I believe will be the final version of P516. The changes to section 6 have been incorporated, and section 7 has been reintroduced in a modified form (viz. a compromise to eliminate the hostage possibilities but retain its usefulness). --------------------------------------------- 1. Create Rule 230 from the "JUDICIAL PROCESS"-delimited text: JUDICIAL PROCESS Upon each Request for Judgment, the following procedure is executed: 1. A Case is opened for the Request for Judgment. 2. A full Court is selected to rule on the Statement. 3. If, at any time after the initial selection, the Court is not full, as many new Judges are selected and added to the Court as are necessary to fill the Court. If the Court lapses, it is dissolved; if possible, a new Court is selected; if not, the procedure skips to step 7. 4. A majority Judgment is issued by the Court. 5. The Court dissolves. 6. If a legal Appeal of the Judgment is made, the Court level is incremented and the process repeated from step 2. 7. At such time as no further legal Appeals are possible, the Case is closed and former Judges on the Case are paid. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with the Judiciary. JUDICIAL PROCESS 2. Amend Rule 214/2 to read as follows: "Any Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment on a Statement to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Upon each Request for Judgment, a corresponding Case is opened. Any Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its public issuance, the same verdict has been returned in the Case fewer than three times consecutively, and 2(Case level)-1 does not does not exceed the number of Players eligible to serve as Judges on the Case." 3. Create Rule 231 from the following CASE-delimited text: CASE A Case consists of a Statement, a level, and all judicial documents produced by the Complainant; Appellants; and Courts assigned to the Statement. All Cases start at level 1. (Case level) refers to the level of the Case in question. CASE 4. Create Rule 232 from the following POOL-delimited text: POOL The Judicial Pool shall consist only of all Players having publicly consented to selection as Judges. A Player may, at any time, add or remove only emself from the Judicial Pool. Players entering Limbo are automatically removed from the Judicial Pool. In the event that no Players are in the Judicial Pool, all Players not in Limbo are automatically placed in the Judicial Pool. POOL 5. Amend Rule 215/3 to read: "Players in the Judicial Pool, with the following exceptions, are eligible to become Judges on a Case: i. Judges already serving on the Court in question ii. the Complainant and any Appellants if (Case level) < 3 iii. no more than one former Judge from the (Case level)-1 Court for the Case iv. no former Judges from the (Case level)-1 Court for the Case Exceptions ii, iii, and iv shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a full Court from being chosen. A Court is considered full when it has 2(Case level)-1 Judges serving on it. In the event that a Court is not full, sufficient eligible Players shall be selected randomly by the Administrator to become Judges and assigned to the Court." 6. Amend Rule 216/2 to read: "Each open Case shall assigned a full (Case level) Court. Each Judge selected to a Court three or more days in advance of when the Court is scheduled to lapse must issue a public Judgment in the Case before that time or be subject to a ten point fine. If a majority of a Court’s Judges do not return the same response within the allowed time, the Court lapses. Level 1 Courts lapse three days after their selection. All other Courts lapse seven days after their selection. A Court is dissolved if it lapses or a majority of its Judges return the same response within the allowed time. A Judge's tenure ends upon the dissolving of eir Court, at which time e relinquishes the title of Judge and its associated powers and privileges." 7. Amend Rule 217/1 to read: "A turn may not end until all Cases opened before the end of its voting peroid have received a level 1 Judgment." 8. Amend Rule 220/1 to read: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the Judicial rules. Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by the the Statute of Limitations." 9. Amend Rule 228/0 to read: "A Judgment must consist of a legal response to the Statement to be judged, and either a) the Judge’s analysis of the Statement and response, or b) an explicit statement of concurrence with an opinion issued by another Judge on the Court. Majority Judgments are issued when at least a simple majority of Judges on a Court return the same response to a Statement. Only Statements and their corresponding responses are considered to have official legal standing, and only Judges chosen in accordance with the rules may issue Judgments. The set of legal responses to Statements is defined as {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false. No other responses are allowed. All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards." 10. Amend Rule 390/0 to read: "Upon the closure of a Case, former Judges on the Case's Courts having ruled in accord with the final ruling on the Case shall each receive 3 points iff the final ruling is TRUE or FALSE." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 22:29:13 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot Voting ends at 20:02 CDT, 5 June 1999. ----------------------------- P515 Strike Rule 480/0. ----------------------------- P516 1. Create Rule 230 from the "JUDICIAL PROCESS"-delimited text: JUDICIAL PROCESS Upon each Request for Judgment, the following procedure is executed: 1. A Case is opened for the Request for Judgment. 2. A full Court is selected to rule on the Statement. 3. If, at any time after the initial selection, the Court is not full, as many new Judges are selected and added to the Court as are necessary to fill the Court. If the Court lapses, it is dissolved; if possible, a new Court is selected; if not, the procedure skips to step 7. 4. A majority Judgment is issued by the Court. 5. The Court dissolves. 6. If a legal Appeal of the Judgment is made, the Court level is incremented and the process repeated from step 2. 7. At such time as no further legal Appeals are possible, the Case is closed and former Judges on the Case are paid. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with the Judiciary. JUDICIAL PROCESS 2. Amend Rule 214/2 to read as follows: "Any Player, hereafter known as the Complainant, may at any time request a Judgment on a Statement to receive clarification on any rules-related matter. Upon each Request for Judgment, a corresponding Case is opened. Any Player, hereafter known as the Appellant, may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its public issuance, the same verdict has been returned in the Case fewer than three times consecutively, and 2(Case level)-1 does not does not exceed the number of Players eligible to serve as Judges on the Case." 3. Create Rule 231 from the following CASE-delimited text: CASE A Case consists of a Statement, a level, and all judicial documents produced by the Complainant; Appellants; and Courts assigned to the Statement. All Cases start at level 1. (Case level) refers to the level of the Case in question. CASE 4. Create Rule 232 from the following POOL-delimited text: POOL The Judicial Pool shall consist only of all Players having publicly consented to selection as Judges. A Player may, at any time, add or remove only emself from the Judicial Pool. Players entering Limbo are automatically removed from the Judicial Pool. In the event that no Players are in the Judicial Pool, all Players not in Limbo are automatically placed in the Judicial Pool. POOL 5. Amend Rule 215/3 to read: "Players in the Judicial Pool, with the following exceptions, are eligible to become Judges on a Case: i. Judges already serving on the Court in question ii. the Complainant and any Appellants if (Case level) < 3 iii. no more than one former Judge from the (Case level)-1 Court for the Case iv. no former Judges from the (Case level)-1 Court for the Case Exceptions ii, iii, and iv shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a full Court from being chosen. A Court is considered full when it has 2(Case level)-1 Judges serving on it. In the event that a Court is not full, sufficient eligible Players shall be selected randomly by the Administrator to become Judges and assigned to the Court." 6. Amend Rule 216/2 to read: "Each open Case shall assigned a full (Case level) Court. Each Judge selected to a Court three or more days in advance of when the Court is scheduled to lapse must issue a public Judgment in the Case before that time or be subject to a ten point fine. If a majority of a Court’s Judges do not return the same response within the allowed time, the Court lapses. Level 1 Courts lapse three days after their selection. All other Courts lapse seven days after their selection. A Court is dissolved if it lapses or a majority of its Judges return the same response within the allowed time. A Judge's tenure ends upon the dissolving of eir Court, at which time e relinquishes the title of Judge and its associated powers and privileges." 7. Amend Rule 217/1 to read: "A turn may not end until all Cases opened before the end of its voting peroid have received a level 1 Judgment." 8. Amend Rule 220/1 to read: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the Judicial rules. Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by the the Statute of Limitations." 9. Amend Rule 228/0 to read: "A Judgment must consist of a legal response to the Statement to be judged, and either a) the Judge’s analysis of the Statement and response, or b) an explicit statement of concurrence with an opinion issued by another Judge on the Court. Majority Judgments are issued when at least a simple majority of Judges on a Court return the same response to a Statement. Only Statements and their corresponding responses are considered to have official legal standing, and only Judges chosen in accordance with the rules may issue Judgments. The set of legal responses to Statements is defined as {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false. No other responses are allowed. All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards." 10. Amend Rule 390/0 to read: "Upon the closure of a Case, former Judges on the Case's Courts having ruled in accord with the final ruling on the Case shall each receive 3 points iff the final ruling is TRUE or FALSE." ----------------------------- P518 {{[[Title:"Brevity is the Soul of Wit"]]}} Any rule with a higher ordinal number than this rule is repealed if its text contains more than 100 words. [[Almost all of Suber's original rules are shorter than 100 words.]] ----------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 22:38:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: FM election Josh Kortbein and Dan Waldron are the nominees for Foreign Minister. Voting for the election ends at 16:58 CDT, 5 June 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 23:51:46 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: why do I waste my time? At 07:08 AM 6/3/99 , Mary wrote: > >I like this idea. Not all of us are great judges with the wisdom of the >ages. The discussion phase would make rendering a reasonable judgment >easier. Also, we could allow, or even encourage judge panels in higher >courts to discuss the case among themselves prior to rendering a >verdict. > >Xylen Actually, judges have never been prohibited from discussing a case prior to rendering a ruling. I had always hoped that discussion of cases would occur before the decisions, but was usually disappointed. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 01:11:09 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election Joel Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein and Dan Waldron are the nominees for Foreign Minister. Voting >for the election ends at 16:58 CDT, 5 June 1999. I reject my nomination. -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 02:55:56 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election I consent to my nomination Poulenc >Josh Kortbein and Dan Waldron are the nominees for Foreign Minister. Voting >for the election ends at 16:58 CDT, 5 June 1999. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:22:18 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election Josh Kortbein wrote: > Joel Uckelman writes: >>Josh Kortbein and Dan Waldron are the nominees for Foreign Minister. > I reject my nomination. I transfer a slack from Dan to Josh. Rave on, SlackBoy. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com .. Lottery Next Turn! ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 14:40:14 CDT From: Andrew D Proescholdt Subject: Nomic:J79 I rule True (if I am still a judge). Who or whatever Ole Anderson is has lost 50 points due to J75. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 18:35:46 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: majordomo and its limitations It was mentioned in a ballot: >(maybe the ballot message should have a Reply-To to you, Joel?) I've thought about this, but altering the reply-to for the ballot would involve changing the list settings just for sending the ballot, which also introduces the chance that anything sent soon after the ballot would not have the correc t reply address. Unless there's a tremendous outpouring of support for such a change (which I think is inadvisable, but will try to do if most people want it), I'm going to leave it the way it is. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 17:48:12 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: majordomo and its limitations Joel Uckelman wrote: > > It was mentioned in a ballot: > >(maybe the ballot message should have a Reply-To to you, Joel?) > > I've thought about this, but altering the reply-to for the ballot would > involve changing the list settings just for sending the ballot, which also > introduces the chance that anything sent soon after the ballot would not > have the correc t reply address. Unless there's a tremendous outpouring of > support for such a change (which I think is inadvisable, but will try to do > if most people want it), I'm going to leave it the way it is. > Personally, I don't have a problem with the current system. I just start a new message for "Vote-Beserker" and Netscape automatically puts in the address. I then type in prop numbers and enter my votes. I don't see any sense in replying to the ballot because I would delete the text anyway. No sense in sending the ballot back to you. Xylen > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 19:04:01 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election At 11:22 AM 6/4/99 , Roger wrote: >Josh Kortbein wrote: > >> Joel Uckelman writes: >>>Josh Kortbein and Dan Waldron are the nominees for Foreign Minister. > >> I reject my nomination. > > >I transfer a slack from Dan to Josh. Rave on, SlackBoy. I transfer one slack from Josh to Dan. Josh is a hoser for not declining his nomination before voting began. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 19:58:43 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 1 J88 In the matter: Players in Limbo cannot lose points. the Court rules FALSE. R319/2 prohibits any actions other than leaving Limbo or forfeit on the part of players in Limbo, that much is clear. Whether losing points falls under this prohibition is a question which bears some examination. The Complainant cites numerous instances ("losing one's car keys, losing points, losing score, losing one's mind, losing one's virginity") in which e contends not only that losing is an action, but implicitly (in order for his claims to be true) that it is an action taken by the loser. While it may be granted that losing one's keys or virginity is likely to be an action on the part of the loser, it is by no means necessary, even in these cases (e.g. in theft, rape), nor is it clear that the other cases can ever be actions on the part of the loser. If "losing one's mind" is understood to be the onset of insanity, it can hardly be an action on one's part, at least insofar as one does not chose lunacy. In the context of our game, it seems strange for one to lose one's score, since barring a rule change, a player always has a score. So it appears that "to lose" is by no means always an action, nor are the Complainant's examples always so. Finally, our focus shifts to whether "to lose points" is an action. It should be noted that all fines imposed are paid automatically -- i.e. the points are _taken_ from the offender rather than _given_ by em. R357/2 deals with a forcible action of which Tom Mueller was the unfortunate victim. In that rule, the Victim is consistently referred to in the passive voice -- i.e. as the recipient of an action rather than the agent. To say that "Tom is burning" is not to say that the action Tom takes is "to burn." Likewise, it seems in keeping with the lynching motif that one need not act to lose points as a result of it -- if anything, a mob attempting to burn someone at the stake would be intent on preventing em from acting. If losing points is to be considered an action, then it seems that being burnt would likewise be an action. It is not, thus losing points also is not. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:36:54 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J89) Roger Carbol, Matt Kuhns, and Ed Proescholdt have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 89: A Player can not give points to another Player. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 19:36:05 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: 1 J88 Judge Uckelman wrote: > Players in Limbo cannot lose points. > the Court rules FALSE. Sure, I'll buy that. It opens the door for someone in Limbo actually winning. Anyone who appeals had better be prepared to get Burnt. (Perhaps we should leave the appealibility of a Case up to the Judge, or the Complainant, or both, somehow.) .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:54:03 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election Joel Uckelman writes: >At 11:22 AM 6/4/99 , Roger wrote: >>Josh Kortbein wrote: >> >>> Joel Uckelman writes: >>>>Josh Kortbein and Dan Waldron are the nominees for Foreign Minister. >> >>> I reject my nomination. >> >> >>I transfer a slack from Dan to Josh. Rave on, SlackBoy. > >I transfer one slack from Josh to Dan. Josh is a hoser for not declining >his nomination before voting began. I transfer one slack from Roger to me - it's his fault for putting it in one of his fucking ombnibusses. Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:52:59 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: majordomo and its limitations Joel Uckelman writes: >It was mentioned in a ballot: >>(maybe the ballot message should have a Reply-To to you, Joel?) > >I've thought about this, but altering the reply-to for the ballot would >involve changing the list settings just for sending the ballot, which also >introduces the chance that anything sent soon after the ballot would not >have the correc t reply address. Unless there's a tremendous outpouring of >support for such a change (which I think is inadvisable, but will try to do >if most people want it), I'm going to leave it the way it is. Why don't you just see if your mailer agent will let you set it yourself, and then see if majordomo will respect Reply-To fields. Josh -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 21:33:18 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: majordomo and its limitations At 08:52 PM 6/4/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>It was mentioned in a ballot: >>>(maybe the ballot message should have a Reply-To to you, Joel?) >> >>I've thought about this, but altering the reply-to for the ballot would >>involve changing the list settings just for sending the ballot, which also >>introduces the chance that anything sent soon after the ballot would not >>have the correc t reply address. Unless there's a tremendous outpouring of >>support for such a change (which I think is inadvisable, but will try to do >>if most people want it), I'm going to leave it the way it is. > >Why don't you just see if your mailer agent will let you set it yourself, >and then see if majordomo will respect Reply-To fields. > >Josh I know (because I use it) Eudora will allow you to change the reply-to field. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 21:28:25 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 2 J87 In the matter of: Non-Players can lose points. I rule FALSE. It seems obvious to say that anything that can lose points must first be capable of possessing points. The number of points ascribed to an entity constitutes its score, so anything having points could also be said to have a score. More to the point, anything that can lose points, then, can have points, and anything that can have points, therefore can have a score, and more importantly, _must_ have a score. Why is this so? If A can lose points, we should, in the absence of restrictions to the contrary, be able to take points away from A. If A has no score, it is impossible for us to take points from A, as there is nothing to be measured. Because players' scores can be nonpositive, a score of "zero" and "no score" cannot be the same, leading us to conclude that A having no score means that points are not a property that applies to A. So, it is necessary for A to have a score if it is possible for A to lose points. The obvious question, then, is whether non-Players have scores. The oft-cited R116/0 offers the answer in this case. It undoubtedly permits non-Players to have scores, and it is likely also that it permits giving non-Players scores (NB: as distinct from transferring points). Apparently I could do so simply by declaring "A has a score," so long as A is an unregulated non-Player. However, with regard to the status of A before my declaration, the principle of "nihil ex nihilo" (nothing from nothing) would seem to apply. Non-Player attributes, as unregulated as the currently are, still do not simply arise from the void. For a non-Player to have a score, such must have been first created for it, whether by rule or by fiat. That in mind, I focus attention on an ambiguity. How is the statement quantified? I find several possibilities: 1. It is possible for all non-Players to lose points. 2. It is possible for at least one non-Player to lose points. It is dubious whether 1 could be true, as any number of rules-regulated things (e.g. Osborn's Demon, the Contemplator's Lotus, the GRAND PRIZE, this Court, my votes for this turn's proposals -- the list goes on ad nauseam) may be regulated in ways such that R116/0 does not allow Players to ascribe scores to them at will. With respect to formulation 2, it is most certainly false at present, and has always been false in the past, as there is not nor has there never been (to the best of my knowledge) a non-Player that was explicitly granted a score. This is to say that the statement could be made true by such an action, but it is impossible for non-Players to have scores without it. However, no such thing has yet been done, which justifies a ruling of FALSE. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 21:40:39 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election At 08:54 PM 6/4/99 , Josh wrote: > >I transfer one slack from Roger to me - it's his fault for putting >it in one of his fucking ombnibusses. > >Josh Wouldn't they be "fucking omnibii", Josh? :-) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 22:04:37 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (3 J79) Roger Carbol, Josh Kortbein, Mary Tupper, Jeff Schroeder, and Dan Waldron have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 79 (a.k.a. the case that would not die): The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 21:58:12 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: appeal of 2 J79 I feel obliged to appeal 2 J79 if for no other reason than to postpone its decision awaiting the outcome of 2 J87, as whether or not non-Players can lose points seems vitally important to whether the burning of Ole Andersen according to 1 J75 could cause em to lose 50 points. Secondly, it should be noted that the force of 1 J75 in this matter has not yet been resolved. Finally, it remains to be shown how anyone can be burnt without a corresponding angry mob, as at present, we have no rules on spontaneous combustion. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 21:46:08 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 2 J87 This had a bunch of errors in it the first time.... ---------------------------- In the matter of: Non-Players can lose points. I rule FALSE. It seems obvious to say that anything that can lose points must first be capable of possessing points. The number of points ascribed to an entity constitutes its score, so anything having points could also be said to have a score. More to the point, anything that can lose points, then, can have points, and anything that can have points, therefore can have a score, and more importantly, _must_ have a score. Why is this so? If A can lose points, we should, in the absence of restrictions to the contrary, be able to take points away from A. If A has no score, it is impossible for us to take points from A, as there is nothing to be measured. Because players' scores can be nonpositive, a score of "zero" and "no score" cannot be the same, leading us to conclude that A having no score means that points are not a property that applies to A. So, it is necessary for A to have a score if it is possible for A to lose points. The obvious question, then, is whether non-Players have scores. The oft-cited R116/0 offers the answer in this case. It undoubtedly permits non-Players to have scores, and it is likely also that it permits giving non-Players scores (NB: as distinct from transferring points). Apparently I could do so simply by declaring "A has a score," so long as A is an unregulated non-Player. However, with regard to the status of A before my declaration, the principle of "nihil ex nihilo" (nothing from nothing) would seem to apply. Non-Player attributes, as unregulated as they currently are, still do not simply arise from the void. For a non-Player to have a score, such must have been first created for it, whether by rule or by fiat. That in mind, I focus attention on an ambiguity. How is the statement quantified? I find several possibilities: 1. It is possible for all non-Players to lose points. 2. It is possible for at least one non-Player to lose points. It is dubious whether 1 could be true, as any number of rules-regulated things (e.g. Osborn's Demon, the Contemplator's Lotus, the GRAND PRIZE, this Court, my votes for this turn's proposals -- the list goes on ad nauseam) may be regulated in ways such that R116/0 does not allow Players to ascribe scores to them at will. With respect to formulation 2, it is most certainly false at present, and has always been false in the past, as there is not nor has there ever been (to the best of my knowledge) a non-Player that was explicitly granted a score. This is to say that the statement could be made true by such an action, but it is impossible for non-Players to have scores without it. However, no such thing has yet been done, which justifies a ruling of FALSE. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 22:58:56 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election Joel Uckelman writes: >At 08:54 PM 6/4/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>I transfer one slack from Roger to me - it's his fault for putting >>it in one of his fucking ombnibusses. >> >>Josh > >Wouldn't they be "fucking omnibii", Josh? :-) There is a strong precedent for using the English-style plural of foreign words, or words of foreign derivation, which have found use in English, for example "formulas", "algebras", etc. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 15:19:20 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election At 10:58 PM 6/4/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>At 08:54 PM 6/4/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>I transfer one slack from Roger to me - it's his fault for putting >>>it in one of his fucking ombnibusses. >>> >>>Josh >> >>Wouldn't they be "fucking omnibii", Josh? :-) > >There is a strong precedent for using the English-style plural >of foreign words, or words of foreign derivation, which have found >use in English, for example "formulas", "algebras", etc. > >Josh I've always preferred "formulae" and "algebrae" myself. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 15:52:34 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: FM election Joel Uckelman writes: >At 10:58 PM 6/4/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel Uckelman writes: >>>At 08:54 PM 6/4/99 , Josh wrote: >>>> >>>>I transfer one slack from Roger to me - it's his fault for putting >>>>it in one of his fucking ombnibusses. >>>> >>>>Josh >>> >>>Wouldn't they be "fucking omnibii", Josh? :-) >> >>There is a strong precedent for using the English-style plural >>of foreign words, or words of foreign derivation, which have found >>use in English, for example "formulas", "algebras", etc. >> >>Josh > >I've always preferred "formulae" and "algebrae" myself. Maybe British people prefer it. Fucking Brits. -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 15:54:17 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: outstanding judgments The following players have not yet issued judgments on their respective courts: Roger Carbol (3 J79, 2 J89, 1 J91) Josh Kortbein (3 J79) Matt Kuhns (2 J89) Ed Proescholdt (2 J89, 1 J90) Mary Tupper (3 J79) Jeff Schroeder (3 J79) Dan Waldron (3 J79) 3 J79 is due at 22:04 CDT 11 June 1999. 2 J89 is due at 20:36 CDT 11 June 1999. 1 J90 is due at 20:24 CDT 05 June 1999. 1 J91 is due at 20:24 CDT 05 June 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 16:15:17 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: player removal The following players, provided that they do not leave Limbo between now and, at the earliest, 14:20 CDT 25 June, will be removed from the game at that time, as per section F of Rule 319/2 : Dakota Bailey Jason Durheim Nate Ellefson Lisa Hamilton Tom Knight Andy Palecek To resume activity as a player, the above need only send a message to nomic@iastate.edu indicating that they are leaving Limbo. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 17:55:43 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: outstanding judgments > Roger Carbol (3 J79, 2 J89, 1 J91) 3 J79: TRUE 2 J89: TRUE 1 J91: FALSE Commentary to follow. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 22:01:24 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P515 passed (7-1-0-3). P516 passed (7-1-0-3). P518 failed (2-6-0-3). Under the new provisions for the ends of turns, this turn will end when a ruling is delivered on 1 J90, at which point, ceteris paribus, it will be Dan Waldron's turn. Scoring, UPCs, etc. to come... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 14:57:07 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring, UPCs, etc. The voting results for P518 were incorrect. P518 failed (3-5-0-3). [I forgot that the Demon voted with Carbol this time.] ------------ Points earned: +36 Joel Uckelman +9 Josh Kortbein +9 Jeff Schroeder -10 Roger Carbol ----------- UPCs earned: +1 Matt Kuhns J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 15:31:01 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (1 J90) Dan Waldron selected to 1 Court for RFJ 90, due in 3 days: A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many points as e gives away. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 15:51:18 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: FM election results Dan Waldron won the FM election as the sole consenting nominee. Now that we have a FM again, the second draft of the INTO treaty may be of some interest. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 15:00:43 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (3 J79) > The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose > 50 points. TRUE Since J75 accepted the fact that Ole Anderson was a Player, and was lynched, then by 357 e loses 50 points. Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 21:14:10 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results update The full voting results from the past several turns may now be found under the voting section of the web site. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 00:29:04 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Point Change In light of judgement 90, I set my points to 500 and claim a win. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 00:28:28 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: RFJ 90 Statement: A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many points as e gives away. Ruling: TRUE Comments: score is quite clearly defined in 327/4 as a player attribute. 310/1 tells us that player attributes cannot be changed except in accordance with the rules. However, nowhere is score linked to points anywhere in the rules. Therefore, while our score may not be modified, Points may be adjusted as we Please. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:07:53 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J90) Josh Kortbein, Roger Carbol, and Matt Kuhns have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 90: A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many points as e gives away. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:05:11 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: appeal of 1 J90 I appeal 1 J90 on the following grounds: Mr. Waldron mentions in his analysis that "nowhere is score linked to points anywhere in the rules," and that, as a result, "while our score may not be modified, Points may be adjusted as we Please." In response to this, I would like to offer two lines of reasoning in favor of a FALSE ruling: 1) that score and points are indeed implicitly linked, and 2) that points is a unit of measurement, not a scalar value, and is therefore unchangeable in any such way as to render the statement TRUE. 1. In R347/3, the score is mentioned as having two "components"; several rules that mention points have titles refering to scoring (viz. 204/2, 206/0, 222/3); R202/5 explicitly states when proposal-related scoring takes place. Not a turn goes by that scoring and points are not linked in at least one post to the list. In short, it seems very odd that, if score and points are indeed unrelated, that no one has before objected to such language which clearly suggests the contrary. And if these two are not related, then what is this "score" thing? At the very least, common English usage links score and points in such a way that our existing rules are understandable: >From _Webster's 10th_, "score, n. ... 7a: a number that expresses accomplishment (as in a game or test) or excellence (as in quality) either absolutely in points gained or by comparison to a standard." and "point, n. ... 15: a unit of measurement as a: (1) a unit of counting in the scoring of a game or contest." 2. Points are a unit of measure, much like meters or seconds. To say that I am going to alter the meters in the width of my room is incoherent -- I may (with some ability in carpentry, of course) alter the _width_ of my room, but not its unit of measurement. Whenever quantity X measurable in Y is increased by Z, we do not say that Y has increased by Z; rather, the correct parlance would be that X has in creased by Z, or that we now have (X+Z) Ys. No change occurs to the unit of measurement. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 23:28:07 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: 2 J90 > A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another > Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many > points as e gives away. FALSE. Commentary: The crux of this case is Rule 310/1(m) : Attribute Alteration, "Players' attributes may not be altered except in accordance with the rules." Rule 327/4(m) : Player Attributes states "The set of Player Attributes is defined as {score, Wins, Subers, property, Alias}." Clearly, giving points to a Player will alter their score. Therefore, it is not legal. Appeals to R116 are tempting, but it seems clear that the matter of Players' Scores are particularly well-regulated by the rules, and thus cannot be arbitrarily manipulated. One may wish to note that the statement of the Appellant, 'In R347/3, the score is mentioned as having two "components";' is clearly untrue. R347/3 merely describes one of the components of score; the total number of components is left undefined by this particular rule. I also find his definition of points as units of measurement to be appealing, but untrue as a generalization. The length of a metre *does* change under Relativity. Units of measurement such as the dollar clearly undergo changes within a period of time. Despite this, it does appear that within Berserker Nomic the value of a point is invariant. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 23:30:17 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Nomic: The Carbol Lottery! Now that a new turn has begun due to the outstanding Judgement being issued, I'd like to announce the opening of the Carbol Lottery, which is an instance of the Lottery GWIB. Step right up, buy a ticket! Buy ten! Or more! You could be a big winner. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:46:49 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: 2 J90 Roger Carbol writes: >I also find his definition of points as units of measurement >to be appealing, but untrue as a generalization. The length >of a metre *does* change under Relativity. Units of >measurement such as the dollar clearly undergo changes within >a period of time. Despite this, it does appear that within >Berserker Nomic the value of a point is invariant. Eh? My physics is a bit rusty but I don't think it's that rusty. The length of an object of length one meter in, say, Earth's reference frame may change, relative to an Earth observer, if that object begins to move away at a reasonable fraction of the speed of light, say .8c to 1.0c. The length of a _meter_, the unit itself, does not change. The meter is a _definition_. [Tom?] I leave your probable abuse of the concept of a dollar to someone (like Joel) with more econ-sense than I. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 02:51:41 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 90 errr... I'm not at all sure that my verdict agrees with my reasoning. hmm. poulenc >Statement: > >A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another >Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many >points as e gives away. > >Ruling: > >TRUE > >Comments: > >score is quite clearly defined in 327/4 as a player attribute. 310/1 tells >us that player attributes cannot be changed except in accordance with the >rules. However, nowhere is score linked to points anywhere in the rules. >Therefore, while our score may not be modified, Points may be adjusted as >we Please. > > > >Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:36:52 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: J89, take two At the least, I unintentionally contributed to this latest judicial mess, by using the assumption that point trading was still legal in one of my judgments. I regret this, and to work off my debt to society, I guess I will continue with my thankless responsibilites as a member of the judicial pool. Statement: A Player can not give points to another Player. Ruling: TRUE Reasoning: This is a relatively easy one. Rule 327 defines score as an attribute, and Rule 310 completely prohibits any alteration of attributes unless by means specifically spelled out in the rules (whoever crafted that one wasn't playing around). Ergo, since giving points to another player would change one's score, and within the current ruleset that is not a recognized means of changing one's score, it doesn't happen. Regarding the association of score and points as a possible loophole, In "Nomic: appeal of 1 J90" dated Mon, 07 Jun 1999, Uckelman makes a convincing argument for the inseparability of score from points. I should add to that argument that, if nothing else, game custom/tradition suggests that points and score are not independent. Matt Kuhns <<>> mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns Nobody ever says "I wanna be a graphic designer when I grow up." ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:58:52 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: J89, take two At 11:36 AM 6/7/99 , Kuhns wrote: >At the least, I unintentionally contributed to this latest judicial mess, >by using the assumption that point trading was still legal in one of my >judgments. I regret this, and to work off my debt to society, I guess I >will continue with my thankless responsibilites as a member of the judicial >pool. I hereby thank Kuhns for his work as a judge (so he can no longer complain about it being thankless). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:24:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J90) Joel Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein, Roger Carbol, and Matt Kuhns have been selected to 2 Court >for RFJ 90: > >A Player (the Donor) can give a positive number of points to another >Player, if and only if the Donor, before the gift, has at least as many >points as e gives away. I rule FALSE, and concur with the reasoning displayed by the appellant in the argument made with his appeal. Despite ruling FALSE I note that Mr. Carbol's analysis seems somewhat suspect. C'est la vie. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:19:12 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Points and Request for Judgement I now have 500 Points. I would like this statement judged: "Poulenc is the winner" my reasoning: Nowhere in the ruleset are Points linked to Score. Score is defined as a player attribute and therefore cannot changed except as defined in the rules. Points are not defined as a player attribute, but seem to be some mysterious thing which are attached to Players. New players begin the game with zero points, according to #309, but there is no rule that tells us that we cannot manipulate Points as we please, nor is there any rule that tells us that Points are somehow attached to Score. Therefore, Points are freely manipulatable by rule 116/0, and by my statement at the top of this post, I have 500 of them, the number needed to win the game. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:52:23 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Mary Tupper has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 92: Poulenc is the winner. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 19:46:50 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: I found it! In case anyone cares, I finally was able to determine that Alphanomic ended at 03:52 CDT 17 January 1999. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 01:01:18 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: I found it! Joel Uckelman writes: >In case anyone cares, I finally was able to determine that Alphanomic ended >at 03:52 CDT 17 January 1999. Woo fucking hoo. Joel, will you grab a copy of the alphanomic page and keep it on your site so I can trash it? Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:09:11 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: RFJ 92 > > Mary Tupper has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 92: > > Poulenc is the winner. Ruling: TRUE Comments: By rule 208/2, the winner is the first Player to achieve 500 (positive) points. By his statement on 8 June, 1999, Dan Waldron, aka Poulenc, has achieved 500 points. Although game custom has awarded points for game actions, there is nothing to restrict Dan's actions in claiming 500 points under the current rules. ====================== I am fully aware that this judgment will be appealed, as it should. Something of this magnitude needs to be judged by a higher level court. Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:10:18 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: I found it! At 01:01 AM 6/9/99 , you wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>In case anyone cares, I finally was able to determine that Alphanomic ended >>at 03:52 CDT 17 January 1999. > >Woo fucking hoo. > >Joel, will you grab a copy of the alphanomic page and keep it on >your site so I can trash it? > > >Josh I've already done that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:21:26 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J92) Ole Andersen, Josh Kortbein, and Ed Proescholdt have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 92: Poulenc is the winner. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:18:10 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 92 At 06:09 PM 6/9/99 , Mary wrote: >> >> Mary Tupper has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 92: >> >> Poulenc is the winner. > >Ruling: TRUE > >Comments: By rule 208/2, the winner is the first Player to achieve 500 >(positive) points. By his statement on 8 June, 1999, Dan Waldron, aka >Poulenc, has achieved 500 points. Although game custom has awarded >points for game actions, there is nothing to restrict Dan's actions in >claiming 500 points under the current rules. >====================== > >I am fully aware that this judgment will be appealed, as it should. >Something of this magnitude needs to be judged by a higher level court. I appeal this judgment on the same grounds as my appeal of 1 J90: one cannot gain 472 points without altering one's score; because scoring is regulated, such a gain may only occur if allowed by the rules; and that arbitrary score changes are not allowed by the rules. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:22:54 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J92) Joel Uckelman writes: >Ole Andersen, Josh Kortbein, and Ed Proescholdt have been selected to 2 >Court for RFJ 92: > >Poulenc is the winner. I judge FALSE in agreement with the reasoning Mr. Uckelman gave. Any arguments about points being separate from scores, and thus adjustable, are worthless. There is clearly a strict relationship between scores and points. One's score increases by 1 if and only if one gains a point. If one wants to think of points and scores as separable, then we might conceptualize the "points" a person has as a set of unique point-objects (each new one has to be different, for it to be a set), and a person's score as the cardinality of eir set of point-objects. However, as Mr. Uckelman pointed out, scores may only be changed in accordance with the rules. Thus, posession of additional point-objects, gotten by means not in accordance with the rules, is prohibited, because it causes a direct change in score. Josh -- Sabotage will set us free. Throw a rock in the machine. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:56:51 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judge selection (2 J92) Josh wrote: :I judge : :FALSE : and since I agree with his analysis, I judge FALSE, too. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:21:17 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J92) Josh Kortbein wrote: > One's score increases by 1 if and only > if one gains a point. Or if one has a certain number of Subers at the end of turn, as specified in Rule 347/3(m). Of course, it's not strictly clear from the rules that that component of one's score is not cumulative. .. Roger .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:31:29 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J92) Roger Carbol writes: >Josh Kortbein wrote: > >> One's score increases by 1 if and only >> if one gains a point. > > >Or if one has a certain number of Subers at the end of turn, >as specified in Rule 347/3(m). Nyeeeeaah... Subers are mostly a nuisance right now. -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:34:16 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: suber points >Of course, it's not strictly clear from the rules that >that component of one's score is not cumulative. Well, Joel would argue that (the points from Subers component of the score being cumulative), I think. Matt Kuhns "Gravity doesn't exist, mjkuhns@iastate.edu the Earth sucks." http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns -anonymous ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:10:14 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Appeal 2J92 I appleal the judgement of 2 court 92 my reasoning: In the Judgement of 2/29, Josh Kortbein wrote "Any arguments about points being separate from scores, and thus adjustable, are worthless. There is clearly a strict relationship between scores and points." This is false. In the Rules, Points and Score are not stated to be the same thing, they are not stated to be equal, they are not in any way linked. There is no strict relationship between score and points. The only place in which they are linked is in the custom of this game to assume that they are one and the same. I believe that this custom is in direct conflict with the rules. The rules refer to Points and Score quite differently. Most of the rules that have to do with "scoring" in fact, change the number of Points posessed by a Player. The only rule that changes the Score is rule 347/3, Score and Subers. In this rule it states that "There is a component of each player's score dependent upon the number of Subers he/she has accumulated." No other rule creates any other component of a player's score, or adjusts it in any way. I suggest the interpretation that this is the only component of a player's score, and that Score and Points are entirely seperate, and that because of an oversight, Points are not protected from meddling players like me. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:01:37 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (3 J92) Roger Carbol, Matt Kuhns, Jeff Schroeder, Mary Tupper, and Ole Andersen have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 92: Poulenc is the winner. (Note: exclusions iii and iv were waived to permit selection of this court.) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:20:27 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: 3 J92 Statement: Poulenc is the winner. Ruling: FALSE Reasoning: "Poulenc's" claim to be the winner was based on his ruling of TRUE on rfj90. But that judgment was subsequently appealed and, when named to the appelate court, I found that the circumstances clearly call for a ruling of FALSE on rfj90, which I made. Nothing has changed my view of rfj90 since then, therefore the only logical judgment I can render in this case is FALSE. For more technical reasoning, re-read my ruling on rfj90. Comments: I have been witnessed to some incredibly daring if flagrantly illogical claims to victory in the course of this game. This was not one of them. It didn't even include an overly-involved sequence of multiple interwoven inventions that might obfuscate the issue. Pretty poor. Matt Kuhns // mjkuhns@iastate.edu // http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns "When I die, I hope to go to Heaven, whatever the Hell that is." -A. Rand ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:04:39 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: correction >FALSE > >Reasoning: > >"Poulenc's" claim to be the winner was based on his ruling of TRUE on >rfj90. But that judgment was subsequently appealed and, when named to the >appelate court, I found that the circumstances clearly call for a ruling of >FALSE on rfj90, which I made. Er, I meant J89 here. Which as far as Poulenc's claim to victory is concerned, has the same effect. (Too many damn numbers; I can't keep track of them all! After all, I'm a graphic designer not a mathematician.) --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:05:06 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Re: correction Kuhns quoth: >(Too many damn numbers; I can't keep track of them all! After all, I'm a >graphic designer not a mathematician.) You are sorely mistaken if you believe that mathematicians are proficient at keeping track of numbers. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:14:02 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: 3 J 92 (Proto-Judgement) The §§§§§-delimited is my Proto-Judgement. If you want me to change it, you have 24 hours. Joel, if I don't make any updates to the Proto-Judgement, it becomes my Judgement 24 hours from now. §§§§§ Since 'score', in the view of some, is not defined in the context of the game, we should look at the general definition of 'score'. And this definition is quite simple: A score is a number of points. Nobody has mentioned any other defintion of 'score', so the general definition is what we have. If you change the number of points you have, you change your score, and vice versa. Poulenc tried to adjust his score, but he can not do that, so it did not succeed. He does not have 500 points. I therefore find the Statement 'Poulenc is the winner' to be FALSE. §§§§§ Ole ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:13:09 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: correction Kortbein quoth: >You are sorely mistaken if you believe that mathematicians are >proficient at keeping track of numbers. > Well this is a fine thing? Who is keeping track of all the numbers in the world then? Accounting majors? Matt Kuhns | Hope is the path to the DARK SIDE. mjkuhns@iastate.edu | Hope leads to trying. Trying leads to failure. | Failure leads to CYNICISM. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:20:58 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: correction Matthew J Kuhns writes: >Kortbein quoth: >>You are sorely mistaken if you believe that mathematicians are >>proficient at keeping track of numbers. >> >Well this is a fine thing? Who is keeping track of all the numbers in the >world then? Accounting majors? Yes. It's a sad state of affairs, because many of them are incompetent or corrupt. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:10:19 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Proposal: Automation This is a neat idea that I have been thinking about for a while, and decided to give a try. The following is a Proposal with the title "Personal Rulesets". This is the final version unless I post any revisions. Create a Rule entitled "Personal Ruleset" with the following "+++++++" delimited text. +++++++ Attached to each Entity is a Personal Ruleset. A Personal Ruleset is a body of rules that apply only to the entity to which it is attached. Each entity must abide by all rules in it's Personal Ruleset, unless they conflict with the rules of Berserker Nomic, in which case the rules of Beserker Nomic take precedence. The Rules of a Personal Ruleset never take precedence over the Rules of Berserker Nomic, and can never cause any action or state that is contrary to the Rules of Berserker Nomic. This rule takes precedence over ever other rule dealing with Personal Rulesets. The Rules of a Personal Ruleset can only be changed as defined in the Rules of Berserker Nomic. +++++++ Create a Rule, with the lowest available Rule Number greater than the Number of this Proposal, and the title "Mutable and Immutable Personal Rules" with the following "-------" delimited text. ------- Personal Rules may be Mutable. Mutable Personal Rules can be changed at will by the Entity to which they are attached. All other Personal Rules are Immutable. In case of a conflict, Immutable Personal Rules take precedence over Mutable Personal Rules. ------- Create a Rule, with the lowest available Rule Number greater than the Number of this Proposal, and the title "Personal Rule Precedence" with the following "......." delimited text. ....... If two or more Mutable Personal Rules conflict with one another, then the rule most recently changed takes precedence. If two or more Immutable Personal Rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the immutable personal rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If at least one of the mutable personal rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the chronological method for determining precedence. If two or more personal rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the appropriate method (numerical or chronological) again governs. ....... Create a Rule, with the lowest available Rule Number greater than the Number of this Proposal, and the title "Default Personal Rules" with the following "///////" delimited text. /////// Unless otherwise specified, the Personal Ruleset for non-player entities is as follows: 1(mutable): This entity acts only as defined in the Rules of Berserker Nomic Unless otherwise specified, the Personal Ruleset for players is as follows: 1(mutable): This entity may act in any way. /////// Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:56:25 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Re: 3 J92 Joel Uckelman wrote: > > Roger Carbol, Matt Kuhns, Jeff Schroeder, Mary Tupper, and Ole Andersen > have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 92: > > Poulenc is the winner. Ruling: TRUE Comments: It appears that my view of the relationship of 'score' and 'point' are somewhat different from other Players in Beserker. Excuse me for using OOP terms, but this is how I think. 'Point' is the primary class, and 'score' is a method of that class. I believe this to be the case because of rule 112 specifically mentions points. It does _not_ say "winning may not be altered from achieving a score of n." Since the initial ruleset cannot be expected to refer to a subclass without also referring to the class, I believe that points is the class, and score is a method. As such, Subers-contribution is a subclass of score. Changes can be made to a subclass, without affecting the class. However, if a change is made to the class, then the subclass must reflect the change as well. As Poulenc has defined his points [points=500], then his score [score=magnitude(points)] reflects the definition of points, and he wins the game. He did not change his score, he changed his points. I believe that he has the ability to change his points. There is no rule that restricts Players altering points. Changing the score is restricted [310/1 and 327/4], but not changing points. Mary -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:55:55 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Automation At 01:10 PM 6/11/99 , Dan Waldron wrote: >This is a neat idea that I have been thinking about for a while, and >decided to give a try. As it stands, R108/4 prevents such a proposal because you haven't specified numbers for all of the rules it proposes to create. It is questionable whether the latter ones count as specifications of rule numbers or not; however, I'd prefer that rules not be given numbers higher than the highest previously assigned proposal number, as it keeps the proposals numbered consecuively. If you're looking for a block of available numbers, there are _no_ rules in 240-300, and there are a lot of big gaps in 301-516. >The following is a Proposal with the title "Personal Rulesets". This is >the final version unless I post any revisions. > > > > >Create a Rule entitled "Personal Ruleset" with the following "+++++++" >delimited text. > >+++++++ >Attached to each Entity is a Personal Ruleset. A Personal Ruleset is a >body of rules that apply only to the entity to which it is attached. Each >entity must abide by all rules in it's Personal Ruleset, unless they >conflict with the rules of Berserker Nomic, in which case the rules of >Beserker Nomic take precedence. > >The Rules of a Personal Ruleset never take precedence over the Rules of >Berserker Nomic, and can never cause any action or state that is contrary >to the Rules of Berserker Nomic. This rule takes precedence over ever >other rule dealing with Personal Rulesets. > > >The Rules of a Personal Ruleset can only be changed as defined in the Rules >of Berserker Nomic. >+++++++ > >Create a Rule, with the lowest available Rule Number greater than the >Number of this Proposal, and the title "Mutable and Immutable Personal >Rules" with the following "-------" delimited text. > >------- >Personal Rules may be Mutable. Mutable Personal Rules can be changed at >will by the Entity to which they are attached. All other Personal Rules >are Immutable. In case of a conflict, Immutable Personal Rules take >precedence over Mutable Personal Rules. >------- > >Create a Rule, with the lowest available Rule Number greater than the >Number of this Proposal, and the title "Personal Rule Precedence" with the >following "......." delimited text. > >....... >If two or more Mutable Personal Rules conflict with one another, then the >rule most recently changed takes precedence. If two or more Immutable >Personal Rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest >ordinal number takes precedence. > > >If at least one of the immutable personal rules in conflict explicitly says >of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes >precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall >supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. > >If at least one of the mutable personal rules in conflict explicitly says >of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes >precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall >supersede the chronological method for determining precedence. > >If two or more personal rules claim to take precedence over one another or >to defer to one another, then the appropriate method (numerical or >chronological) again governs. >....... > >Create a Rule, with the lowest available Rule Number greater than the >Number of this Proposal, and the title "Default Personal Rules" with the >following "///////" delimited text. > >/////// >Unless otherwise specified, the Personal Ruleset for non-player entities is >as follows: > 1(mutable): This entity acts only as defined in the Rules of >Berserker Nomic > >Unless otherwise specified, the Personal Ruleset for players is as follows: > 1(mutable): This entity may act in any way. >/////// > >Poulenc > J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:47:19 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: office revision proposal The following is a proposal to reform the system by which we fill elected Offices. I'm interested in this mainly because it provides a better defined election system than the one we have now, and would hopefully also make it easier for me to keep everyone informed of upcoming elections. Note that the final paragraph of section 6, which deals with ties, is unfinished. If a tie results when using such a ranking system as described below, it seems to me to be insoluable unless someone changes eir mind during a revote. If there is a tie in the ranking of two candidates, a simple binary vote on the two should still yield a tie -- and I can't think of any non-arbitrary way to resolve this, nor am I certain that any such way exists. --------------------------------- 1. Amend Rule 394/0 to read: "Whenever a term of an elected Office ends, a regular election shall be held to fill said Office. Whenever an elected Officeholder resigns or loses a vote of confidence, or the Administrator calls for a special election on a position e holds by virtue of eir being Administrator, a special election shall be held to fill said Office." 2. Amend Rule 227/0 to read: "If an Officeholder forfeits or goes into Limbo, e automatically resigns from the Office at that time. In the absence of a current Officeholder for an Office, the Administrator holds the Office until a new Officeholder is selected pursuant to the rules for filling the Office." 3. Create Rule 391 from the following ELECTION PROCESS-delimited text: ELECTION PROCESS: Upon an election being initiated, the following procedure is executed: 1. Nominations open for the elected Office 2. Nominations are accepted 3. Nominations are closed. If no nominations are received, the current Officeholder is named the Officeholder-elect and the process skips to step 6. 4. Voting for the elected Office begins. 5. Voting ends and an Officeholder-elect is named. 6. The Officeholder-elect becomes the Officeholder upon the expiration of the erstwhile Officeholder’s term. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with elected Offices. ELECTION PROCESS 4. Create Rule 392 from the following NOMINATION-delimited text: NOMINATION Nominations for regular elections open 48 hours before the beginning of the voting period in which the current term expires. Nominations for special elections open immediately upon any such event triggering a special election. During the 48-hour period prior to voting to fill an elected Office, any Player may publicly nominate any number of consenting eligible Players, including emself, as candidates for the Office. NOMINATION 5. Create Rule 393 from the following TERM-delimited (no pun intended) text: TERM A term of an elected Office spans the period from the conclusion of one regular election to the conclusion of the next. Terms for elected Offices are five turns long. Officeholders elected through special elections serve partial terms. {{The next election for each elected Office is to be considered a regular election.}} TERM 6. Create Rule 395 from the following VOTING-delimited text: VOTING The following voting procedure is to be followed when filling elected Offices, unless an alternate voting procedure is required by applicable rules: The voting period for an election shall be equal in duration to, and in the case of a regular election, concurrent with a proposal voting period. All eligible voters may submit during the voting period a ballot ranking nominees for the Office using, only once, each of the integers from 1 to n, where n is the number of nominees and smaller ranks are considered better. The nominee receiving the best aggregate ranking over all ballots submitted during the voting period is, at the close of the period, designated the Officeholder-elect and will succeed the current Officeholder upon the expiration of eir term. In the case of a tie, [[ what happens???]] VOTING J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:00:06 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87) The 2 Court for RFJ 87 lapsed on 9 June due to a split court and no response from Ed Proescholdt (who has been fined 10 points). Josh Kortbein, Jeff Schroeder, and Dan Waldron have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 87: Non-Players can lose points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:38:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87) Joel Uckelman writes: >The 2 Court for RFJ 87 lapsed on 9 June due to a split court and no >response from Ed Proescholdt (who has been fined 10 points). > >Josh Kortbein, Jeff Schroeder, and Dan Waldron have been selected to 2 >Court for RFJ 87: > >Non-Players can lose points. I rule FALSE. While a reading of rule 116 may give a result of "TRUE," I believe such a reading to be misguided. As I have already stated on this matter, I believe it is best to _not_ ascribe properties to non-entities. The statement could be read as referring to game entities which are not players, but it seems clear that it refers to the hypothetical Ole which may or may not have been burned by the long-time-past mob. As such, game tradition guides me to avoid ascribing a score, and thus points, to said hypothetical player. Those who do not have points cannot lose them. QED. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:42:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Ruling on 79 FALSE I hereby state that I don't care a whit about this case. I am ruling only to avoid losing points when the court times out - this is irrelevant because I expect the decision to be appealed. Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 08:21:38 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Re: 3 J92 Mary writes: : :It appears that my view of the relationship of 'score' and 'point' are :somewhat different from other Players in Beserker. Excuse me for using :OOP terms, but this is how I think. 'Point' is the primary class, and :'score' is a method of that class. I believe this to be the case because :of rule 112 specifically mentions points. It does _not_ say "winning may :not be altered from achieving a score of n." Since the initial ruleset :cannot be expected to refer to a subclass without also referring to the :class, I believe that points is the class, and score is a method. As :such, Subers-contribution is a subclass of score. : If the original ruleset had been written with an object-oriented mindset, you might be right. I would not assume that. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:47:20 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: 3 J92 Xylen writes: > > >Joel Uckelman wrote: >> >> Roger Carbol, Matt Kuhns, Jeff Schroeder, Mary Tupper, and Ole Andersen >> have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 92: >> >> Poulenc is the winner. > >Ruling: TRUE > >Comments: > >It appears that my view of the relationship of 'score' and 'point' are >somewhat different from other Players in Beserker. Excuse me for using >OOP terms, but this is how I think. 'Point' is the primary class, and >'score' is a method of that class. I believe this to be the case because >of rule 112 specifically mentions points. It does _not_ say "winning may >not be altered from achieving a score of n." Since the initial ruleset >cannot be expected to refer to a subclass without also referring to the >class, I believe that points is the class, and score is a method. As >such, Subers-contribution is a subclass of score. > >Changes can be made to a subclass, without affecting the class. However, >if a change is made to the class, then the subclass must reflect the >change as well. As Poulenc has defined his points [points=500], then his >score [score=magnitude(points)] reflects the definition of points, and >he wins the game. He did not change his score, he changed his points. > >I believe that he has the ability to change his points. There is no rule >that restricts Players altering points. Changing the score is restricted >[310/1 and 327/4], but not changing points. This seems patently false, as it is unavoidable that changing the number of one's points changes one's score. I believe a good argument to the contrary would involve demonstrating that there exist uses for points which do not involve one's score. Even then, though, one is faced with the problem that _these_ points are specifically being used to alter a player's score. Score a method? Better conceived of as a class, perhaps which inherits from both Subers and points, classes in their own right. Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 08:46:10 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87) Josh wrote: :Those who do not have :points cannot lose them. QED. : Every once in a while someone might end up having 0 points. Would that protect em from losing points? ;-) Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:02:02 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87) "Ole Andersen" writes: >Josh wrote: >:Those who do not have >:points cannot lose them. QED. >: > >Every once in a while someone might end up having 0 points. >Would that protect em from losing points? > >;-) I consider "0 points" a number of points. The senses of the words are ambiguous but I think "not having points" in the sense we've been discussing should refer to not having a score, etc., since I believe the two are, for the time being, inexecrably linked. Rock on. -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:17:46 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: 3 J 92 This is my Judgement: Since 'score', in the view of some, is not defined in the context of the game, we should look at the general definition of 'score'. And this definition is quite simple: A score is a number of points. Nobody has mentioned any other defintion of 'score', so the general definition is what we have. If you change the number of points you have, you change your score, and vice versa. Poulenc tried to adjust his score, but he can not do that, so it did not succeed. He does not have 500 points. I therefore find the Statement 'Poulenc is the winner' to be FALSE. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:01:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Re: 3 J92 At 01:21 AM 6/12/99 , Ole wrote: >Mary writes: >: >:It appears that my view of the relationship of 'score' and 'point' are >:somewhat different from other Players in Beserker. Excuse me for using >:OOP terms, but this is how I think. 'Point' is the primary class, and >:'score' is a method of that class. I believe this to be the case because >:of rule 112 specifically mentions points. It does _not_ say "winning may >:not be altered from achieving a score of n." Since the initial ruleset >:cannot be expected to refer to a subclass without also referring to the >:class, I believe that points is the class, and score is a method. As >:such, Subers-contribution is a subclass of score. >: > >If the original ruleset had been written with an object-oriented mindset, >you might be right. I would not assume that. > > >Ole I've actually been working on something like that.... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:05:41 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87) At 02:02 AM 6/12/99 , Josh wrote: > >"Ole Andersen" writes: >>Josh wrote: >>:Those who do not have >>:points cannot lose them. QED. >>: >> >>Every once in a while someone might end up having 0 points. >>Would that protect em from losing points? >> >>;-) > >I consider "0 points" a number of points. The senses of the words >are ambiguous but I think "not having points" in the sense we've >been discussing should refer to not having a score, etc., since >I believe the two are, for the time being, inexecrably linked. I agree. Since the integers are the range of possible scores, it seems odd to call "0 points" having nothing, as that would mean that negative scores represent "less than nothing." "No points," at least in my mind is a "does not apply case," like amoral with respect to moral and immoral. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:08:40 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (3 J79) The 3 Court for RFJ 79 lapsed yesterday evening. Josh Kortbein, Jeff Schroeder, and Dan Waldron were fined for failure to deliver judgments. Ole Andersen, Josh Kortbein, Matt Kuhns, Ed Proescholdt, and Joel Uckelman have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 79, which will hopefully be the last time the case is heard: The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points. (Note: exclusion iv was waived and exclusion ii no longer applies.) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:29:41 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 3 J79 In the matter of: The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose 50 points. I rule FALSE based on the force of my comments as Judge on it's 1 Court and as the most recent Appellant in the case. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:48:43 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: J79 ad nauseum Okay lunchbox, let's try this again. Statement: >The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >50 points. Ruling: FALSE. Reasoning: As several people have pointed out, "Ole Anderson" is not currently a player in Berserker Nomic. Therefore its rules (and judicial interpetations thereof) cannot cause him (whoever he is) to lose fifty points. Further Comments: Hooray for cutting and pasting. Matt Kuhns <<>> mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns Nobody ever says "I wanna be a graphic designer when I grow up." ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:40:24 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Object-orientation Joel wrote: :> :>If the original ruleset had been written with an object-oriented mindset, :>you might be right. I would not assume that. :> :> :>Ole : :I've actually been working on something like that.... : Might be a nice thing. But even if the ruleset at one point is object-oriented, that can be ruined quite easily - even without trying to. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:20:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Object-orientation At 09:40 AM 6/12/99 , Ole wrote: >Joel wrote: > >:> >:>If the original ruleset had been written with an object-oriented mindset, >:>you might be right. I would not assume that. >:> >:> >:>Ole >: >:I've actually been working on something like that.... >: > >Might be a nice thing. >But even if the ruleset at one point is object-oriented, that can be ruined >quite easily - even without trying to. > >Ole Yeah, I know. I have been thinking about it more like creating a library of basic objects that can be used to make things easier and more explicit, but need not be the only way to do things. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:11:01 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: 3 J92 >>> Roger Carbol, Matt Kuhns, Jeff Schroeder, Mary Tupper, and Ole Andersen >>> have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 92: Poulenc is the winner. Ruling: FALSE Comments: Not even a very good scam. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:40:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: concerning 3 J92 There is now a majority opinion on the 3 Court for RFJ 92; however, those on the court who have not yet responded (i.e. Jeff Schroeder) face the 10 point fine if they do not offer opinions or concur with one already offered before the case closes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:37:27 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judge selection (3 J79) :The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose :50 points. : I'll go for DISMISSED, since I don't see it as Berserker-relevant. If I have to say TRUE or FALSE (or did we ditch that clause?), I'll say TRUE, just to cut down on eir points. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:57:41 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (3 J79) Joel Uckelman writes: >The 3 Court for RFJ 79 lapsed yesterday evening. Josh Kortbein, Jeff >Schroeder, and Dan Waldron were fined for failure to deliver judgments. > >Ole Andersen, Josh Kortbein, Matt Kuhns, Ed Proescholdt, and Joel Uckelman >have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 79, which will hopefully be the last >time the case is heard: > >The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >50 points. > >(Note: exclusion iv was waived and exclusion ii no longer applies.) > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ FALSE This space intentionally left blank. -- Sabotage will set us free. Throw a rock in the machine. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:20:07 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: Object-orientation >>Might be a nice thing. >>But even if the ruleset at one point is object-oriented, that can be ruined >>quite easily - even without trying to. >> >>Ole > >Yeah, I know. I have been thinking about it more like creating a library of >basic objects that can be used to make things easier and more explicit, but >need not be the only way to do things. > Hi. For those of us who aren't familiar with formalized logic theory (or wherever the hell you get this stuff) could someone explain what an object-oriented ruleset is? Matt Kuhns | Hope is the path to the DARK SIDE. mjkuhns@iastate.edu | Hope leads to trying. Trying leads to failure. | Failure leads to CYNICISM. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:11:01 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: 3 J92 >>> Roger Carbol, Matt Kuhns, Jeff Schroeder, Mary Tupper, and Ole Andersen >>> have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 92: Poulenc is the winner. Ruling: FALSE Comments: Not even a very good scam. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:11:01 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: 3 J92 >>> Roger Carbol, Matt Kuhns, Jeff Schroeder, Mary Tupper, and Ole Andersen >>> have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 92: Poulenc is the winner. Ruling: FALSE Comments: Not even a very good scam. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:07:56 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Object-orientation At 10:20 PM 6/12/99 , Kuhns wrote: >>>Might be a nice thing. >>>But even if the ruleset at one point is object-oriented, that can be ruined >>>quite easily - even without trying to. >>> >>>Ole >> >>Yeah, I know. I have been thinking about it more like creating a library of >>basic objects that can be used to make things easier and more explicit, but >>need not be the only way to do things. >> >Hi. For those of us who aren't familiar with formalized logic theory (or >wherever the hell you get this stuff) could someone explain what an >object-oriented ruleset is? It's Aristotelian metaphysics, or more modernly, a computer programming concept. You can create a class of objects with internal data and functions so as to restrict access to them in specific ways (i.e., the forms are only accessable through their instantiations [see Aristotle's _Metaphysics_]). More generally, it's a way of organizing a program such that there are basic elements that underlie many of the more complicated ones, and thus reduces redundancy. An example germane to the game: Say we need to describe what game entities, players, and officeholders are like. We could describe each independantly, but that would involve a lot of duplication. Why? Consider: officeholders must be players, and so inherit all of the properties of players (with a few added powers, of course). Players are certainly entities, but we also have entities that are not players. Thus, these three _classes_ can be represented in a heirarchy, as so: entity | player | officeholder Officeholders have all of the properties of players and entities, while players have all of the properties of entities. Since we know we want officeholders to be entities, it makes sense not to respecify all of the properties of entities. The classes player and officeholder are, in the parlance, derived classes, and inherit all of the properties of their ancestors -- which makes thinks easier, if done correclty. What does this mean? Well, simply that when we write rules about officeholders (under this example), we can be confident that they have the properties we think they do, and we're less likely to make a mess. Additionally, we have the benefit of being able to declare something an X (assuming that we already have a rule describing class X) without having to write rules to handle its X-like properties each time. I hope this hasn't muddied the waters for you, Kuhns. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:37:27 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: judge selection (3 J79) :The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose :50 points. : I'll go for DISMISSED, since I don't see it as Berserker-relevant. If I have to say TRUE or FALSE (or did we ditch that clause?), I'll say TRUE, just to cut down on eir points. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:46:21 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: Doublesend? This puzzles me. Let's hope is doesn't happen again. Ole ::The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose ::50 points. :: : :I'll go for DISMISSED, since I don't see it as Berserker-relevant. :If I have to say TRUE or FALSE (or did we ditch that clause?), I'll say TRUE, just to cut down on eir points. : : :Ole : ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:10:58 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Object-orientation Matt wrote: :Hi. For those of us who aren't familiar with formalized logic theory (or :wherever the hell you get this stuff) could someone explain what an :object-oriented ruleset is? Object-orientation is the philosophy currently in vogue among programmers and developers. Its basic premise is that everything is an object, and that objects belong to classes. Classes may belong to superclasses, and so on. Each object has an identity, a state and a behaviour. A bit too tired to think up examples. Someone? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:19:06 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Doublesend? Ole Andersen wrote: > > This puzzles me. > Let's hope is doesn't happen again. > > Ole > > ::The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose > ::50 points. > :: > : > :I'll go for DISMISSED, since I don't see it as Berserker-relevant. > :If I have to say TRUE or FALSE (or did we ditch that clause?), I'll say TRUE, just to cut down on eir points. > : > : > :Ole > : Maybe Ole Anderson is also sending the same message. Are you sure you haven't been cloned? :) Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 08:26:54 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: Doublesend? Mary wrote: : :Maybe Ole Anderson is also sending the same message. Are you sure you :haven't been cloned? :) : Who, me? It could be that guy. "I can't believe what Ole Anderson did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Ole Anderson should be punished by The Mob." Ahhh..... Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:15:53 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Doublesend? At 01:26 AM 6/13/99 , Ole wrote: >Mary wrote: >: >:Maybe Ole Anderson is also sending the same message. Are you sure you >:haven't been cloned? :) >: > >Who, me? > >It could be that guy. "I can't believe what Ole Anderson did! It was an >outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Ole Anderson should be >punished by The Mob." >Ahhh..... > > >Ole Since that's in quotes, should I assume that it was done for its humor value rather than to incite a mob? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:24:30 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Re: Object-orientation > >A bit too tired to think up examples. Someone? > >Ole I think between Joel's and your explanations the concept now makes some sense. Thanks. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:42:11 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: office revision proposal (II) No one has yet commented on the tie-breaking procedure in section 6. I think now that there is no non-arbitrary way to break such ties; as such, I added a simple arbitrary mechanism to do so. What follows is a revised form of the proposal. --------------------------------- 1. Amend Rule 394/0 to read: "Whenever a term of an elected Office ends, a regular election shall be held to fill said Office. Whenever an elected Officeholder resigns or loses a vote of confidence, or the Administrator calls for a special election on a position e holds by virtue of eir being Administrator, a special election shall be held to fill said Office." 2. Amend Rule 227/0 to read: "If an Officeholder forfeits or goes into Limbo, e automatically resigns from the Office at that time. In the absence of a current Officeholder for an Office, the Administrator holds the Office until a new Officeholder is selected pursuant to the rules for filling the Office." 3. Create Rule 391 from the following ELECTION PROCESS-delimited text: ELECTION PROCESS: Upon an election being initiated, the following procedure is executed: 1. Nominations open for the elected Office 2. Nominations are accepted 3. Nominations are closed. If no nominations are received, the current Officeholder is named the Officeholder-elect and the process skips to step 6. 4. Voting for the elected Office begins. 5. Voting ends and an Officeholder-elect is named. 6. The Officeholder-elect becomes the Officeholder upon the expiration of the erstwhile Officeholder’s term. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with elected Offices. ELECTION PROCESS 4. Create Rule 392 from the following NOMINATION-delimited text: NOMINATION Nominations for regular elections open 48 hours before the beginning of the voting period in which the current term expires. Nominations for special elections open immediately upon any such event triggering a special election. During the 48-hour period prior to voting to fill an elected Office, any Player may publicly nominate any number of consenting eligible Players, including emself, as candidates for the Office. NOMINATION 5. Create Rule 393 from the following TERM-delimited (no pun intended) text: TERM A term of an elected Office spans the period from the conclusion of one regular election to the conclusion of the next. Terms for elected Offices are five turns long. Officeholders elected through special elections serve partial terms. {{The next election for each elected Office is to be considered a regular election.}} TERM 6. Create Rule 395 from the following VOTING-delimited text: VOTING The following voting procedure is to be followed when filling elected Offices, unless an alternate voting procedure is required by applicable rules: The voting period for an election shall be equal in duration to, and in the case of a regular election, concurrent with a proposal voting period. All eligible voters may submit during the voting period a ballot ranking nominees for the Office using, only once, each of the integers from 1 to n, where n is the number of nominees and smaller ranks are considered better. The nominee receiving the best aggregate ranking over all ballots submitted during the voting period is, at the close of the period, designated the Officeholder-elect and will succeed the current Officeholder upon the expiration of eir term. In the case of a tie for the best ranking, the tied nominee with the highest score becomes the Officeholder-elect. VOTING J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:56:48 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: Doublesend? Joel wrote: : >It could be that guy. "I can't believe what Ole Anderson did! It was an : >outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Ole Anderson should be : >punished by The Mob." : >Ahhh..... : > : > : >Ole : : Since that's in quotes, should I assume that it was done for its humor : value rather than to incite a mob? : Since R357/1 specifies that players can be burnt, I assume that the burning of non-players (which I believe Mr. Anderson is) is regulated by R116/0. Of course, if anyone would join the mob against Mr. Anderson, they should be welcome, but I doubt that it would have any effect. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:01:53 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Returning is such bitter happiness I leave limbo. I enter the judging pool. I join any mobs that are going. I vote yes on everything up for voting. Tom Mueller, who's computer is now fixed and who has FINALLY gotten through all the back messages. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:30:35 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (3 J79) I agree with Ole on this one, DISMISSED. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:33:03 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: concerning 3 J92 Ah, yes my reminder to vote, what are any advantages to being in the judging pool, anyway? At 01:40 PM 6/12/99 -0500, you wrote: >There is now a majority opinion on the 3 Court for RFJ 92; however, those >on the court who have not yet responded (i.e. Jeff Schroeder) face the 10 >point fine if they do not offer opinions or concur with one already offered >before the case closes. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:31:54 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (3 J79) I remove myself from the judging pool. I didn't realize that you were now fined for higher than 1 Courts, and I don't want to be fined because I might be too busy to read my mail for a couple of days.. At 11:08 AM 6/12/99 -0500, you wrote: >The 3 Court for RFJ 79 lapsed yesterday evening. Josh Kortbein, Jeff >Schroeder, and Dan Waldron were fined for failure to deliver judgments. > >Ole Andersen, Josh Kortbein, Matt Kuhns, Ed Proescholdt, and Joel Uckelman >have been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 79, which will hopefully be the last >time the case is heard: > >The burning of Ole Anderson according to 1 Judgement 75 causes em to lose >50 points. > >(Note: exclusion iv was waived and exclusion ii no longer applies.) > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:45:52 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Proposal: Personal Rulesets. All right I will try to post this again. It allows us to attach rules to specific entities, making possible neat ways to assign offices, et cetera. In addition, it makes possible all kinds of fun antics when we start mucking about with each other's rulesets. I have given it proper rule numbers and revised it a bit. The following is a Proposal with the title "Personal Rulesets". This is the final version unless I post any revisions. Create Rule 360, entitled "Personal Ruleset" with the following "+++++++" delimited text. +++++++ Attached to each Entity is a Personal Ruleset. A Personal Ruleset is a body of rules that apply only to the entity to which it is attached. Each entity must abide by all rules in it's Personal Ruleset, unless they conflict with the rules of Berserker Nomic, in which case the rules of Beserker Nomic take precedence. Upon Creation, each Personal Rule must be assigned a number unique to the Ruleset to which it belongs, this number may later be used to refer to that rule. Personal Rulesets are a matter of public record and the contents of each Personal Ruleset shall be made publicly readable. The Rules of a Personal Ruleset never take precedence over the Rules of Berserker Nomic, and can never cause any action or state that is contrary to the Rules of Berserker Nomic. This rule takes precedence over ever other rule dealing with Personal Rulesets. The Rules of a Personal Ruleset can only be changed as defined in the Rules of Berserker Nomic. +++++++ Create Rule 361, with the title "Mutable and Immutable Personal Rules" with the following "-------" delimited text. ------- Personal Rules may be Mutable. The Mutable rules of any Personal Ruleset may be changed at will by the entity to which they are attached. All other Personal Rules are Immutable. In case of a conflict, Immutable Personal Rules take precedence over Mutable Personal Rules. ------- Create Rule 362, with the title "Personal Rule Precedence" with the following "......." delimited text. ....... If two or more Mutable Personal Rules conflict with one another, then the rule most recently changed takes precedence. If two or more Immutable Personal Rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the immutable personal rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If at least one of the mutable personal rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the chronological method for determining precedence. If two or more personal rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the appropriate method (numerical or chronological) again governs. ....... Create Rule 363, with the title "Default Personal Rules" with the following "///////" delimited text. /////// Unless otherwise specified, the Personal Ruleset for non-player entities is as follows: 1(mutable): This entity acts only as specified in the Rules of Berserker Nomic Unless otherwise specified, the Personal Ruleset for players is as follows: 1(mutable): This entity may act in any way. /////// Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:20:45 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: slack and a Proposal for comment I transfer one slack from myself to Joel. ------- Amend Rule 466 by replacing its text with the following FIXED text. FIXED Players receive one UPC for each Proposal which is voted on but not accepted for which they voted "Yes" or the equivalent. UPCs are distributed at the appointed time for proposal scoring. UPCs may be traded among Players in integer units, though no Player may ever have less than zero UPCs. Players may turn in their UPCs with their ballot upon voting for Proposals. UPCs that are turned in are fed to Osborn's Demon, this causes them to be destroyed just after the voting resolves. The GRAND PRIZE is an eligible voter. If no UPCs are turned in, there is no GRAND PRIZE for that ballot. The GRAND PRIZE votes the same as the Player who turned in the most UPCs. If no Player turns in more UPCs than all the other Players, the GRAND PRIZE shall vote as do a plurality of the Players turning in equally the most UPCs. If there is no plurality, the GRAND PRIZE does not vote for that ballot and all players recieve eir UPCs back on that proposal before Osborn's Demon can consume them. The GRAND PRIZE votes an infinitesimal amount of time before proposal voting resolves. [[Void where prohibited. Available while supplies last. Not available in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. Participation may vary. Check stores for details.]] FIXED Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:56:07 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: The pink revolution continues I make the following proposals: ------- Rule 3 is transmuted to mutable and repealed. ------- Rule 102 is transmuted to mutable and repealed. ------- Rule 114 is transmuted to mutable and repealed. ------- Rule 115 is transmuted to mutable and repealed. ------- These are all unnecessary! Rule 3 obscurly defines an otherwise totally obvious thing: majorities and simple majorities. Rule 102 defined at the beginning what rules would be mutable and immutable and is now worthless. Rule 114 demands that we keep at least one rule mutable (like we really had to worry there). And 115 says that rules can refer to themselves which we could do anyway by 116 or just because its rediculous that we can't. I DEMAND that no one vote "No" on these or suffer the consequences of terminally unnecessary rules! Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:08:04 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: A new player Whoops, sorry for the double send there. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:06:14 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: A new player He is a human. His email is blafard@uclink4.berkeley.edu He's already on the mailing list. He consents. Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be added as a player. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:06:16 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: A new player I propose that Gabe Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player. He is a human. His email is blafard@uclink4.berkeley.edu He's already on the mailing list. He consents. Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be added as a player. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:34:47 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: A new player Mueller wrote: : I propose that Gabe Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player. : : He is a human. That what I claim to be, every once in a while, too. : : His email is blafard@uclink4.berkeley.edu : : He's already on the mailing list. : : He consents. Let's hear him! : : Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be : added as a player. : : Tom Mueller : Fine by me. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:57:17 -0700 From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Nomic: A new player >: He consents. > >Let's hear him! > I consent. -Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:24:21 CDT From: Andrew D Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: limbo etc. If I am in Limbo, I exit Limbo. I transfer one slack from myself to Andy Palecek. If that transfer is illegal, I transfer one slack from myself to Nick Osborn. I enter Limbo. I expect to remain in Limbo no longer than 6 months. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:06:00 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: slack and a Proposal for comment At 02:20 AM 6/14/99 , Mueller wrote: It's good to have you back, Tom... In what way does this "fix" the rule other than by undoing the change made by P509 (which, I might add, passed (6-4-0-4)) by re-allowing proposers to receive UPCs for their failed proposals? >------- > >Amend Rule 466 by replacing its text with the following FIXED text. > > >FIXED > >Players receive one UPC for each Proposal which is voted on but not >accepted for which they voted "Yes" or the equivalent. UPCs are distributed >at the appointed time for proposal scoring. > >UPCs may be traded among Players in integer units, though no Player may >ever have less than zero UPCs. Players may turn in their UPCs with their >ballot upon voting for Proposals. UPCs that are turned in are fed to >Osborn's Demon, this causes them to be destroyed just after the voting >resolves. > >The GRAND PRIZE is an eligible voter. If no UPCs are turned in, there is no >GRAND PRIZE for that ballot. > >The GRAND PRIZE votes the same as the Player who turned in the most UPCs. > >If no Player turns in more UPCs than all the other Players, the GRAND PRIZE >shall vote as do a plurality of the Players turning in equally the most UPCs. > >If there is no plurality, the GRAND PRIZE does not vote for that ballot and >all players recieve eir UPCs back on that proposal before Osborn's Demon >can consume them. > >The GRAND PRIZE votes an infinitesimal amount of time before proposal >voting resolves. > >[[Void where prohibited. Available while supplies last. Not available in >Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. Participation may vary. Check stores for >details.]] > >FIXED > >Tom Mueller J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:13:18 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: The pink revolution continues At 02:56 AM 6/14/99 , Mueller wrote: > >Rule 3 obscurly defines an otherwise totally obvious thing: majorities and >simple majorities. But having a mathematical definition of it prevents any ambiguities, and also makes it easy to specify other majorities: e.g, an 0.6-majority would be 60%. >Rule 102 defined at the beginning what rules would be mutable and immutable >and is now worthless. That's just the first sentence. The remainder is important for mutability/immutability. >Rule 114 demands that we keep at least one rule mutable (like we really had >to worry there). I don't see the first sentence of R114 as useful anymore either, but the second sentence is an important safeguard. >And 115 says that rules can refer to themselves which we could do anyway by >116 or just because its rediculous that we can't. Ah. That may not be such a good idea. Suber wrote part of a book to justify the possibility that self-referential statements could be true. I'm not sufficiently up on the arguments either way at this point to be able to render an opinion as to whether we need R115. >I DEMAND that no one vote "No" on these or suffer the consequences of >terminally unnecessary rules! Such as ... having to maintain them? I already do... :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:52:41 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: The pink revolution continues Joel Uckelman writes: >At 02:56 AM 6/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>Rule 3 obscurly defines an otherwise totally obvious thing: majorities and >>simple majorities. > >But having a mathematical definition of it prevents any ambiguities, and You _hope_ it does. Josh -- In _Gravity's Rainbow_ Thomas Pynchon wrote that paper is used in three ways-- for "shit, money, and The Word." I tend to look at guitars in the same way. - Brent Dicrescenzo ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:45:56 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot Voting ends at 20:02 CDT 16 June 1999. ------------------------------------------------------------------- P519 1. Amend Rule 394/0 to read: "Whenever a term of an elected Office ends, a regular election shall be held to fill said Office. Whenever an elected Officeholder resigns or loses a vote of confidence, or the Administrator calls for a special election on a position e holds by virtue of eir being Administrator, a special election shall be held to fill said Office." 2. Amend Rule 227/0 to read: "If an Officeholder forfeits or goes into Limbo, e automatically resigns from the Office at that time. In the absence of a current Officeholder for an Office, the Administrator holds the Office until a new Officeholder is selected pursuant to the rules for filling the Office." 3. Create Rule 391 from the following ELECTION PROCESS-delimited text: ELECTION PROCESS: Upon an election being initiated, the following procedure is executed: 1. Nominations open for the elected Office 2. Nominations are accepted 3. Nominations are closed. If no nominations are received, the current Officeholder is named the Officeholder-elect and the process skips to step 6. 4. Voting for the elected Office begins. 5. Voting ends and an Officeholder-elect is named. 6. The Officeholder-elect becomes the Officeholder upon the expiration of the erstwhile Officeholder’s term. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with elected Offices. ELECTION PROCESS 4. Create Rule 392 from the following NOMINATION-delimited text: NOMINATION Nominations for regular elections open 48 hours before the beginning of the voting period in which the current term expires. Nominations for special elections open immediately upon any such event triggering a special election. During the 48-hour period prior to voting to fill an elected Office, any Player may publicly nominate any number of consenting eligible Players, including emself, as candidates for the Office. NOMINATION 5. Create Rule 393 from the following TERM-delimited (no pun intended) text: TERM A term of an elected Office spans the period from the conclusion of one regular election to the conclusion of the next. Terms for elected Offices are five turns long. Officeholders elected through special elections serve partial terms. {{The next election for each elected Office is to be considered a regular election.}} TERM 6. Create Rule 395 from the following VOTING-delimited text: VOTING The following voting procedure is to be followed when filling elected Offices, unless an alternate voting procedure is required by applicable rules: The voting period for an election shall be equal in duration to, and in the case of a regular election, concurrent with a proposal voting period. All eligible voters may submit during the voting period a ballot ranking nominees for the Office using, only once, each of the integers from 1 to n, where n is the number of nominees and smaller ranks are considered better. The nominee receiving the best aggregate ranking over all ballots submitted during the voting period is, at the close of the period, designated the Officeholder-elect and will succeed the current Officeholder upon the expiration of eir term. In the case of a tie for the best ranking, the tied nominee with the highest score becomes the Officeholder-elect. VOTING ------------------------------------------------------------------- P520 Create Rule 360, entitled "Personal Ruleset" with the following "+++++++" delimited text. +++++++ Attached to each Entity is a Personal Ruleset. A Personal Ruleset is a body of rules that apply only to the entity to which it is attached. Each entity must abide by all rules in it's Personal Ruleset, unless they conflict with the rules of Berserker Nomic, in which case the rules of Beserker Nomic take precedence. Upon Creation, each Personal Rule must be assigned a number unique to the Ruleset to which it belongs, this number may later be used to refer to that rule. Personal Rulesets are a matter of public record and the contents of each Personal Ruleset shall be made publicly readable. The Rules of a Personal Ruleset never take precedence over the Rules of Berserker Nomic, and can never cause any action or state that is contrary to the Rules of Berserker Nomic. This rule takes precedence over ever other rule dealing with Personal Rulesets. The Rules of a Personal Ruleset can only be changed as defined in the Rules of Berserker Nomic. +++++++ Create Rule 361, with the title "Mutable and Immutable Personal Rules" with the following "-------" delimited text. ------- Personal Rules may be Mutable. The Mutable rules of any Personal Ruleset may be changed at will by the entity to which they are attached. All other Personal Rules are Immutable. In case of a conflict, Immutable Personal Rules take precedence over Mutable Personal Rules. ------- Create Rule 362, with the title "Personal Rule Precedence" with the following "......." delimited text. ....... If two or more Mutable Personal Rules conflict with one another, then the rule most recently changed takes precedence. If two or more Immutable Personal Rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the immutable personal rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If at least one of the mutable personal rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the chronological method for determining precedence. If two or more personal rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the appropriate method (numerical or chronological) again governs. ....... Create Rule 363, with the title "Default Personal Rules" with the following "///////" delimited text. /////// Unless otherwise specified, the Personal Ruleset for non-player entities is as follows: 1(mutable): This entity acts only as specified in the Rules of Berserker Nomic Unless otherwise specified, the Personal Ruleset for players is as follows: 1(mutable): This entity may act in any way. /////// -------------------------------------------------------------------- P521 Amend Rule 466 by replacing its text with the following FIXED text. FIXED Players receive one UPC for each Proposal which is voted on but not accepted for which they voted "Yes" or the equivalent. UPCs are distributed at the appointed time for proposal scoring. UPCs may be traded among Players in integer units, though no Player may ever have less than zero UPCs. Players may turn in their UPCs with their ballot upon voting for Proposals. UPCs that are turned in are fed to Osborn's Demon, this causes them to be destroyed just after the voting resolves. The GRAND PRIZE is an eligible voter. If no UPCs are turned in, there is no GRAND PRIZE for that ballot. The GRAND PRIZE votes the same as the Player who turned in the most UPCs. If no Player turns in more UPCs than all the other Players, the GRAND PRIZE shall vote as do a plurality of the Players turning in equally the most UPCs. If there is no plurality, the GRAND PRIZE does not vote for that ballot and all players recieve eir UPCs back on that proposal before Osborn's Demon can consume them. The GRAND PRIZE votes an infinitesimal amount of time before proposal voting resolves. [[Void where prohibited. Available while supplies last. Not available in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. Participation may vary. Check stores for details.]] FIXED -------------------------------------------------------------------- P522 Rule 3 is transmuted to mutable and repealed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- P523 Rule 102 is transmuted to mutable and repealed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- P524 Rule 114 is transmuted to mutable and repealed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- P525 Rule 115 is transmuted to mutable and repealed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:36:13 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: slack and a Proposal for comment Joel wrote: >At 02:20 AM 6/14/99 , Mueller wrote: > >It's good to have you back, Tom... > >In what way does this "fix" the rule ...? > It clarifies the language re "voting for" and "voting Yes on" and fixes the timing concernes so that everything works tro kosher. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:46:02 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: The pink revolution continues Joel wrote: >At 02:56 AM 6/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>Rule 3 obscurly defines an otherwise totally obvious thing: majorities and >>simple majorities. > >But having a mathematical definition of it prevents any ambiguities, and >also makes it easy to specify other majorities: e.g, an 0.6-majority would >be 60%. Ummm and why does this need to be immutable? And why not say what the percentage is in the rule that uses it simply for ease of reading? And for that matter why not kill it now (while it is NOT used by any other rule) and put it in later as necessary? >>Rule 102 defined at the beginning what rules would be mutable and immutable >>and is now worthless. > >That's just the first sentence. The remainder is important for >mutability/immutability. Exactly what does it say and why is it necessary? >>Rule 114 demands that we keep at least one rule mutable (like we really had >>to worry there). > >I don't see the first sentence of R114 as useful anymore either, but the >second sentence is an important safeguard. OK... stipulate that our entire ruleset WAS made immutable (a stupider thing I can't imagine though) we would still be able to fix it... And HOW exactly would R114 be ENFORCED... if a prop passed which changed the rule according to the rules everywhere else would this actually kill the prop? >>And 115 says that rules can refer to themselves which we could do anyway by >>116 or just because its rediculous that we can't. > >Ah. That may not be such a good idea. Suber wrote part of a book to justify >the possibility that self-referential statements could be true. I'm not >sufficiently up on the arguments either way at this point to be able to >render an opinion as to whether we need R115. Why would we? And I've read pieces of Suber's book and he basically concludes that law systems need to be flexible. Furthermore, I'd rather votes wern't based on vague "what ifs" this is a nomic and should be treated like one. Give me a reasonable explanation or give me death! >>I DEMAND that no one vote "No" on these or suffer the consequences of >>terminally unnecessary rules! > >Such as ... having to maintain them? I already do... :) No, having a boring ruleset and continuing to suffer at the hands of the pink rebellion! Death to all original rules! Out with the old and in with the new! .... N'stuff!! Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:52:43 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report Foreign Minister's (errr... almost turnly) Report The Nomic MU has proposed a bill declaring that Berserker Nomic is a Player in the Nomic MU, and, as such, is required to follow their rules. Unless there is agreement that we want to be enslaved, I will not acknowledge this. In fact, we could treat it as a declaration of war or at least hostile intent. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:09:20 -0700 From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Nomic: A new player At 04:06 AM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: >He is a human. > >His email is blafard@uclink4.berkeley.edu > >He's already on the mailing list. > >He consents. > >Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be >added as a player. > It has been 36 hours. No one has objected, so I am now a player. Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:10:43 -0700 From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Nomic: A new player At 04:06 AM 6/14/99 -0400, Mueller wrote: >I propose that Gabe Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player. > >He is a human. > >His email is blafard@uclink4.berkeley.edu > >He's already on the mailing list. > >He consents. > >Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be >added as a player. > It has been 36 hours, and no one has objected. Once again, I have been added as a player. >Tom Mueller > Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:10:00 -0700 From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Nomic: A new player At 04:06 AM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: >I propose that Gabe Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player. It has been 36 hours, and no one has objected. I am now a second player. > >He is a human. > >His email is blafard@uclink4.berkeley.edu > >He's already on the mailing list. > >He consents. > >Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be >added as a player. > >Tom Mueller > -- Ai! Pedrito! DeeJay * Wrangler ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:27:01 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report Poulenc wrote: : The Nomic MU has proposed a bill declaring that Berserker Nomic is a Player : in the Nomic MU, and, as such, is required to follow their rules. Unless : there is agreement that we want to be enslaved, I will not acknowledge this. : : In fact, we could treat it as a declaration of war or at least hostile intent. : Well... and what would be the consequenses if we were required to follow Nomic MU's rules? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:33:54 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report > >Well... and what would be the consequenses if we were required to follow >Nomic MU's rules? > > >Ole Well, they could make changes to our ruleset without approval. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:39:50 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Those Filthy Savages! >Foreign Minister's (errr... almost turnly) Report > >The Nomic MU has proposed a bill declaring that Berserker Nomic is a Player >in the Nomic MU, and, as such, is required to follow their rules. Unless >there is agreement that we want to be enslaved, I will not acknowledge this. > >In fact, we could treat it as a declaration of war or at least hostile intent. I wouldn't jump straight to all-out war, but it sounds like hostile intent to me. Where do they get off trying to impose their foreign way of life on us? I appreciate this being brought to our attention. Any thoughts on what course we ought to take, FM Poulenc? Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:47:54 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report "Ole Andersen" writes: >Poulenc wrote: > >: The Nomic MU has proposed a bill declaring that Berserker Nomic is a >Player >: in the Nomic MU, and, as such, is required to follow their rules. Unless >: there is agreement that we want to be enslaved, I will not acknowledge >this. >: >: In fact, we could treat it as a declaration of war or at least hostile >intent. >: > >Well... and what would be the consequenses if we were required to follow >Nomic MU's rules? Better yet, how would they even enforce them, since, aside from Poulenc, we are ignorant of everything regarding them, save their existence? Josh -- Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:59:18 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report Those Bastards at Nomic MU in their Foul Plot have insulted all of Berserker Nomic. Therefore: I can't believe what Nomic MU did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Nomic MU should be punished by the Mob. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:54:33 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Those Filthy Savages! I have noticed that in the bill declaring us to be a player there is a typo. "Berserker" is spelled "Berserkir" and I think we can argue that it therefore does not refer to us. In any case, I think we should ignore it. I don't think they have any means of enforcing it. I think we need some kind of retaliation. We could declare them to be subject to certain rules, or require our permission to make changes to their own ruleset? Ideas anyone? Poulenc >>Foreign Minister's (errr... almost turnly) Report >> >>The Nomic MU has proposed a bill declaring that Berserker Nomic is a Player >>in the Nomic MU, and, as such, is required to follow their rules. Unless >>there is agreement that we want to be enslaved, I will not acknowledge this. >> >>In fact, we could treat it as a declaration of war or at least hostile >>intent. > >I wouldn't jump straight to all-out war, but it sounds like hostile intent >to me. Where do they get off trying to impose their foreign way of life on >us? > >I appreciate this being brought to our attention. Any thoughts on what >course we ought to take, FM Poulenc? > > >Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns > >The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front >of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:53:36 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Those Filthy Savages! Dan Waldron writes: >In any case, I think we should ignore it. I don't think they have any >means of enforcing it. > >I think we need some kind of retaliation. We could declare them to be >subject to certain rules, or require our permission to make changes to >their own ruleset? Ideas anyone? Provide justification for such measures. It seems the same that we require of them would be required of us. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:52:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report Dan Waldron writes: >Those Bastards at Nomic MU in their Foul Plot have insulted all of >Berserker Nomic. Therefore: > >I can't believe what Nomic MU did! It was an outrage! There outta be a >law! Since there isn't one, Nomic MU should be punished by the Mob. Um. Recent events should have taught us, I think, what happens when non-players are burned. THINGS GET FUCKING MESSY. Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:09:09 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: Those Filthy Savages! I'd recommend a rule within Berserker something along the lines of "If Berserker Nomic ever becomes a player in any other Nomic, it automatically and instantly forfeits and becomes a non-player." And/or just ignore them. Isolationists unite! .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:38:37 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: don't light the torches yet >Recent events should have taught us, I think, what happens when >non-players are burned. > >THINGS GET FUCKING MESSY. To say the least. As much fun as a good torching is, the consequences of the last non-player burning were kind of like having a three-day hangover after drinking two shots. ie. Just not worth it. Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:46:20 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report At 04:52 PM 6/15/99 , Waldron wrote: >Foreign Minister's (errr... almost turnly) Report > >The Nomic MU has proposed a bill declaring that Berserker Nomic is a Player >in the Nomic MU, and, as such, is required to follow their rules. Unless >there is agreement that we want to be enslaved, I will not acknowledge this. > >In fact, we could treat it as a declaration of war or at least hostile intent. > >Poulenc Hmmm. It would be interesting to be a voting member, but to be free of obligations to follow their rules outside their game. Otherwise, I support a policy of guarded neutrality. Or maybe we should counter with a similar proposal... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:48:16 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: A new player At 05:09 PM 6/15/99 , Gabe wrote: > >It has been 36 hours. No one has objected, so I am now a player. > >Gabe Sorry for ignoring you... lots of stuff happening at present. Welcome to the game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:49:39 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report At 05:33 PM 6/15/99 , Ole wrote: > >> >>Well... and what would be the consequenses if we were required to follow >>Nomic MU's rules? >> >> >>Ole > >Well, they could make changes to our ruleset without approval. >Poulenc > I think if we wanted that, we would have just joined their game instead. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:51:18 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Those Filthy Savages! At 05:54 PM 6/15/99 , Waldron wrote: >I have noticed that in the bill declaring us to be a player there is a >typo. "Berserker" is spelled "Berserkir" and I think we can argue that it >therefore does not refer to us. > >In any case, I think we should ignore it. I don't think they have any >means of enforcing it. > >I think we need some kind of retaliation. We could declare them to be >subject to certain rules, or require our permission to make changes to >their own ruleset? Ideas anyone? > >Poulenc Maybe we could excommunicate them and then burn their game at the stake... heh heh heh. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:33:39 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: >At 07:22 PM 6/15/99 , Gabe wrote: >> >>Note for the record that I have three players. I am voting with all of >>them here. Hmm. That's interesting. We'll have to fix that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:07:33 -0700 From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot At 09:41 PM 6/15/99 -0500, Uckelman wrote: ----- BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL ----- >At 07:22 PM 6/15/99 , Gabe wrote: >> >>Note for the record that I have three players. I am voting with all of >>them here. >> > >Now that I look back at this, I'm not sure how Gabe could have three >players, since there was only one sponsorship message for a single player. > ----- END QUOTED MATERIAL ----- There were two sponsorship messages, one containing one sponsorship, the other containing two. To examine the rules of Berserker: Rule 2: A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames. Obviously, it is not illegal for multiple players to be represented by the same human being. Now, the rule on joining, 309, is: New Players may be added to the game pursuant to the following restrictions: 1. Addition of a new Player must not violate the Definition of Player. 2. An existing Player must make an informal proposal to add a new Player. 3. The informal proposal must receive a two-thirds majority of favorable votes from eligible voters if any player requests a vote on the matter. If no such request is made within 36 hours of the informal proposal, said proposal is considered to have passed. Upon entry to the game, new Players are regulated by the following restrictions: 1. New Players begin the game with zero points. 2. New Players may not propose or serve as Judges until they have been players for five days. I do not violate the definition of a player. In two messages, Mueller said: "Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be added as a player." "I propose that Gabe Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player." "Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be added as a player." These are informal proposals to add new players. No requests were made for a vote. I don't see how it is arguable that I have joined with three players. -Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:48:18 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: New Player I Propose that the Nomic MU be added as a Player of Beserker, to be represented by the Human representing the Oficer of Outside Comunications of the Nomic MU. I am not sure if you folks will all agree with this one, either on principle, or since it would be easy to abuse my powers as representative of the Nomic MU to gain an extra vote in Berserker. If it is so wished I could resign from the Nomic MU office to prevent such a conflict of interest. Anyway, I am not sure this is legal. I have indicated a human representative, and it is possible to determine if the Nomic MU consents. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 06:54:46 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: New Player I wish to sponsor the admittance of Charlene Tupper to this game of Beserker. Charlene consents to this action, and will be represented by one real live human being. Her email address is tupper@cs.colostate.edu Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 06:57:49 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report Dan Waldron wrote: > > Those Bastards at Nomic MU in their Foul Plot have insulted all of > Berserker Nomic. Therefore: > > I can't believe what Nomic MU did! It was an outrage! There outta be a > law! Since there isn't one, Nomic MU should be punished by the Mob. > > Poulenc Since Beserker Nomic has no way to inform hostile nomics of our opinion, and since I have either incited or joined every mob formed, I hereby join this mob. btw, how do we burn an entire nomic? All of the players or just their ruleset? No matter, everything burns. :) Xylen -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:43:49 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player : I wish to sponsor the admittance of Charlene Tupper to this game of : Beserker. Charlene consents to this action, and will be represented by : one real live human being. Her email address is tupper@cs.colostate.edu OK by me, but just for the sake of my curiosity: Is Charlene in any way related to you, Mary? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:45:27 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player Ole Andersen wrote: > > : I wish to sponsor the admittance of Charlene Tupper to this game of > : Beserker. Charlene consents to this action, and will be represented by > : one real live human being. Her email address is tupper@cs.colostate.edu > > OK by me, but just for the sake of my curiosity: > > Is Charlene in any way related to you, Mary? Yes, but at this time I would prefer not to specify the relationship. Mary -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:15:41 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player Dan Waldron writes: >I Propose that the Nomic MU be added as a Player of Beserker, to be >represented by the Human representing the Oficer of Outside Comunications >of the Nomic MU. > > >I am not sure if you folks will all agree with this one, either on >principle, or since it would be easy to abuse my powers as representative >of the Nomic MU to gain an extra vote in Berserker. If it is so wished I >could resign from the Nomic MU office to prevent such a conflict of >interest. > >Anyway, I am not sure this is legal. I have indicated a human >representative, and it is possible to determine if the Nomic MU consents. Fuck no. I call for a vote. -- In such an ugly time the real protest is beauty. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:50:34 -0400 From: Poulenc Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player >Anyway, I am not sure this is legal. I have indicated a human >representative, and it is possible to determine if the Nomic MU consents. Nomic MU consents Nomic MU ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:55:17 -0400 From: Poulenc Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player >Dan Waldron writes: >>I Propose that the Nomic MU be added as a Player of Beserker, to be >>represented by the Human representing the Oficer of Outside Comunications >>of the Nomic MU. >> >> >>I am not sure if you folks will all agree with this one, either on >>principle, or since it would be easy to abuse my powers as representative >>of the Nomic MU to gain an extra vote in Berserker. If it is so wished I >>could resign from the Nomic MU office to prevent such a conflict of >>interest. >> >>Anyway, I am not sure this is legal. I have indicated a human >>representative, and it is possible to determine if the Nomic MU consents. > >Fuck no. I call for a vote. but if Nomic MU is a player, we can burn them for real! Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:05:52 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player Poulenc writes: > >>Anyway, I am not sure this is legal. I have indicated a human >>representative, and it is possible to determine if the Nomic MU consents. CFJ on the following statement: Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, because nomics are not single players. Comments: I think this is clear in the case of a multi-player nomic. Even one which offers up a single human representative is not, in reality, one player. The "one human" clause could be considered simply a way to stop vote-mongering, but it also serves a more subtle purpose: it limits the resources available to the player receiving representation. A "player" backed up by a group of people has an unfair advantage in our game. Now, for single-player nomics, the distinction becomes blurrier. I believe it to hold though, if only for the reason that Nomics are in fact NOT simply humans. They are bodies of rules, the bounds of which are few - but bodies of rules nonetheless. Those rules may have (human) players associated with them, but they may not. I don't think we should set a precedent of allowing this kind of tomfoolery. If we want other nomics to have representation in our game we should try to mimic what some inter-nomic nomics have done, not just allow whatever the hell Poulenc is trying to pull because it sounds halfway normal. Josh -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:14:38 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player Poulenc writes: >but if Nomic MU is a player, we can burn them for real! I'm not sure what you're trying to pull but I have yet to see any justification from you that we should even acknowledge this other nomic exists. Start giving some or I'll start a mob against you. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:41:25 -0400 From: Poulenc Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player >Poulenc writes: >>but if Nomic MU is a player, we can burn them for real! > >I'm not sure what you're trying to pull but I have yet to see >any justification from you that we should even acknowledge this >other nomic exists. > >Start giving some or I'll start a mob against you. I want to do something interesting. That is enough. I am trying to be inventive and though hey cool- it would be really neat if... That should be enough justification in itself. I would like you to please take back your threat, it is a fine example of general bullying and Not Very Nice behavior- trying to prevent the free exchange of ideas by the use of threats. If you have a problem with Nomic MU being added as a player, then vote against it. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:41:25 -0400 From: Poulenc Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player >Poulenc writes: >>but if Nomic MU is a player, we can burn them for real! > >I'm not sure what you're trying to pull but I have yet to see >any justification from you that we should even acknowledge this >other nomic exists. > >Start giving some or I'll start a mob against you. I want to do something interesting. That is enough. I am trying to be inventive and though hey cool- it would be really neat if... That should be enough justification in itself. I would like you to please take back your threat, it is a fine example of general bullying and Not Very Nice behavior- trying to prevent the free exchange of ideas by the use of threats. If you have a problem with Nomic MU being added as a player, then vote against it. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:10:11 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player sorry about the doublesend Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:11:53 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player Xylen wrote: : Ole Andersen wrote: : > : > : I wish to sponsor the admittance of Charlene Tupper to this game of : > : Beserker. Charlene consents to this action, and will be represented by : > : one real live human being. Her email address is tupper@cs.colostate.edu : > : > OK by me, but just for the sake of my curiosity: : > : > Is Charlene in any way related to you, Mary? : : Yes, but at this time I would prefer not to specify the relationship. : Ah... WHEREAS I suspect that Xylen and Mary Charlene Tupper are one and the same person, I hereby request a vote on the admittance of Charlene Tupper to the game. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:39:13 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Player Defintions >From the Beserker ruleset: Rule 2/1(i) : Definition of Player A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames. >From Websters Dictionary: Forename \Fore"name`\, n. A name that precedes the family name or surname; >From Wordnet 1.6: forename n : the name that precedes the surname By the definitions of 'forename' I have two forenames, Mary and Charlene. thus by rule 2/1, I can control two entities. Each entity 'is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation.' Each one is identified by a forename[Mary or Charlene] and a surname [Tupper], and for the Administrators convenience, each entity has a separate email account. In the event that the personal ruleset prop passes, the two Players that I control will have separate personal rule sets governing voting and judicial decisions. Why am I doing this? After reading the rules, I noticed the 'glitch' in the player definition. It seems to me, that this will make things more interesting. At least I will enjoy Beserker more. :) Xylen, aka Mary Tupper -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:49:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player Poulenc writes: >>Poulenc writes: >>>but if Nomic MU is a player, we can burn them for real! >> >>I'm not sure what you're trying to pull but I have yet to see >>any justification from you that we should even acknowledge this >>other nomic exists. >> >>Start giving some or I'll start a mob against you. > > >I want to do something interesting. That is enough. I am trying to be >inventive and though hey cool- it would be really neat if... > >That should be enough justification in itself. I would like you to please >take back your threat, it is a fine example of general bullying and Not >Very Nice behavior- trying to prevent the free exchange of ideas by the use >of threats. If you have a problem with Nomic MU being added as a player, >then vote against it. The problem I have is of the magnitude that voting against it is not sufficient defense. I think it is an illegal action, and thus should not even be put to a vote. I have no problem with bullying you if I think you're trying to pull a fast (well, medium non-slow) one on us. If you're really all for the "free exchange of ideas" then how about arguing for them? Why would we WANT NMU as a player? Why should we even acknowledge they exist? What consequence would admitting them, only to be burned, have? Burning isn't even that interesting when done to _real_ players who have a stake in our game. 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: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:54:15 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Good going, Joel What a prime time to clarify the definition of player. BUT WE CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S AN IMMUTABLE RULE. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:52:58 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions Xylen writes: >>From the Beserker ruleset: >Rule 2/1(i) : Definition of Player > A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by >one and only one real, living human being who consents to said >representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding >real human fore- and surnames. > >>From Websters Dictionary: >Forename \Fore"name`\, n. A name that precedes the family name or > surname; >>From Wordnet 1.6: >forename n : the name that precedes the surname > >By the definitions of 'forename' I have two forenames, Mary and >Charlene. This is ambiguous. Which definition will you admit, and why should we prefer it over the other one? If you use the wordnet definition, that implies that there is a single forename - in which case you either admit that "Charlene" is not a forename, or you say your entire forename is "Mary Charlene" or whatever order they're supposed to go in. >each entity has a separate email account. How are we to believe that these don't send mail to the same place? Jeff Schroeder can get mail at jschrodr@iastate.edu and willow@iastate.edu but we don't consider that a sign that he is two different entities. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:38:07 -0700 From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions OK. I don't know what the standard procedure is in this nomic, but in other nomics I've played, it is Bad Form for a player to take advantage of a scam after another player has already done so. I think that this custom is a good one; otherwise, the results are: 1) Players with some kind of moral feeling are placed at a disadvantage 2) Players with originality are not rewarded for it. I was the first Player to use the rules to get myself multiple players, and as such, I think it is QUITE bad form for you, Mary/Charlene, to attempt to use the rule to your advantage. Further, some of the protests you put forth as important are not. It is nowhere in the definition of a Player that every Player must have a different email account. Nor is it anywhere in the rules that two players or entities may not be identified by the same name. At least that's OUR reading of the rule. -Gabe, -Gabe, and -Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:53:06 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player > >The problem I have is of the magnitude that voting against it is >not sufficient defense. I think it is an illegal action, and thus >should not even be put to a vote. > >I have no problem with bullying you if I think you're trying to >pull a fast (well, medium non-slow) one on us. If you're really >all for the "free exchange of ideas" then how about arguing for >them? Why would we WANT NMU as a player? Why should we even acknowledge >they exist? What consequence would admitting them, only to be burned, >have? Burning isn't even that interesting when done to _real_ players >who have a stake in our game. > If it's illegal you can make a cfj, and you have done so. If you just don't like it then vote against it. If NMU is a player, we can make rules that affect the running of the game, and the NMU players will have to decide how NMU will react to the situations of Berserker. This is an experiment. I don't know what will happen, I dont know how other people will treat it. I want to see how NMU will react to this, and I want to see what we can do in Berserker that would be applicable to member Nomics. I also ask the question "Why should we want ANYONE as a player, why should we acknowledge that any potential player exists, in fact, why should we play nomic at all?" Pooulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:07:38 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Limbo notification Just when things were starting to get really interesting, I've got to go. I should be back within two weeks, so my official 'in Limbo' time is 14 days. Btw Gabe^3, I had subscribed to the Beserker mailing list under a second email account last week, before you were even proposed as a player. Yes, I am jumping on the bandwagon, but for a purpose. The definition of a Player is flawed in this game of nomic. With two of us really mucking things up in different manners, it makes everyone else think about the havoc possible in this rule and any other immutable rule. We have too many immutable rules, and making changes to them is too difficult. Xylen, aka Mary Tupper, aka Charlene Tupper -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:17:17 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: RFJ Since the various Drummond-Coles are represented by the same real human being, I doubt that they are each represented by _one_ human being. They are represented by _a fraction of one_ each. This is obviously against R2/1, since they are not represented by one each. I want this statement evaluated: "Gabe Drummond-Cole is one Player, not three." Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:32:26 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions Gabe Drummond-Cole writes: >I was the first Player to use the rules to get myself multiple players, and >as such, I think it is QUITE bad form for you, Mary/Charlene, to attempt to >use the rule to your advantage. Well, technically, she's trying a different scam than yours. And the reasons for the new player rule being structured the way it is arose out of concerns that this sort of thing might happen, so they aren't very original ideas. They just have the property of being more slippery than we were at the time of writing the rule. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:30:48 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player Dan Waldron writes: >If it's illegal you can make a cfj, and you have done so. If you just >don't like it then vote against it. If NMU is a player, we can make rules >that affect the running of the game, and the NMU players will have to Of which game? Ours? We always have. Theirs? I fail to see how that would work, and I invite you to attempt enlightening me. >decide how NMU will react to the situations of Berserker. This is an >experiment. I don't know what will happen, I dont know how other people >will treat it. I want to see how NMU will react to this, and I want to see >what we can do in Berserker that would be applicable to member Nomics. The proper reaction is no reaction. So NMU claims dominion over us. So what? As our game is currently structured, that dominion has no effect. Unless you PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION for there being such an effect, why should we even bother? >I also ask the question "Why should we want ANYONE as a player, why should >we acknowledge that any potential player exists, in fact, why should we >play nomic at all?" Sophist. Josh -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:30:40 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions Gabe wrote: : It is : nowhere in the definition of a Player that every Player must have a : different email account. Nor is it anywhere in the rules that two players : or entities may not be identified by the same name. If two entities have the same name, we can't identify them by name. One more reason why you are one and not three. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:45:46 -0700 From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions At 11:30 PM 6/16/99 +0200, you wrote: >Gabe wrote: >: It is >: nowhere in the definition of a Player that every Player must have a >: different email account. Nor is it anywhere in the rules that two players >: or entities may not be identified by the same name. > >If two entities have the same name, we can't identify them by name. >One more reason why you are one and not three. > > >Ole > So... what you're saying is that if another player name Ole Andersen, unrelated to you, attempted to join Berserker, e would be denied by the rules? I don't think so. No where in the rules are two entities prohibited from being identified by the same name. The objections that have been raised are more a twisting of the rules and of English definitions to "prove" the objectors' points than real conclusions drawn logically from the common-sense meaning of the rules. -Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:02:03 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions Gabe Drummond-Cole writes: >At 11:30 PM 6/16/99 +0200, you wrote: >>Gabe wrote: >>: It is >>: nowhere in the definition of a Player that every Player must have a >>: different email account. Nor is it anywhere in the rules that two players >>: or entities may not be identified by the same name. >> >>If two entities have the same name, we can't identify them by name. >>One more reason why you are one and not three. >> >> >>Ole >> > >So... what you're saying is that if another player name Ole Andersen, >unrelated to you, attempted to join Berserker, e would be denied by the >rules? I don't think so. No where in the rules are two entities >prohibited from being identified by the same name. The objections that >have been raised are more a twisting of the rules and of English >definitions to "prove" the objectors' points than real conclusions drawn >logically from the common-sense meaning of the rules. A common sense reading of the rules would tell us that once you've been proposed as a player, repeated proposals to add you as a player are simply redundant, not proposals to add distinct players. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:17:46 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions Someone named Gabe (we can't know which) wrote: : So... what you're saying is that if another player name Ole Andersen, : unrelated to you, attempted to join Berserker, e would be denied by the : rules? I don't think so. No where in the rules are two entities : prohibited from being identified by the same name. Related or unrelated, yes. Identification is of no worth of it is ambiguous. If one Gabe called for Judgement on a case, how should Joel know which Gabe not to appoint as Judge? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:15:21 -0700 From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions At 12:17 AM 6/17/99 +0200, you wrote: >Someone named Gabe (we can't know which) wrote: > >: So... what you're saying is that if another player name Ole Andersen, >: unrelated to you, attempted to join Berserker, e would be denied by the >: rules? I don't think so. No where in the rules are two entities >: prohibited from being identified by the same name. > >Related or unrelated, yes. > >Identification is of no worth of it is ambiguous. If one Gabe called for >Judgement on a case, how should Joel know which Gabe not to appoint as >Judge? > > >Ole I don't know. It seems to me that *that* is the problem with the rules. Ambiguity of identity is not explicitly or implicitly disallowed in the rules. If it were, this would not be an issue. But, because this is a nomic, we must go by the rules, not by what the rules would be if they were of some worth, or if they were reasonable. I suggest, that until this situation is resolved, that when I perform a game action, or when a game action is targetted at me, that I be referred to as Gabe 1, Gabe 2, and Gabe 3, where Gabe 1 is the Gabe who became a player first, in the separate message, and Gabes 2 and 3 were the Gabes added by the first and last sentence, respectively, of Mueller's second New Player message. This is a way in which the varying Gabes can be distinguished: by the acts that created them. -Gabe (1,2, and 3) ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:54:52 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions At 05:17 PM 6/16/99 , Ole wrote: >Someone named Gabe (we can't know which) wrote: > >: So... what you're saying is that if another player name Ole Andersen, >: unrelated to you, attempted to join Berserker, e would be denied by the >: rules? I don't think so. No where in the rules are two entities >: prohibited from being identified by the same name. > >Related or unrelated, yes. > >Identification is of no worth of it is ambiguous. If one Gabe called for >Judgement on a case, how should Joel know which Gabe not to appoint as >Judge? > > >Ole By email address. That seems to be the only unambiguous identifier we have, and we certainly shouldn't allow more than one player to have identical email addresses. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:15:14 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ Since I need this resolved quickly to determine the outcome of voting, I request judgment on the following statement: Gabe Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player a single time only, and thus cannot presently be three players. -------------- That Mr. Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player three times rests on his assumption that he was sponsored by Mr. Mueller three times -- which I hold to be false. At 03:06:14 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent his first message, containing the line "Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be added as a player." and no other line that could be construed as such a proposal. At 03:06:16 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent a slightly different message, the sole alteration being the addition of "I propose that Gabe Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player." as the first line. At 03:08:04 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent a message containing the text "Whoops, sorry for the double send there." and with the same subject as his previous two messages. Presumably, this referred to his then most recent message (of 03:06:16, see above). Clearly, Mr. Mueller did not intend for the second message to be sent at all. As such, it should be disregarded, leaving the single proposal in his first message as the only legally binding one, and thereby limiting Mr. Drummond-Cole to a single player. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:46:43 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions At 02:38 PM 6/16/99 , Gabe wrote: >OK. I don't know what the standard procedure is in this nomic, but in >other nomics I've played, it is Bad Form for a player to take advantage of >a scam after another player has already done so. I think that this custom >is a good one; otherwise, the results are: >1) Players with some kind of moral feeling are placed at a disadvantage >2) Players with originality are not rewarded for it. > >I was the first Player to use the rules to get myself multiple players, and >as such, I think it is QUITE bad form for you, Mary/Charlene, to attempt to >use the rule to your advantage. > >Further, some of the protests you put forth as important are not. It is >nowhere in the definition of a Player that every Player must have a >different email account. Nor is it anywhere in the rules that two players >or entities may not be identified by the same name. At least that's OUR >reading of the rule. > >-Gabe, >-Gabe, >and >-Gabe Actually, she started way before you did, Gabe. Mary added that address to the list last week, when upon my prompting, she informed me that it was a secondary account of hers, but also mentioned vague and then-unspecified "plans" she had for it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:53:15 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions At 04:45 PM 6/16/99 , Gabe wrote: >At 11:30 PM 6/16/99 +0200, you wrote: >>Gabe wrote: >>: It is >>: nowhere in the definition of a Player that every Player must have a >>: different email account. Nor is it anywhere in the rules that two players >>: or entities may not be identified by the same name. >> >>If two entities have the same name, we can't identify them by name. >>One more reason why you are one and not three. >> >> >>Ole >> > >So... what you're saying is that if another player name Ole Andersen, >unrelated to you, attempted to join Berserker, e would be denied by the >rules? I don't think so. No where in the rules are two entities >prohibited from being identified by the same name. The objections that >have been raised are more a twisting of the rules and of English >definitions to "prove" the objectors' points than real conclusions drawn >logically from the common-sense meaning of the rules. > >-Gabe I had thought about that situation some when writing the player rule last summer, but I discounted the possibility of two people with identical names ever wanting to play simultaneously as negligible. However, I have since learned that I should not have done so. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:53:06 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot At 10:07 PM 6/15/99 , Gabe wrote: >At 09:41 PM 6/15/99 -0500, Uckelman wrote: > > ----- BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL ----- > >>At 07:22 PM 6/15/99 , Gabe wrote: >>> >>>Note for the record that I have three players. I am voting with all of >>>them here. >>> >> >>Now that I look back at this, I'm not sure how Gabe could have three >>players, since there was only one sponsorship message for a single player. >> > > ----- END QUOTED MATERIAL ----- > >There were two sponsorship messages, one containing one sponsorship, the >other containing two. To examine the rules of Berserker: > >Rule 2: > >A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and >only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A >Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and >surnames. > >Obviously, it is not illegal for multiple players to be represented by the >same human being. > > >Now, the rule on joining, 309, is: > >New Players may be added to the game pursuant to the following restrictions: > > 1. Addition of a new Player must not violate the Definition of Player. > 2. An existing Player must make an informal proposal to add a new >Player. > 3. The informal proposal must receive a two-thirds majority of >favorable votes from eligible voters if any player requests a vote on the > matter. If no such request is made within 36 hours of the informal >proposal, said proposal is considered to have passed. > > Upon entry to the game, new Players are regulated by the following >restrictions: > > 1. New Players begin the game with zero points. > 2. New Players may not propose or serve as Judges until they have been >players for five days. > >I do not violate the definition of a player. > >In two messages, Mueller said: > >"Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be >added as a player." >"I propose that Gabe Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player." >"Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be >added as a player." > >These are informal proposals to add new players. > >No requests were made for a vote. > >I don't see how it is arguable that I have joined with three players. > >-Gabe Mueller's second message was acknowledged as accidental, thus leaving the first one, in which he mentions such action only once (though it is not clear to me that mentioning it twice in the same message constitutes two separate instances anyway). Therefore, Gabe is only one player. I do not discount the possibility that what Gabe claims is possible, just that it does not fit the present situation. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:15:57 -0700 From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions At 06:54 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 05:17 PM 6/16/99 , Ole wrote: >>Someone named Gabe (we can't know which) wrote: >> >>: So... what you're saying is that if another player name Ole Andersen, >>: unrelated to you, attempted to join Berserker, e would be denied by the >>: rules? I don't think so. No where in the rules are two entities >>: prohibited from being identified by the same name. >> >>Related or unrelated, yes. >> >>Identification is of no worth of it is ambiguous. If one Gabe called for >>Judgement on a case, how should Joel know which Gabe not to appoint as >>Judge? >> >> >>Ole > >By email address. That seems to be the only unambiguous identifier we have, >and we certainly shouldn't allow more than one player to have identical >email addresses. > Great idea, Joel. I agree that it is a bad idea for two players to have the same email address. Perhaps if it were in the ruleset, I would agree that it stopped me from having 3 players with the same one. Unfortunately, it is NOT in the ruleset, and, as I keep having to point out, this is a nomic game. Our actions in it correspond not to what "certainly shouldn't" be allowed but rather to what the rules actually say. As rule 116 clearly states: Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules. --Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:34:40 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ At 07:15 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >Since I need this resolved quickly to determine the outcome of voting, I >request judgment on the following statement: > >Gabe Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player a single time only, and thus >cannot presently be three players. > >-------------- > >That Mr. Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player three times rests on his >assumption that he was sponsored by Mr. Mueller three times -- which I hold >to be false. > >At 03:06:14 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent his first message, containing >the line "Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose >that he be added as a player." and no other line that could be construed as >such a proposal. > >At 03:06:16 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent a slightly different message, >the sole alteration being the addition of "I propose that Gabe >Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player." as the first line. > >At 03:08:04 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent a message containing the text >"Whoops, sorry for the double send there." and with the same subject as his >previous two messages. Presumably, this referred to his then most recent >message (of 03:06:16, see above). > >Clearly, Mr. Mueller did not intend for the second message to be sent at >all. As such, it should be disregarded, leaving the single proposal in his >first message as the only legally binding one, and thereby limiting Mr. >Drummond-Cole to a single player. > Clearly? I did not INTEND to only propose once, what I INTENDED to do was propose three times and make it appear that I was only proposing once. The irony is that the scam was to produce four players for Gabe and I truncated the one message to make the double send more explainable. Note that while apologizing for the double send I retracted nothing. If the three proposals and my intent are the key, as you argue in your RFJ, then Gabe's got his three players. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 05:51:11 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions Some Gabe wrote: : Great idea, Joel. I agree that it is a bad idea for two players to have : the same email address. Perhaps if it were in the ruleset, I would agree : that it stopped me from having 3 players with the same one. Unfortunately, : it is NOT in the ruleset, and, as I keep having to point out, this is a : nomic game. Our actions in it correspond not to what "certainly shouldn't" : be allowed but rather to what the rules actually say. As rule 116 clearly : states: : : Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and : unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules. : See, Gabe, this is where each Nomic differs from all other Nomics. Some Nomics are very true to the letter of the law, others have a more pragmatic approach. And Berserker is quite pragmatic. You can take a look at the Judgements if you want it illustrated. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:52:17 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: the character of Berserker >See, Gabe, this is where each Nomic differs from all other Nomics. Some >Nomics are very true to the letter of the law, others have a more pragmatic >approach. And Berserker is quite pragmatic. >You can take a look at the Judgements if you want it illustrated. > Yeah, I have to agree with Mr. Andersen here; especially since the game's pragmatic nature owes at least something to me. By chance, a few rather significant judgments have fallen to me, and being the reactionary pragmatist that I am, my decisions tended towards limiting the potential for creative interpretation of the rules, (though by no means has it discouraged people from trying!). J7 in particular is probably notable in this context. Maybe we ought to try and develop a sort of primer for new players about our game...? Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:39:59 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: concerning 3 J92 At 08:33 PM 6/13/99 , Jeff wrote: >Ah, yes my reminder to vote, what are any advantages to being in the >judging pool, anyway? Aside from the obvious benefit of being eligible to render decisions, you can also score 3 points for each decision in which you were in the majority. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:36:17 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results, scoring, UPCs P519 passed (8-2-0-0). P520 passed (6-3-1-0). P521 passed (7-3-0-0). P522 failed (5-5-0-0). P523 failed (5-5-0-0). P524 failed (6-4-0-0). P525 failed (5-5-0-0). ----------------------- Scoring: +23 Joel Uckelman +21 Dan Waldron +15 Matt Kuhns +14 Ole Andersen +8 Jeff Schroeder +7 Josh Kortbein -26 Tom Mueller --------------------------- UPCs: +4 Gabe Drummond-Cole +4 Josh Kortbein +4 Tom Mueller +4 Jeff Schroeder +1 Matt Kuhns ----------------------------- The next turn will not begin until the 1 Court for RFJ 93 is resolved. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:02:07 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87, 3 J92, 1 J93, 1 J94, 1 J95) Here we go again... ------------------------ Tom Mueller has been selected to replace Jeff Schroeder on 2 Court for RFJ 87 (due 18 June 1999 23:00 CDT). Dan Waldron also has not yet issued an opinon on the case: Non-Players can lose points. ------------------------ Tom Mueller has been selected to replace Jeff Schroeder on 3 Court for RFJ 92 (due 17 June 1999 19:01 CDT). Matt Kuhns and Roger Carbol also have not yet issued opinions on the case: Poulenc is the winner. ----------------------- Roger Carbol has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 93: Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, because nomics are not single players. ------------------------ Matt Kuhns has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 94: Gabe Drummond-Cole is one Player, not three. ------------------------- Mary Tupper has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 95: Gabe Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player a single time only, and thus cannot presently be three players. ------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:07:27 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions At 09:15 PM 6/16/99 , Gabe wrote: >At 06:54 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >>At 05:17 PM 6/16/99 , Ole wrote: >>>Someone named Gabe (we can't know which) wrote: >>> >>>: So... what you're saying is that if another player name Ole Andersen, >>>: unrelated to you, attempted to join Berserker, e would be denied by the >>>: rules? I don't think so. No where in the rules are two entities >>>: prohibited from being identified by the same name. >>> >>>Related or unrelated, yes. >>> >>>Identification is of no worth of it is ambiguous. If one Gabe called for >>>Judgement on a case, how should Joel know which Gabe not to appoint as >>>Judge? >>> >>> >>>Ole >> >>By email address. That seems to be the only unambiguous identifier we have, >>and we certainly shouldn't allow more than one player to have identical >>email addresses. >> > > >Great idea, Joel. I agree that it is a bad idea for two players to have >the same email address. Perhaps if it were in the ruleset, I would agree >that it stopped me from having 3 players with the same one. Unfortunately, >it is NOT in the ruleset, and, as I keep having to point out, this is a >nomic game. Our actions in it correspond not to what "certainly shouldn't" >be allowed but rather to what the rules actually say. As rule 116 clearly >states: > >Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and >unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules. ...which is why I haven't based my arguments (vs. your 3 players) on this... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:10:12 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ At 09:34 PM 6/16/99 , Mueller wrote: >At 07:15 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >>Since I need this resolved quickly to determine the outcome of voting, I >>request judgment on the following statement: >> >>Gabe Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player a single time only, and thus >>cannot presently be three players. >> >>-------------- >> >>That Mr. Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player three times rests on his >>assumption that he was sponsored by Mr. Mueller three times -- which I hold >>to be false. >> >>At 03:06:14 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent his first message, containing >>the line "Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose >>that he be added as a player." and no other line that could be construed as >>such a proposal. >> >>At 03:06:16 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent a slightly different message, >>the sole alteration being the addition of "I propose that Gabe >>Drummond-Cole be added to Berserker Nomic as a player." as the first line. >> >>At 03:08:04 CDT 14 June 1999 Mr. Mueller sent a message containing the text >>"Whoops, sorry for the double send there." and with the same subject as his >>previous two messages. Presumably, this referred to his then most recent >>message (of 03:06:16, see above). >> >>Clearly, Mr. Mueller did not intend for the second message to be sent at >>all. As such, it should be disregarded, leaving the single proposal in his >>first message as the only legally binding one, and thereby limiting Mr. >>Drummond-Cole to a single player. >> > >Clearly? I did not INTEND to only propose once, what I INTENDED to do was >propose three times and make it appear that I was only proposing once. The >irony is that the scam was to produce four players for Gabe and I truncated >the one message to make the double send more explainable. > >Note that while apologizing for the double send I retracted nothing. > >If the three proposals and my intent are the key, as you argue in your RFJ, >then Gabe's got his three players. > >Tom Apologizing for a double send has always been a retraction in the past. Only apparent intent is relevent here anyway -- actual intent isn't knowable. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 02:04:34 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87) >The 2 Court for RFJ 87 lapsed on 9 June due to a split court and no >response from Ed Proescholdt (who has been fined 10 points). > >Josh Kortbein, Jeff Schroeder, and Dan Waldron have been selected to 2 >Court for RFJ 87: Nowhere is it stated that only players can have points. The points of non-players seem to have very little affect on the game, but there is no reason to believe that they cannot posess points, not that it makes much difference. I would also argue with the statement "Those that do not have points cannot lose them", by pointing out that Points (and score) seem to be tracked as a single number, rather than as a collection of a large number of individual points, and that it is quite possible for a Player to have zero or fewer points. Therefore I have two arguments that point to a TRUE verdict: Non-Players can have points, and are therefore subject to losing or gaining points. Of course, the treatment of points for non-players probably differs in many areas from the treatment of points for players. I won't get into this here. However, if non-players have points, I see no reason why this point total cannot be adjusted by Berserker Nomic (not that the number would make much difference anyway). Even if Non-Players cannot have points, there is no requirement to have points before points are gained or lost. Therefore, Entities without points are still able to lose points, and such a point loss should still be recorded. Of course, after they lose points they would still not have points and so it wouldn't make much difference either. I don't see what difference it could make to the game, whether non-players can lose points or not, seeing as how entities outside of Berserker are not bound by the Rules. If they do lose points, it should be recorded in the event log as such and we should all carry on with our lives. If it hadn't come up so many times recently, this really should be given a DISMISSED ruling. I will give it TRUE, just to get it over with. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:32:05 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87, 3 J92, 1 J93, 1 J94, 1 J95) >------------------------- > >Mary Tupper has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 95: > >Gabe Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player a single time only, and thus >cannot presently be three players. > >------------------------- She's in Limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:32:33 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results, scoring, UPCs At 09:36 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >P519 passed (8-2-0-0). >P520 passed (6-3-1-0). >P521 passed (7-3-0-0). >P522 failed (5-5-0-0). >P523 failed (5-5-0-0). >P524 failed (6-4-0-0). >P525 failed (5-5-0-0). > I assume that these are the results with me having only one player. Are they any different if I have 3? -Gabe muttering about threadsplits. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:39:08 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: the character of Berserker At 11:52 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: > >>See, Gabe, this is where each Nomic differs from all other Nomics. Some >>Nomics are very true to the letter of the law, others have a more pragmatic >>approach. And Berserker is quite pragmatic. >>You can take a look at the Judgements if you want it illustrated. >> >Yeah, I have to agree with Mr. Andersen here; especially since the game's >pragmatic nature owes at least something to me. By chance, a few rather >significant judgments have fallen to me, and being the reactionary >pragmatist that I am, my decisions tended towards limiting the potential >for creative interpretation of the rules, (though by no means has it >discouraged people from trying!). J7 in particular is probably notable in >this context. > 1) My 'reading' is not a creative interpretation of the rules. It adheres strictly to the definitions of Player and to the rules on player admission. 2) J7 has nothing to do with this case. As Joel pointed out so cogently, his arguments have nothing to do with the R116 clause. 3) If you are opposed to 'creative interpretation', you must support a literal interpretation, which is what Ole is decrying so strongly. -Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 03:33:52 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87, 3 J92, 1 J93, 1 J94, 1 J95) At 09:02 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >Here we go again... > >------------------------ > >Tom Mueller has been selected to replace Jeff Schroeder on 2 Court for RFJ >87 (due 18 June 1999 23:00 CDT). Dan Waldron also has not yet issued an >opinon on the case: > >Non-Players can lose points. Points are never defined explicitly. The first judge ruled that the definition of property as ownable and tradable was not simply a word that made it easy to give these qualities to a rule defined object, but worked backwards as well. This seems not unreasonable. Moreover, it is a rules-based conclusion, which is nice to see in the flurry of foundationless assertions in recent scam debates. I can find no references which would permit or deny the ability to trade points so I think R116 would indicate its possibility. Seeing no other way of resolving tradability I go to spirit of the game etc: I seem to remember that points have been traded. They are tradable. The way points work with respect to ownership (associated with one person who exerts almost exclusive influence on them) is very similar to the tradability question: Not rule specified but operating that way so far. So points are property. Property may only be owned by players. It is therefore aburd that non-players could gain or lose points. FALSE >------------------------ > >Tom Mueller has been selected to replace Jeff Schroeder on 3 Court for RFJ >92 (due 17 June 1999 19:01 CDT). Matt Kuhns and Roger Carbol also have not >yet issued opinions on the case: > >Poulenc is the winner. Poulenc claims that score and points are not the same thing. This is trash. I direct you to R228: "All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards." No game custom supports Poulenc. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 04:16:26 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Gabe's Scam I see two main objections to Gabe's Scam: OBJECTION ONE: It can't happen because X. X can be anything along the lines of "can't distinguish between the three players", "shouldn't let there be more than one player per email", etc. These are all crap. They fly in the face R116, and RFJs 29 and 52 for that matter. As to RFJs on issue X, there is no custom on this point and the spirit is in Gabe's favor so we can expect that he'll win whatever "X" is. As to the "you don't understand our nomic" comments, I am at a loss. I thought that the nomic which I have been playing in for the last 11 months CARED about what the rules said. OBJECTION TWO: There was only one informal proposal and so only one player was created. To sumarize, I sent two messages with a total of three sentences proposing Gabe's players. Then I apologized for sending two messages. Joel objected that clearly it was intended that there be only one proposal. The apology retracted two and the last created the player. I'm not sure if A proposal CAN be retracted (see especially RFJ77's comment by the appeal court to the effect that "Something which has occurred may not be halted.") Assuming that is not an issue... I then explained that my intent WAS to make three proposals to which Joel responded that of course it was APPARENT INTENT he meant as that was the only determinable sort of intent which could be established. Here's a terminology to clarify the intent issue: Fundamental Intent: The mental experience of intending something. Explicit Intent: Realizing within every expectation of certainty that fundamental intent is experienced by some person. Example: He said "I intend to kill you" in a very serious manner and stared at me after I'd raped his sister therefore I think he had fundamental intent to do so. Fuzzy Intent: Much less sure than explicit. I think you will agree that my apology consituted only Fuzzy Intent to make a single proposal. After having me explain this issue, we have certainly moved closer establishing Explicit Intent that I wanted three proposals. Moreover, Joel claims that apologies have, in the past consituted retractions. I don't remember any cases where that happened, so I request that he tell me about one. I have all my Berserker correspondence from the last 11 months so he need only mention the date and subject to satisfy me. I'll stop here and see if how much argument persists. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:43:47 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: Player Defintions Gabe quotes R116: : : Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and : unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules. : That's all very fine, but if it is not clear if something is 'prohibited or regulated by a rule', the judicial system decides on the point. And remember, nothing is indisputable. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:43:13 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results, scoring, UPCs Gabe wrote: : >P519 passed (8-2-0-0). : >P520 passed (6-3-1-0). : >P521 passed (7-3-0-0). : >P522 failed (5-5-0-0). : >P523 failed (5-5-0-0). : >P524 failed (6-4-0-0). : >P525 failed (5-5-0-0). : > : : I assume that these are the results with me having only one player. Are : they any different if I have 3? : No. The failed props all fail no matter what, because they include transmutations. The passed props would all pass, even with 2 more votes against. The numbers are (for-against-abstain-autoabstain) Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:56:41 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ Joel wrote: : > : >Clearly? I did not INTEND to only propose once, what I INTENDED to do was : >propose three times and make it appear that I was only proposing once. The : >irony is that the scam was to produce four players for Gabe and I truncated : >the one message to make the double send more explainable. : > : >Note that while apologizing for the double send I retracted nothing. : > : >If the three proposals and my intent are the key, as you argue in your RFJ, : >then Gabe's got his three players. : > : >Tom : : Apologizing for a double send has always been a retraction in the past. : Only apparent intent is relevent here anyway -- actual intent isn't knowable. : Mueller's retraction(?) had the subject 'Re: Nomic: A new player' and this body: Whoops, sorry for the double send there. Tom Mueller Mueller clearly admits that it is a double send, and he further says that he is sorry for it. If he has sent two messages, as he now claims, it was no double send, nor was he sorry. It can be no double send if there are two different messages involved, and he would not be sorry, if it wasn't a mistake. Another possibility is, of course, that Mueller lied. If so, he could be lying now again. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:07:22 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: spare tire i exit limbo and pass the spare tire to the illustrious Tom Mueller, who i am sure will take good care of it. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:50:49 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: Gabe's Scam Mueller writes: >Here's a terminology to clarify the intent issue: > > Fundamental Intent: The mental experience of intending > something. > > Explicit Intent: Realizing within every expectation of > certainty that fundamental intent is experienced by some > person. Example: He said "I intend to kill you" in a very > serious manner and stared at me after I'd raped his sister > therefore I think he had fundamental intent to do so. > > Fuzzy Intent: Much less sure than explicit. > >I think you will agree that my apology consituted only Fuzzy Intent to make >a single proposal. After having me explain this issue, we have certainly >moved closer establishing Explicit Intent that I wanted three proposals. How is it that your explanation after the fact helps add to the intent? That time is passed. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:26:20 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: concerning 3 J92 It seems to be a a disadvantage to be awarded only 3 points, while the penalty is 10. So if someone forgot to judge something, as I did some 2 or 3 times since the very beginning of the game (some 12 months, I believe, not that bad, really), i was penalized 20 or 30 points, the equivalent of 7 or 10 rulings on a CFJ. This seems high, it's possible that I have been fined more than I've been awarded, but I can't say for sure. It seems to me that this discourages being in the judicial pool, rather than simply being punished for not voting promptly. Who else feels this way, maybe I'll get around to changing it. BTW, which rule pertains to being awarded three points? i can't seem to find it, *start rant* rules are hard to find now that any number can be chosen for them, consecutive rules had its advantages *end rant* :) >At 08:33 PM 6/13/99 , Jeff wrote: >>Ah, yes my reminder to vote, what are any advantages to being in the >>judging pool, anyway? > >Aside from the obvious benefit of being eligible to render decisions, you >can also score 3 points for each decision in which you were in the majority. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:31:34 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: concerning 3 J92 Jeff N Schroeder writes: >It seems to be a a disadvantage to be awarded only 3 points, while the >penalty is 10. So if someone forgot to judge something, as I did some 2 >or 3 times since the very beginning of the game (some 12 months, I >believe, not that bad, really), i was penalized 20 or 30 points, the >equivalent of 7 or 10 rulings on a CFJ. This seems high, it's possible >that I have been fined more than I've been awarded, but I can't say for >sure. It seems to me that this discourages being in the judicial pool, >rather than simply being punished for not voting promptly. Who else >feels this way, maybe I'll get around to changing it. BTW, which rule >pertains to being awarded three points? i can't seem to find it, *start >rant* rules are hard to find now that any number can be chosen for >them, consecutive rules had its advantages *end rant* :) So use the other rulesets, they're very well organized. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:52:13 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: concerning 3 J92 Schroeder wrote: >It seems to be a a disadvantage to be awarded only 3 points, while the >penalty is 10. So if someone forgot to judge something, as I did some 2 >or 3 times since the very beginning of the game (some 12 months, I >believe, not that bad, really), i was penalized 20 or 30 points, the >equivalent of 7 or 10 rulings on a CFJ. This seems high, it's possible >that I have been fined more than I've been awarded, but I can't say for >sure. It seems to me that this discourages being in the judicial pool, >rather than simply being punished for not voting promptly. Who else >feels this way, maybe I'll get around to changing it. It seems to me that this encourages being in the judicial pool and then cheesing on judgements, as it helps you pick up the Demon vote. >BTW, which rule >pertains to being awarded three points? i can't seem to find it, *start >rant* rules are hard to find now that any number can be chosen for >them, consecutive rules had its advantages *end rant* :) I just use find for whatever I'm looking up. The only problem I have is that the rules aren't all on one page so it takes four separate searches to do the whole thing unless I copy and paste them into a text file. >>At 08:33 PM 6/13/99 , Jeff wrote: >>>Ah, yes my reminder to vote, what are any advantages to being in the >>>judging pool, anyway? >> >>Aside from the obvious benefit of being eligible to render decisions, you >>can also score 3 points for each decision in which you were in the majority. > > ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:13:28 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: concerning 3 J92 >Schroeder wrote: >>It seems to be a a disadvantage to be awarded only 3 points, while the >>penalty is 10. So if someone forgot to judge something, as I did some 2 >>or 3 times since the very beginning of the game (some 12 months, I >>believe, not that bad, really), i was penalized 20 or 30 points, the >>equivalent of 7 or 10 rulings on a CFJ. This seems high, it's possible >>that I have been fined more than I've been awarded, but I can't say for >>sure. It seems to me that this discourages being in the judicial pool, >>rather than simply being punished for not voting promptly. Who else >>feels this way, maybe I'll get around to changing it. >> > >It seems to me that this encourages being in the judicial pool and then >cheesing on judgements, as it helps you pick up the Demon vote. of course I am the second highest for point, so this doesn't really apply, I'd have to lose a whole lot of points to get the Demon vote! But that does make sence, is that the way we want it to work? It screws people who have really no chance of getting the demon vote, though. >>BTW, which rule >>pertains to being awarded three points? i can't seem to find it, *start >>rant* rules are hard to find now that any number can be chosen for >>them, consecutive rules had its advantages *end rant* :) > >I just use find for whatever I'm looking up. The only problem I have is >that the rules aren't all on one page so it takes four separate searches to >do the whole thing unless I copy and paste them into a text file. I did search for it, but it had the number 3 instead of three, so I didn't find it, I found it now though (as I was looking up the Demon!). It woule be useful to me if there was a chronological ruleset, as well as the others, I was only complaining because I had always used the numerical ruleset as the chronological one and now I can't. I'm not complaining about Joel's administrative capacities, he's doing a wonderful job. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:19:49 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Gabe's Scam It was clearly not a double-send: the messages were different. The fact that we didn't notice it before shows our own stupidity and unawareness, we should not try to make excuses for why Gabe is only one player- because we were unalert, e has gone and scammed us. I think now all we can do is try and kick two of him out. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:33:06 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results, scoring, UPCs At 01:32 AM 6/17/99 , Gabe wrote: >At 09:36 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >>P519 passed (8-2-0-0). >>P520 passed (6-3-1-0). >>P521 passed (7-3-0-0). >>P522 failed (5-5-0-0). >>P523 failed (5-5-0-0). >>P524 failed (6-4-0-0). >>P525 failed (5-5-0-0). >> > >I assume that these are the results with me having only one player. Are >they any different if I have 3? > >-Gabe >muttering about threadsplits. For the case in which you have three players, add 2 yes votes to each. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:40:49 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: concerning 3 J92 At 01:26 PM 6/17/99 , Jeff wrote: >It seems to be a a disadvantage to be awarded only 3 points, while the >penalty is 10. So if someone forgot to judge something, as I did some 2 >or 3 times since the very beginning of the game (some 12 months, I >believe, not that bad, really), i was penalized 20 or 30 points, the >equivalent of 7 or 10 rulings on a CFJ. This seems high, it's possible >that I have been fined more than I've been awarded, but I can't say for >sure. It seems to me that this discourages being in the judicial pool, >rather than simply being punished for not voting promptly. Who else >feels this way, maybe I'll get around to changing it. BTW, which rule >pertains to being awarded three points? i can't seem to find it, *start >rant* rules are hard to find now that any number can be chosen for >them, consecutive rules had its advantages *end rant* :) R390/1 is the one you're looking for. It's in the Logical set under both the Judiciary and Scoring. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:22:30 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results, scoring, UPCs >At 01:32 AM 6/17/99 , Gabe wrote: >>At 09:36 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >>>P519 passed (8-2-0-0). >>>P520 passed (6-3-1-0). >>>P521 passed (7-3-0-0). >>>P522 failed (5-5-0-0). >>>P523 failed (5-5-0-0). >>>P524 failed (6-4-0-0). >>>P525 failed (5-5-0-0). >>> >> >>I assume that these are the results with me having only one player. Are >>they any different if I have 3? >> >>-Gabe >>muttering about threadsplits. > >For the case in which you have three players, add 2 yes votes to each. > I don't think you can change how you voted now: unless votes were submitted during voting for each of the three identities, only one Gabe can have voted. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:40:04 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results, scoring, UPCs At 06:22 PM 6/17/99 -0400, you wrote: >>At 01:32 AM 6/17/99 , Gabe wrote: >>>At 09:36 PM 6/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >>>>P519 passed (8-2-0-0). >>>>P520 passed (6-3-1-0). >>>>P521 passed (7-3-0-0). >>>>P522 failed (5-5-0-0). >>>>P523 failed (5-5-0-0). >>>>P524 failed (6-4-0-0). >>>>P525 failed (5-5-0-0). >>>> >>> >>>I assume that these are the results with me having only one player. Are >>>they any different if I have 3? >>> >>>-Gabe >>>muttering about threadsplits. >> >>For the case in which you have three players, add 2 yes votes to each. >> >I don't think you can change how you voted now: unless votes were >submitted during voting for each of the three identities, only one Gabe can >have voted. > >Poulenc > ----- BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL ----- Note for the record that I have three players. I am voting with all of them here. I vote Yes to every proposal, from P519 through P525, with all three of my players. -Gabe ----- END QUOTED MATERIAL ----- -Gabe (hoping for a perfect voting record) ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:04:44 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J87, 3 J92, 1 J93, 1 J94, 1 J95) At 01:32 AM 6/17/99 , Gabe wrote: >>------------------------- >> >>Mary Tupper has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 95: >> >>Gabe Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player a single time only, and thus >>cannot presently be three players. >> >>------------------------- > > >She's in Limbo. I transfer 1 slack from myself to Gabe for noticing this. Roger Carbol has instead been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 95: Gabe Drummond-Cole was admitted as a player a single time only, and thus cannot presently be three players. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:33:11 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Gabe's Scam At 03:16 AM 6/17/99 , Mueller wrote: > >I then explained that my intent WAS to make three proposals to which Joel >responded that of course it was APPARENT INTENT he meant as that was the >only determinable sort of intent which could be established. > >Here's a terminology to clarify the intent issue: > > Fundamental Intent: The mental experience of intending > something. > > Explicit Intent: Realizing within every expectation of > certainty that fundamental intent is experienced by some > person. Example: He said "I intend to kill you" in a very > serious manner and stared at me after I'd raped his sister > therefore I think he had fundamental intent to do so. > > Fuzzy Intent: Much less sure than explicit. > >I think you will agree that my apology consituted only Fuzzy Intent to make >a single proposal. After having me explain this issue, we have certainly >moved closer establishing Explicit Intent that I wanted three proposals. You claim that your fundamental intent in this case was to mislead us as to the nature of your second post. Striclty speaking, we can only speculate as to fundamental intent in anyone other than ourselves. As such, my explanation of your "explicit intent" seemed a plausable one. I hold that because one's fundamental intent is unverifiable by the rest of the players, the apparent intent is what matters. It seems that the heart of the question is whether you made a mistake in the execution of your ruse. So can the other players be _wrong_ about the apparent intent? I'm not sure. >Moreover, Joel claims that apologies have, in the past consituted >retractions. I don't remember any cases where that happened, so I request >that he tell me about one. I have all my Berserker correspondence from the >last 11 months so he need only mention the date and subject to satisfy me. If I had one at hand, I would have cited it. Although I seem to remember such a thing happening on one occassion in the distant past (spring 1998?), I haven't yet been able to verify that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:02:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (3 J92) Josh Kortbein has been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 92 to replace Mary Tupper: Poulenc is the winner. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:17:17 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (3 J92) At 08:02 PM 6/17/99 , you wrote: >Josh Kortbein has been selected to 3 Court for RFJ 92 to replace Mary Tupper: > >Poulenc is the winner. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ Ignore this. The Court had already lapsed when I did it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:14:13 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (3 J92) The 3 Court for RFJ 92 lapsed at 19:01 CDT today. Matt Kuhns and Roger Carbol have been fined 10 points for failure to return opinions. Ole Andersen, Roger Carbol, Josh Kortbein, Matt Kuhns, and Tom Mueller have been selected to the reconstituted 3 Court for RFJ 92: Poulenc is the winner. Note: I realize that several of you have already ruled on this -- feel free to reuse your previous judgments on the matter. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:15:11 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: Gabe's Scam At 07:33 PM 6/17/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 03:16 AM 6/17/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>I then explained that my intent WAS to make three proposals to which Joel >>responded that of course it was APPARENT INTENT he meant as that was the >>only determinable sort of intent which could be established. >> >>Here's a terminology to clarify the intent issue: >> >> Fundamental Intent: The mental experience of intending >> something. >> >> Explicit Intent: Realizing within every expectation of >> certainty that fundamental intent is experienced by some >> person. Example: He said "I intend to kill you" in a very >> serious manner and stared at me after I'd raped his sister >> therefore I think he had fundamental intent to do so. >> >> Fuzzy Intent: Much less sure than explicit. >> >>I think you will agree that my apology consituted only Fuzzy Intent to make >>a single proposal. After having me explain this issue, we have certainly >>moved closer establishing Explicit Intent that I wanted three proposals. > >You claim that your fundamental intent in this case was to mislead us as to >the nature of your second post. Striclty speaking, we can only speculate as >to fundamental intent in anyone other than ourselves. As such, my >explanation of your "explicit intent" seemed a plausable one. > >I hold that because one's fundamental intent is unverifiable by the rest of >the players, the apparent intent is what matters. It seems that the heart >of the question is whether you made a mistake in the execution of your >ruse. So can the other players be _wrong_ about the apparent intent? I'm >not sure. Perhaps apparent intent was established. This is irrelevant. Actions cannot be retracted; if I gave someone 50 subers twice, I could not "retract" this exchange with an *apology*. The proposal was made three times and could not have been retracted. If there are questions here, look at the Apellate Court's ruling on RFJ 77. >>Moreover, Joel claims that apologies have, in the past consituted >>retractions. I don't remember any cases where that happened, so I request >>that he tell me about one. I have all my Berserker correspondence from the >>last 11 months so he need only mention the date and subject to satisfy me. > >If I had one at hand, I would have cited it. Although I seem to remember >such a thing happening on one occassion in the distant past (spring 1998?), >I haven't yet been able to verify that. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:56:18 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (3 J92) Joel Uckelman writes: >The 3 Court for RFJ 92 lapsed at 19:01 CDT today. Matt Kuhns and Roger >Carbol have been fined 10 points for failure to return opinions. > >Ole Andersen, Roger Carbol, Josh Kortbein, Matt Kuhns, and Tom Mueller have >been selected to the reconstituted 3 Court for RFJ 92: > >Poulenc is the winner. > >Note: I realize that several of you have already ruled on this -- feel free >to reuse your previous judgments on the matter. I rule false. I believe I've either already ruled or expressed opinion on this matter, so I let my comments stand. -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:12:08 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: The Mueller/Gabe scam Only the 'complete' version of Mueller's message mentioned the name of the new player. Since we don't allow e-mail addresses to play, but only humans, I doubt that the other 'proposals of adding a player' indeed were such proposals. So let's just ignore them. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:08:28 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: Gabe's Scam Poulenc wrote: : It was clearly not a double-send: the messages were different. I disagree. Mueller sent two almost identical messages. One looked like an incomplete message, the other like a completed version of the same. And his 'Whoops' afterwards seemed to indicate that he had made the classic mistake of clicking 'send' before he had finished the message. Even more as the messages seem to have been sent at a quarter past 4 in the morning. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:49:07 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (3 J92) Joel wrote: : Ole Andersen, Roger Carbol, Josh Kortbein, Matt Kuhns, and Tom Mueller have : been selected to the reconstituted 3 Court for RFJ 92: : : Poulenc is the winner. Since 'score', in the view of some, is not defined in the context of the game, we should look at the general definition of 'score'. And this definition is quite simple: A score is a number of points. Nobody has mentioned any other defintion of 'score', so the general definition is what we have. If you change the number of points you have, you change your score, and vice versa. Poulenc tried to adjust his score, but he can not do that, so it did not succeed. He does not have 500 points. I therefore find the Statement 'Poulenc is the winner' to be FALSE. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:48:23 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: The Mueller/Gabe scam At 12:12 PM 6/18/99 +0200, you wrote: >Only the 'complete' version of Mueller's message mentioned the name of the >new player. >Since we don't allow e-mail addresses to play, but only humans, I doubt that >the other 'proposals of adding a player' indeed were such proposals. So >let's just ignore them. > > Ahem. Once again, this is a _Nomic_. You can't just say "let's ignore the rules." The message said: ----- BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL ----- He is a human. His email is blafard@uclink4.berkeley.edu He's already on the mailing list. He consents. Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be added as a player. ----- END QUOTED MATERIAL ----- Unless I'm mistaken, he did NOT call me an email address. He called me a human. If you SCOUR the rules, there is nothing anywhere that says a proposal to add a player must include that player's real name. All that is required is that I _have_ a name, which I do, and that you all know my name, which you do. Your argument is the most ridiculous one yet, Ole. I am not an email address; whether or not I am explicitly named in the message, I am a human. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:48:13 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: The Mueller/Gabe scam At 12:12 PM 6/18/99 +0200, you wrote: >Only the 'complete' version of Mueller's message mentioned the name of the >new player. >Since we don't allow e-mail addresses to play, but only humans, I doubt that >the other 'proposals of adding a player' indeed were such proposals. So >let's just ignore them. > > Ahem. Once again, this is a _Nomic_. You can't just say "let's ignore the rules." The message said: ----- BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL ----- He is a human. His email is blafard@uclink4.berkeley.edu He's already on the mailing list. He consents. Since he's clearly such prime nomic player material I propose that he be added as a player. ----- END QUOTED MATERIAL ----- Unless I'm mistaken, he did NOT call me an email address. He called me a human. If you SCOUR the rules, there is nothing anywhere that says a proposal to add a player must include that player's real name. All that is required is that I _have_ a name, which I do, and that you all know my name, which you do. Your argument is the most ridiculous one yet, Ole. I am not an email address; whether or not I am explicitly named in the message, I am a human. -- Ai! Pedrito! DeeJay * Wrangler ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:48:18 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: The Mueller/Gabe scam sorry for sending that twice. --Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:04:48 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (3 J92) At 11:49 AM 6/18/99 +0200, you wrote: >Joel wrote: >: Ole Andersen, Roger Carbol, Josh Kortbein, Matt Kuhns, and Tom Mueller >have >: been selected to the reconstituted 3 Court for RFJ 92: >: >: Poulenc is the winner. > >Since 'score', in the view of some, is not defined in the context of the >game, we should look at the general definition of 'score'. And this >definition is quite simple: >A score is a number of points. Nobody has mentioned any other defintion of >'score', so the general definition is what we have. > >If you change the number of points you have, you change your score, and vice >versa. > >Poulenc tried to adjust his score, but he can not do that, so it did not >succeed. >He does not have 500 points. > >I therefore find the Statement 'Poulenc is the winner' to be FALSE. > Similarly... Poulenc claims that score and points are not the same thing. This is trash. I direct you to R228: "All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards." No game custom supports Poulenc. I rule FALSE. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 23:14:12 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Spare tire I change my Spare Tire Creed to: The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal Proposals except that: 1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and 2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and 3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and 4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion and any other rule required waiting, and 5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire Holder votes on it. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 23:14:17 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Nomic: Business to which to attend I change my Spare Tire Creed to: The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal Proposals except that: 1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and 2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and 3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and 4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion and any other rule required waiting, and 5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire Holder votes on it. -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:01:42 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Nothing important here I change my Spare Tire Creed to: The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal Proposals except that: 1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and 2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and 3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and 4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion and any other rule required waiting, and 5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire Holder votes on it. Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:06:35 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Spare tire creed the second! I change my Spare Tire Creed to: The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal Proposals except that: 1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and 2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and 3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and 4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion and any other rule required waiting, and 5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire Holder votes on it, and 6) these proposals may be made at any time. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:06:53 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Nomic: Some Slight Perturbations I change my Spare Tire Creed to: The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal Proposals except that: 1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and 2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and 3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and 4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion and any other rule required waiting, and 5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire Holder votes on it, and 6) these proposals may be made at any time. -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:08:50 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: creed change I change my Spare Tire Creed to: The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal Proposals except that: 1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and 2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and 3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and 4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion and any other rule required waiting, and 5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire Holder votes on it, and 6) these proposals may be made at any time Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:03:59 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Step 2 I notice that, coincidentally, among the current eight Spare Tire Creeds 3/8 of them (and a plurality) permit me to submit Special Proposals as the current Tire Holder. I submit the following Special Proposal: Create Rule 005 with the following THEREINSOFPOWER delimited text and transmute it to immutable. THEREINSOFPOWER 1) Tom Mueller, Josh Kortbein, and Tom Plagge are the only members of the Berserker Imperial Triumvirate, and each should be referred to as an Emperor in all Berserker correspondence. 2) There are a special class of Proposals called Imperial Proposals. An Imperial Proposal can be created only by an Emperor, and is resolved only after being voted on by all Emperors. Votes by anything other than an Emperor are immediately destroyed, and to pass, and Imperial Proposal must, among all existing votes on it, be unanimous. When Imperial Proposals pass, the changes they describe shall be carried out on the ruleset. 3) Tastefully Pink Shrubberies shall be the official plants of Berserker Nomic. THEREINSOFPOWER ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:17:16 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: one more time (hopefully right this time) I change my Spare Tire Creed to: The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal Proposals except that: 1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and 2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and 3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and 4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion and any other rule required waiting, and 5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire Holder votes on it, and 6) these proposals may be made at any time. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:09:32 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: Step 2 (you fools) At 10:03 PM 6/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >I notice that, coincidentally, among the current eight Spare Tire >Creeds 3/8 of them (and a plurality) permit me to submit Special Proposals >as the current Tire Holder. > >I submit the following Special Proposal: > >Create Rule 005 with the following THEREINSOFPOWER delimited text and >transmute it to immutable. > >THEREINSOFPOWER >1) Tom Mueller, Josh Kortbein, and Tom Plagge are the only members of the >Berserker Imperial Triumvirate, and each should be referred to as an >Emperor in all Berserker correspondence. > >2) There are a special class of Proposals called Imperial Proposals. An >Imperial Proposal can be created only by an Emperor, and is resolved only >after being voted on by all Emperors. Votes by anything other than an >Emperor are immediately destroyed, and to pass, and Imperial Proposal must, >among all existing votes on it, be unanimous. When Imperial Proposals pass, >the changes they describe shall be carried out on the ruleset. > >3) Tastefully Pink Shrubberies shall be the official plants of Berserker >Nomic. >THEREINSOFPOWER OK. Players of berserker nomic. How long has the spare tire been in your ruleset? Methinks y'all need a lesson in scamology. Most of you seem woefully underprepared. In support of the new emperors, and in order to foil any attempt at deposing them, I change my Spare Tire Creeds (all 3 of them) to: The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal Proposals except that: 1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and 2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and 3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and 4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion and any other rule required waiting, and 5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire Holder votes on it, and 6) these proposals may be made at any time -Gabe (all hail Tom, Tom, and Josh, the new ruling elite) ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:26:34 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: prop to power I notice that, coincidentally, among the current eight Spare Tire Creeds 3/8 of them (and a plurality) permit me to submit Special Proposals as the current Tire Holder. I submit the following Special Proposal: Create Rule 005 with the following THEREINSOFPOWER delimited text and transmute it to immutable. THEREINSOFPOWER 1) Tom Mueller, Josh Kortbein, and Tom Plagge are the only members of the Berserker Imperial Triumvirate, and each should be referred to as an Emperor in all Berserker correspondence. 2) There are a special class of Proposals called Imperial Proposals. An Imperial Proposal can be created only by an Emperor, and is resolved only after being voted on by all Emperors. Votes by anything other than an Emperor are immediately destroyed, and to pass, and Imperial Proposal must, among all existing votes on it, be unanimous. When Imperial Proposals pass, the changes they describe shall be carried out on the ruleset. 3) Tastefully Pink Shrubberies shall be the official plants of Berserker Nomic. THEREINSOFPOWER ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:22:41 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: Step 2 (you fools) You may notice that Tom re-sent his creed. Check the period at the very end. cheers, Josh "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >At 10:03 PM 6/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >>I notice that, coincidentally, among the current eight Spare Tire >>Creeds 3/8 of them (and a plurality) permit me to submit Special Proposals >>as the current Tire Holder. >> >>I submit the following Special Proposal: >> >>Create Rule 005 with the following THEREINSOFPOWER delimited text and >>transmute it to immutable. >> >>THEREINSOFPOWER >>1) Tom Mueller, Josh Kortbein, and Tom Plagge are the only members of the >>Berserker Imperial Triumvirate, and each should be referred to as an >>Emperor in all Berserker correspondence. >> >>2) There are a special class of Proposals called Imperial Proposals. An >>Imperial Proposal can be created only by an Emperor, and is resolved only >>after being voted on by all Emperors. Votes by anything other than an >>Emperor are immediately destroyed, and to pass, and Imperial Proposal must, >>among all existing votes on it, be unanimous. When Imperial Proposals pass, >>the changes they describe shall be carried out on the ruleset. >> >>3) Tastefully Pink Shrubberies shall be the official plants of Berserker >>Nomic. >>THEREINSOFPOWER > > >OK. Players of berserker nomic. How long has the spare tire been in your >ruleset? Methinks y'all need a lesson in scamology. Most of you seem >woefully underprepared. > >In support of the new emperors, and in order to foil any attempt at >deposing them, I change my Spare Tire Creeds (all 3 of them) to: > >The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal >Proposals except that: >1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and >2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and >3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and >4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and >resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion >and any other rule required waiting, and >5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire >Holder votes on it, and >6) these proposals may be made at any time > > -Gabe >(all hail Tom, Tom, and Josh, the new ruling elite) -- 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, 20 Jun 1999 00:33:04 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Imperial judgement Emperor Tom Plagge votes yes on all Imperial Proposals thus far submitted. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:33:35 -0700 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: closing the rabbit hole I vote yes on both Special Proposals (if they exist) and only the one (if the first didn't work) and then, in and effort to help the beleaguered peasants of Berserker, offer the following Imperial Proposal (which I immediately vote Yes on) for consideration by eir mighty Emperorships Kortbein and Plagge: Repeal Rule 453. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:22:10 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: one more time (hopefully right this time) I change all 3 of my spare tire creeds to: The Tire Holder may create Special Proposals. These work like normal Proposals except that: 1) they may be distributed to the list by the Tire Holder, and 2) they may be immediately voted on after creation, and 3) all votes on them not by the Tire Holder are immediately destroyed, and 4) the amount of time between the Special Proposal's creation and resolution shall be considered a reasonable amount of time for discussion and any other rule required waiting, and 5) the Special Proposal takes effect on the rules the moment the Tire Holder votes on it, and 6) these proposals may be made at any time. -gabe ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:44:14 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Nomic: Getting that sinking feeling? We are pleased by Emperor Mueller's imperial proposal and vote in the affirmative for it. -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:48:04 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Imperial proposals As Emperor, one would hope that Mueller will soon find a faster email account. But anyway, I also vote yes on the Imperial proposal, since I jumped the gun last time. Cower in shame, all you ignorant peasants. Bwaaa ha ha ha. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:35:26 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: prop to power At 10:26 PM 6/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >I notice that, coincidentally, among the current eight Spare Tire >Creeds 3/8 of them (and a plurality) permit me to submit Special Proposals >as the current Tire Holder. you mean 6/11 -- Ai! Pedrito! DeeJay * Wrangler ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:52:39 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: prop to power "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >At 10:26 PM 6/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >>I notice that, coincidentally, among the current eight Spare Tire >>Creeds 3/8 of them (and a plurality) permit me to submit Special Proposals >>as the current Tire Holder. > >you mean 6/11 Whereas, even in nature, copies are imperfectly made, we see fit to smirk for only an appropriately short time at Emperor Mueller's obviously deliberate oversight. 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, 19 Jun 1999 22:46:18 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: prop to power At 10:35 PM 6/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >At 10:26 PM 6/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >>I notice that, coincidentally, among the current eight Spare Tire >>Creeds 3/8 of them (and a plurality) permit me to submit Special Proposals >>as the current Tire Holder. > >you mean 6/11 This is just another message in the string, no real content. It is traditional for nomic scam to work in a manner such that when non-participants in the scam log on in the morning, they find hundreds of unread message. I'm glad you boys are in power. I hope you whip the ruleset into shape before resigning; it would be a shame to set a 'hands-off' emperor precedent. -Gabe (first of the snivelling toadies) ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 01:04:10 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: prop to power "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >At 10:35 PM 6/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >>At 10:26 PM 6/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >>>I notice that, coincidentally, among the current eight Spare Tire >>>Creeds 3/8 of them (and a plurality) permit me to submit Special Proposals >>>as the current Tire Holder. >> >>you mean 6/11 > >This is just another message in the string, no real content. It is >traditional for nomic scam to work in a manner such that when >non-participants in the scam log on in the morning, they find hundreds of >unread message. > >I'm glad you boys are in power. I hope you whip the ruleset into shape >before resigning; it would be a shame to set a 'hands-off' emperor precedent. > >-Gabe > (first of the snivelling toadies) You'll be the last against the wall. Josh wishing his emperorship could get him a pizza somehow -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 23:49:19 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: prop to power >>-Gabe >> (first of the snivelling toadies) > >You'll be the last against the wall. > A final thought for the other Berserkers who weren't in on this scam. I had AMPLE opportunity to STOP this scam, and was well aware of it. Perhaps I would have, if, instead of looking for made-up reasons for denying me my three players, you had examined the rules, resigned yourself to facts, and started work on getting rid of gabes 2 and 3. Consider this aid to the emperors a little tit for tat. I consider us even. If you, the collective players of berserker, don't hold a grudge, neither will I. I will become a loyal citizen of Berserker, and try to fight other players' scams. Oh, and emperors: consider renaming the nomic. 'Berserker' is a bit profane, not to mention vulgar. --Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:53:22 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: prop to power In message <199906200657.XAA06943@uclink4.berkeley.edu>, "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) D rummond-Cole" writes: >>>-Gabe >>> (first of the snivelling toadies) >> >>You'll be the last against the wall. >> > > >A final thought for the other Berserkers who weren't in on this scam. > >I had AMPLE opportunity to STOP this scam, and was well aware of it. >Perhaps I would have, if, instead of looking for made-up reasons for >denying me my three players, you had examined the rules, resigned yourself >to facts, and started work on getting rid of gabes 2 and 3. Thank you, Gabe..That was good of ya. But don't think we weren't recognizing tthe quality of your scam. You see, Gabe, many of us Berserkers are students at Iowa State University. We had a good little discussion today between Joel, Josh, and myself about how to counterscam you, it just didn't show up on the list. >Consider this aid to the emperors a little tit for tat. I consider us >even. If you, the collective players of berserker, don't hold a grudge, >neither will I. I will become a loyal citizen of Berserker, and try to >fight other players' scams. :) Yes, there are a few people in this game who take the scams as personal insults. It might be worthwhile to note the end of a few previous games. >Oh, and emperors: consider renaming the nomic. 'Berserker' is a bit >profane, not to mention vulgar. I agree the name sucks, but it has good origins. Are you familiar with Kevin Smith and his movies, particularly Clerks? If not, get ye to a video rental outlet. Later -Emperor Tom >--Gabe > ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 04:48:52 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: prop to power I wrote: >I notice that, coincidentally, among the current eight Spare Tire >Creeds 3/8 of them (and a plurality) permit me to submit Special Proposals >as the current Tire Holder. > >I submit the following Special Proposal: > >Create Rule 005 with the following THEREINSOFPOWER delimited text and >transmute it to immutable. > >THEREINSOFPOWER >1) Tom Mueller, Josh Kortbein, and Tom Plagge are the only members of the >Berserker Imperial Triumvirate, and each should be referred to as an >Emperor in all Berserker correspondence. > >2) There are a special class of Proposals called Imperial Proposals. An >Imperial Proposal can be created only by an Emperor, and is resolved only >after being voted on by all Emperors. Votes by anything other than an >Emperor are immediately destroyed, and to pass, and Imperial Proposal must, >among all existing votes on it, be unanimous. When Imperial Proposals pass, >the changes they describe shall be carried out on the ruleset. > >3) Tastefully Pink Shrubberies shall be the official plants of Berserker >Nomic. >THEREINSOFPOWER It strikes me that the same possible flaw that was in our first round of creeds (that the trick proposals weren't explicit about being creatable at any time) is true of this as well. I'm not sure that this is an important issue or not, but IF it matters then while Rule 005 exists, it does not support the creation of props this evening and that means the Spare Tire Rule still exists (because that repeal used an Imperial Proposal). If there is still a Spare Tire rule, then I can still do Special Proposals. So, I attempt to create the following Special Proposal: ---------------------- Transmute Rule 005 to mutable. Amend the second paragraph of Rule 005 to the following MAYBENEEDEDTHIS deimited text. MAYBENEEDEDTHIS 2) There are a special class of Proposals called Imperial Proposals. An Imperial Proposal can be created at any time, can be created only by an Emperor, and is resolved only after being voted on by all Emperors. Votes by anything other than an Emperor are immediately destroyed, and to pass, and Imperial Proposal must, among all existing votes on it, be unanimous. When Imperial Proposals pass, the changes they describe shall be carried out on the ruleset. MAYBENEEDEDTHIS Transmute Rule 005 to immutable. Repeal Rule 453 ---------------------- I vote Yes on the above proposal (presuming it exists). Now, if the change to Rule 005 is sigificant, the problem is fixed. If it wasn't significant, its not, but it doesn't matter. So the results are the same either way. The potential problem is fixed. Hope that shuts off objections and/or counterscam attempts. Tom Mueller, Emperor ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 12:54:08 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: prop to power I look upon Mueller's proposal and see that it is good. I also vote yes. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:02:31 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: prop to power "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >Oh, and emperors: consider renaming the nomic. 'Berserker' is a bit >profane, not to mention vulgar. Forget scams - some people around here get VERY pissy when you talk about renaming the nomic. :) Josh -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 20:19:35 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: announcement Another counterscam to remove Gabes 2 and 3 from the game involved the non-exclusivity of our forfiet rules, i.e. that they present _a_ way for players to be deleted, but not _the_ way. Therefore, as it is not a regulated action, I hereby remove all current Players of Berserker Nomic, save myself. ----------------- Next, I call for judgment on the following statement: Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game. ----------------- Joel Uckelman has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 96: Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game. ----------------- In the matter of RFJ 96, the Court rules TRUE. Because nothing in R4/1, R113/0, R226/0, and R418/0 indicates that forfeit is the sole way for Players to be removed from the game, R116/0 allows the arbitrary removal of Players through means other than forfeit. Thus Mr. Uckelman's above actions were within the rules. ----------------- Because it is not possible to form further courts, J96 is now unappealable. ----------------- So, at this point, you may be asking yourself, what's the upshot of all this? During the massive public outcry, I plan to fix the Spare Tire and Player rules, readmit everyone, and have it all running again by tomorrow. There's nothing like killing two birds with one stone... :-) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:24:09 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement Joel wrote: >Another counterscam to remove Gabes 2 and 3 from the game involved the >non-exclusivity of our forfiet rules, i.e. that they present _a_ way for >players to be deleted, but not _the_ way. Therefore, as it is not a >regulated action, I hereby remove all current Players of Berserker Nomic, >save myself. > >----------------- > >Next, I call for judgment on the following statement: > >Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game. > >----------------- > >Joel Uckelman has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 96: > >Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game. I contest this. First, it is my opinion that to be kicked out of the game is a penalty worse than losing. As such (by R113 which says "No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.") this cannot happen. Second, if the statement is true then you are the only player who can judge the RFJ. As a judge you rule the RFJ true, establishing the accuracy of the thing which made you judge. This is circular causality. I don't claim that circulartiy is automatically invalidating, only that it is not possible to convince someone of the properness based on things entirely within the circle who don't ALREADY agree to part of it. I search for something that would convince me and find nothing. Moreover, nomic, as a game of imaginative consensus, requires that other people agree and generally for some compelling reason. If, Joel, you insist on persuing this reality, I believe that I will treat you as having abandoned the actual game and gone off into your own laa laa land. I request that other players do this as well. Thirdly, in an attempt to resolve this in a non-circular manner, I submit an RFJ on the following statement. ------ It is not possible for one player or eir controlling human to kick a player controlled by another human out of Berseker. ------ Initiators comments: I think that the key rule is R116. It says "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." To rule this TRUE which I request that the judge assigned to it do, one must establish that the elimination of players is regulated or that this mechanism is prohibited. Clearly this mechanism is out of the blue and has not been prohibited. So, is the eliminintion of players regulated? R002 defines players. R113 mentions forfeit (as opposed to continuation of play) as possible to players based on eir own decision. R309 creates a process for adding players. R310 says in total "Players' attributes may not be altered except in accordance with the rules. This rule takes precedence over all other rules dealing with attributes, or the permissibility of actions." R319 says players in Limbo can leave limbo or leave the game. ALSO this rule has provisions for KICKING A PLAYER out without eir permission in section F. R327 defines player attributes as {score, Wins, Subers, property, Alias} R418 has provisions for dealing with property in case of players leaving the game. It seems to me that two separate legal arguments could indepedently be used to justify ruling the statement TRUE. Perhaps there are others, but I'll leave those to be found by the Judge. 1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. 2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. >----------------- > >In the matter of RFJ 96, the Court rules TRUE. Because nothing in R4/1, >R113/0, R226/0, and R418/0 indicates that forfeit is the sole way for >Players to be removed from the game, R116/0 allows the arbitrary removal of >Players through means other than forfeit. That is not the criteia laid out by R116. Prohibited or regulated is the standard. This judgement (even if Joel had been assigned judge by non-circular means) is crap. On the off chance that Joel reassigns things later and it is determined that he was Judge anyway and this judgment is proper, I appeal this judgement. Note that this is exactly the reason for our last judicial reform when the game kicked out last time: making sure that crap judgements don't trash the judicial process. This is NOT final even if Joel succeeds because (by R220 which says in part "This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the Judicial rules.") it would consitute a judiciary altering decision and couldn't be used until it was true in the universe it arose from (a universe where we were all players). So, presuming you buy that this judge assignment actaully happened, I can still appeal and have done so. >Thus Mr. Uckelman's above actions >were within the rules. > >----------------- > >Because it is not possible to form further courts, J96 is now unappealable. No, see above. >----------------- > >So, at this point, you may be asking yourself, what's the upshot of all >this? During the massive public outcry, I plan to fix the Spare Tire and >Player rules, readmit everyone, and have it all running again by tomorrow. Your plan would have made yourself emperor effectively. I think that this is TOTALLY bad form. The Triumvirate were planning on NO significant rule changes other than the elimination of the loophole we exploited. To fiddle with the Spare Tire Rules is crap. It wasn't part of you scam. Moreover, you're not fixing the thing that is really broken if this works: the judiciary. >There's nothing like killing two birds with one stone... :-) And nothing like breaking one nomic with one bonehead move. If this works we can start talking about the unintended consequences of such an action. Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:47:32 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement Mueller writes: >Your plan would have made yourself emperor effectively. I think that this >is TOTALLY bad form. The Triumvirate were planning on NO significant rule >changes other than the elimination of the loophole we exploited. > >To fiddle with the Spare Tire Rules is crap. It wasn't part of you scam. >Moreover, you're not fixing the thing that is really broken if this works: >the judiciary. > >>There's nothing like killing two birds with one stone... :-) > >And nothing like breaking one nomic with one bonehead move. > >If this works we can start talking about the unintended consequences of >such an action. To this end, if Joel refuses to act in his capacity as Administrator, separate from what he's done as a player, and select a court for your statement, I believe the Triumvirate or the players should choose a court, or choose an interim Administrator. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:41:56 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement Joel Uckelman writes: >In the matter of RFJ 96, the Court rules TRUE. Because nothing in R4/1, >R113/0, R226/0, and R418/0 indicates that forfeit is the sole way for >Players to be removed from the game, R116/0 allows the arbitrary removal of >Players through means other than forfeit. Thus Mr. Uckelman's above actions >were within the rules. Rule 2/1(i) : Definition of Player A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames. Rule 4/1(m) : Definition of Forfeit A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player. I think the "iff" in rule 4 indicates that you are in fact wrong in claiming that the forfeit rule is not exclusive. A player forfeits only if e fails to meet at least one of the conditions of playerhood, which failure does not occur upon your announcement of the removal of all the other players. It's required that, to leave the game, a player forfeit. This is because any player which leaves the game by any other means has failed to meet the definition of a player (cf. "represented by," or the very notion of being a "game entity"). The equivalence in rule 4 then applies. This probably also means that the limbo rule was last modified (by me) in a broken way, but oh well. Something else to fix after this is all over. To this end, I believe we should treat Joel's actions much as we treated those of Mr. Jensen. Anyone who claims to have, essentially, utterly compromised the game cannot be the sole judge of whether or not e has compromised the game. To do otherwise is to deliberately avoid the legal system and the approval of fellow players, which are the only means by which anything is accomplished in a nomic, specifically our nomic. While this may be _possible_ in a technical sense according to the rules, it is akin to setting fire to a game of checkers, then claiming victory over one's opponent. Though our game has a history of perverse technicality, it also has a history of reasoned discussion and agreement, one which I don't believe has been satisfied in this situation. Clearly the problems of the last controversial scam involving Mrs. Jensen and Ellefson have not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner. Josh -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:35:35 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement At 10:41 PM 6/20/99 , Josh wrote: > > Rule 4/1(m) : Definition of Forfeit > > A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player. > >I think the "iff" in rule 4 indicates that you are in fact wrong in >claiming that the forfeit rule is not exclusive. A player forfeits >only if e fails to meet at least one of the conditions of playerhood, >which failure does not occur upon your announcement of the removal >of all the other players. However, I don't claim that anyone forfeited. _Removal_ is not _forfeiture_. Thus, R4/0 does not apply to this situation. >It's required that, to leave the game, a player forfeit. This is >because any player which leaves the game by any other means has >failed to meet the definition of a player (cf. "represented by," >or the very notion of being a "game entity"). The equivalence in >rule 4 then applies. I disagree. The relation is more like "it is required that a forfeiting player leave the game," i.e., here you confuse P -> Q with Q -> P. >This probably also means that the limbo rule was last modified (by me) >in a broken way, but oh well. Something else to fix after this is >all over. > >To this end, I believe we should treat Joel's actions much as we >treated those of Mr. Jensen. Anyone who claims to have, essentially, >utterly compromised the game cannot be the sole judge of whether or >not e has compromised the game. To do otherwise is to deliberately >avoid the legal system and the approval of fellow players, which >are the only means by which anything is accomplished in a nomic, >specifically our nomic. While this may be _possible_ in a technical >sense according to the rules, it is akin to setting fire to a game >of checkers, then claiming victory over one's opponent. Though our >game has a history of perverse technicality, it also has a history >of reasoned discussion and agreement, one which I don't believe >has been satisfied in this situation. On the contrary, few situations like this in the past found us with a consensus of how to proceed. And why is it that subverting the judicial system is met with more revulsion than subverting our proposal system? On several occasions in the past, Josh has remarked that the proposal system is the cornerstone of our game -- it seems incongrous at the least that he would cast stones under such circumstances. Secondly, there is indeed precedent for sucessful subversion of the judicial system, viz., the events surrounding Josh's first win. Nor do I claim that I am abusing my power as judge -- I stand fully behind the ruling itself -- the scam merely positions me to issue such a ruling. >Clearly the problems of the last controversial scam involving Mrs. >Jensen and Ellefson have not been dealt with in a satisfactory >manner. Although this is different in an easily fixable way -- through the forfeit rules. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:59:58 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement A player (?), possibly Gevork Hartoonian, possibly Josh, wrote: : : Rule 4/1(m) : Definition of Forfeit : : A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player. : : I think the "iff" in rule 4 indicates that you are in fact wrong in : claiming that the forfeit rule is not exclusive. A player forfeits : only if e fails to meet at least one of the conditions of playerhood, : which failure does not occur upon your announcement of the removal : of all the other players. I see no 'if and only if' here. : : It's required that, to leave the game, a player forfeit. This is : because any player which leaves the game by any other means has : failed to meet the definition of a player (cf. "represented by," : or the very notion of being a "game entity"). The equivalence in : rule 4 then applies If someone leaves the game, e will fail to meet the definition, which will cause em to forfeit. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:37:05 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement Mueller wrote: : : First, it is my opinion that to be kicked out of the game is a penalty : worse than losing. As such (by R113 which says "No penalty worse than : losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.") this : cannot happen. Ah... but is it a penalty? If it is, I agree with you, but it looks a lot more like an administrative arrangement. And, some might even argue that being out of Berserker is better than being _in_ it. To each his own. : : Second, if the statement is true then you are the only player who can judge : the RFJ. As a judge you rule the RFJ true, establishing the accuracy of the : thing which made you judge. : : This is circular causality. I don't claim that circulartiy is automatically : invalidating, only that it is not possible to convince someone of the : properness based on things entirely within the circle who don't ALREADY : agree to part of it. I search for something that would convince me and : find nothing. We have had an RFJ or two saying things that were obviously true. : : 1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an : attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the : RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by : R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of : attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. Joel's action causes the property to go to the Treasury, which is different from Joel moving the property to the Treasury. : : 2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not : prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate : players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. I fail to see 'forfeit' and 'leaving the game' as absolutely synomynous. R113 deals with forfeit being the worst penalty. R319 deals with prolonged stays in Limbo, and the consequences thereof. : : So, presuming you buy that this judge assignment actaully happened, I can : still appeal and have done so. You might get the chance to appeal when you are readmitted, but not now, since you are not a player. At least, that is how I think it is. I am no player, either, you see. : : Your plan would have made yourself emperor effectively. I think that this : is TOTALLY bad form. The Triumvirate were planning on NO significant rule : changes other than the elimination of the loophole we exploited. Bad form is not necessarily a bad thing. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:15:00 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement At 12:59 AM 6/21/99 , Ole wrote: >A player (?), possibly Gevork Hartoonian, possibly Josh, wrote: > >: >: Rule 4/1(m) : Definition of Forfeit >: >: A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player. >: >: I think the "iff" in rule 4 indicates that you are in fact wrong in >: claiming that the forfeit rule is not exclusive. A player forfeits >: only if e fails to meet at least one of the conditions of playerhood, >: which failure does not occur upon your announcement of the removal >: of all the other players. > >I see no 'if and only if' here. Note that "iff" is shorhand for "if and only if". J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:13:07 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement At 10:24 PM 6/20/99 , Mueller wrote: >Joel wrote: >>Another counterscam to remove Gabes 2 and 3 from the game involved the >>non-exclusivity of our forfiet rules, i.e. that they present _a_ way for >>players to be deleted, but not _the_ way. Therefore, as it is not a >>regulated action, I hereby remove all current Players of Berserker Nomic, >>save myself. >> >>----------------- >> >>Next, I call for judgment on the following statement: >> >>Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game. >> >>----------------- >> >>Joel Uckelman has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 96: >> >>Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game. > >I contest this. Realize, howerver, that contesting it as a non-player gives you no standing before the Court. >First, it is my opinion that to be kicked out of the game is a penalty >worse than losing. As such (by R113 which says "No penalty worse than >losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.") this >cannot happen. If the rule is to be read in this manner, could I not claim that having you, Plagge, and Josh be Emperors or having three Gabes in the game are also penalties worse than losing? Wouldn't it essentially give anyone veto power over anything e didn't like? I think a more plausable reading of this would be that given two penalties, X or losing, only the lesser of the two may be imposed. So if being kicked out really is worse than losing, it appears that you have lost. Either way, it seems immaterial, as it accomplishes what I intended. >Second, if the statement is true then you are the only player who can judge >the RFJ. As a judge you rule the RFJ true, establishing the accuracy of the >thing which made you judge. > >This is circular causality. I don't claim that circulartiy is automatically >invalidating, only that it is not possible to convince someone of the >properness based on things entirely within the circle who don't ALREADY >agree to part of it. I search for something that would convince me and >find nothing. Viewed in that way, yes. However, it rests on whether or not I was able to remove everyone else, which is where the investigation should focus. >Moreover, nomic, as a game of imaginative consensus, requires that other >people agree and generally for some compelling reason. I belive that I have given a compelling reason. >If, Joel, you insist on persuing this reality, I believe that I will treat >you as having abandoned the actual game and gone off into your own laa laa >land. I request that other players do this as well. However, I can do the same. But my way would seem to have the notable advantage of resolving the 3-Gabe problem and eliminating the recently-established Triumvirate. >Thirdly, in an attempt to resolve this in a non-circular manner, I submit >an RFJ on the following statement. > >------ > >It is not possible for one player or eir controlling human to kick a player >controlled by another human out of Berseker. > >------ > >Initiators comments: I think that the key rule is R116. It says "Whatever >is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with >the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a >rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." > >To rule this TRUE which I request that the judge assigned to it do, one >must establish that the elimination of players is regulated or that this >mechanism is prohibited. > >Clearly this mechanism is out of the blue and has not been prohibited. > >So, is the eliminintion of players regulated? > >R002 defines players. > >R113 mentions forfeit (as opposed to continuation of play) as possible to >players based on eir own decision. > >R309 creates a process for adding players. > >R310 says in total "Players' attributes may not be altered except in >accordance with the rules. This rule takes precedence over all other rules >dealing with attributes, or the permissibility of actions." Is "being a player" a Player attribute? Maybe it should be, but it's not listed in the attribute rule, leading me to belive that it does not fall under such a prohibition. >R319 says players in Limbo can leave limbo or leave the game. ALSO this >rule has provisions for KICKING A PLAYER out without eir permission in >section F. Again, this provides an example that is compatible with either interpretation. >R327 defines player attributes as {score, Wins, Subers, property, Alias} > >R418 has provisions for dealing with property in case of players leaving >the game. > >It seems to me that two separate legal arguments could indepedently be used >to justify ruling the statement TRUE. Perhaps there are others, but I'll >leave those to be found by the Judge. > >1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an >attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the >RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by >R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of >attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. R418 only comes into play when players forfeit. As I mentioned above, no forfeits were involved in my actions. Therefore, I did not alter any player's property attribute. >2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not >prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate >players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. R319 regulates ONE way players may forfeit against their will. In no way does it imply that it is the sole way for players to cease being so. >> >>In the matter of RFJ 96, the Court rules TRUE. Because nothing in R4/1, >>R113/0, R226/0, and R418/0 indicates that forfeit is the sole way for >>Players to be removed from the game, R116/0 allows the arbitrary removal of >>Players through means other than forfeit. > >That is not the criteia laid out by R116. Prohibited or regulated is the >standard. This judgement (even if Joel had been assigned judge by >non-circular means) is crap. How so? "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated..." In my Judgment, I find nowhere in which removal of players is prohibited, nor anywhere that a blanket statement regulates removals other than through a long stay in Limbo. >On the off chance that Joel reassigns things later and it is determined >that he was Judge anyway and this judgment is proper, I appeal this judgement. And this puts me in something of a bind. As Administrator, I am required to select judges for RFJs made by players. As a player, I hold that I am currently the sole player. Selecting a judge for your RFJ would be conceeding the illegality of my move, thus precluding a favorable verdict. But refusing to select a judge assumes the legality of my move, which is exaclty the thing at issue. So it seems that, in so acting, I must either give all of my ground or beg the question, both of which are unacceptable. Where does this leave us? I'm not sure, to be honest. >Note that this is exactly the reason for our last judicial reform when the >game kicked out last time: making sure that crap judgements don't trash the >judicial process. Technically, the game didn't end last time, we just started another one. More importantly, it should be noted that this was done in response to a move that would have given three players supreme power... >This is NOT final even if Joel succeeds because (by R220 which says in part >"This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final >interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the >Judicial rules.") it would consitute a judiciary altering decision and >couldn't be used until it was true in the universe it arose from (a >universe where we were all players). Which is fine, except that the above is conditional upon the possibility of further appeals. If I'm the only player, there are no more appeals, so this doesn't apply. To claim otherwise would commit one to the position that a court could be chosen from among those who are no longer players, which is clearly illegal. >So, presuming you buy that this judge assignment actaully happened, I can >still appeal and have done so. Nope. If I'm the only player, there can't be a court with 3 judges on it, meaning that the case closed immediately after the judgement was issued. >> >>So, at this point, you may be asking yourself, what's the upshot of all >>this? During the massive public outcry, I plan to fix the Spare Tire and >>Player rules, readmit everyone, and have it all running again by tomorrow. > >Your plan would have made yourself emperor effectively. I think that this >is TOTALLY bad form. The Triumvirate were planning on NO significant rule >changes other than the elimination of the loophole we exploited. > >To fiddle with the Spare Tire Rules is crap. It wasn't part of you scam. >Moreover, you're not fixing the thing that is really broken if this works: >the judiciary. But the Spare Tire is what led up to this. It may not have been part of my scam, but it was the impetus for it. Besides, the judiciary isn't really broken -- it's the forfeit rules that are. This only happened due to an abnormally small judicial pool. >>There's nothing like killing two birds with one stone... :-) > >And nothing like breaking one nomic with one bonehead move. I submit that this is a reasonable response to yesterday's takeover move. And such a break is easily repaired. >If this works we can start talking about the unintended consequences of >such an action. > >Mueller J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:35:17 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement In message <199906210347.WAA29983@pv3ead.vincent.iastate.edu>, Gevork Hartoonia n writes: > >Mueller writes: >>Your plan would have made yourself emperor effectively. I think that this >>is TOTALLY bad form. The Triumvirate were planning on NO significant rule >>changes other than the elimination of the loophole we exploited. >> >>To fiddle with the Spare Tire Rules is crap. It wasn't part of you scam. >>Moreover, you're not fixing the thing that is really broken if this works: >>the judiciary. >> >>>There's nothing like killing two birds with one stone... :-) >> >>And nothing like breaking one nomic with one bonehead move. >> >>If this works we can start talking about the unintended consequences of >>such an action. > >To this end, if Joel refuses to act in his capacity as Administrator, >separate from what he's done as a player, and select a court for your >statement, I believe the Triumvirate or the players should choose >a court, or choose an interim Administrator. I agree that Joel has made a very bastardly move, and that Mueller is probably right. However, it seems to me that we have entered a paradox of the type that Jensen created earlier...the game in which we are protesting is over. Now it's possible to argue around this, but I think that fundamentally we need to consider some serious changes. Just to reemphasize, though, Joel, you're a hoser. :) ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:38:21 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement > Rule 4/1(m) : Definition of Forfeit > > A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player. > >I think the "iff" in rule 4 indicates that you are in fact wrong in >claiming that the forfeit rule is not exclusive. A player forfeits >only if e fails to meet at least one of the conditions of playerhood, >which failure does not occur upon your announcement of the removal >of all the other players. AH HA!! Score. > >It's required that, to leave the game, a player forfeit. This is >because any player which leaves the game by any other means has >failed to meet the definition of a player (cf. "represented by," >or the very notion of being a "game entity"). The equivalence in >rule 4 then applies. > >This probably also means that the limbo rule was last modified (by me) >in a broken way, but oh well. Something else to fix after this is >all over. > >To this end, I believe we should treat Joel's actions much as we >treated those of Mr. Jensen. Anyone who claims to have, essentially, >utterly compromised the game cannot be the sole judge of whether or >not e has compromised the game. To do otherwise is to deliberately >avoid the legal system and the approval of fellow players, which >are the only means by which anything is accomplished in a nomic, >specifically our nomic. While this may be _possible_ in a technical >sense according to the rules, it is akin to setting fire to a game >of checkers, then claiming victory over one's opponent. Though our >game has a history of perverse technicality, it also has a history >of reasoned discussion and agreement, one which I don't believe >has been satisfied in this situation. > >Clearly the problems of the last controversial scam involving Mrs. >Jensen and Ellefson have not been dealt with in a satisfactory >manner. I object to the misrepresentation of Jensen and Ellefson as married females. As Joel told me a couple days ago, Ellefson is much more masculine than you might expect. Not quite entirely sure what he was referring to there, but we'll go ahead and take it at face value... ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:41:39 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement In message <007501bebbab$6ea28920$e0d752c3@opus>, "Ole Andersen" writes: >A player (?), possibly Gevork Hartoonian, possibly Josh, wrote: > >: >: Rule 4/1(m) : Definition of Forfeit >: >: A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player. >: >: I think the "iff" in rule 4 indicates that you are in fact wrong in >: claiming that the forfeit rule is not exclusive. A player forfeits >: only if e fails to meet at least one of the conditions of playerhood, >: which failure does not occur upon your announcement of the removal >: of all the other players. > >I see no 'if and only if' here. This was discussed long ago. "Iff" is commonly-accepted shorthand for "if and only if." Thus it is acceptable in the context. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:58:10 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement Plagge wrote: >In message <199906210347.WAA29983@pv3ead.vincent.iastate.edu>, Gevork Hartoonia >n writes: >> >>Mueller writes: >>>Your plan would have made yourself emperor effectively. I think that this >>>is TOTALLY bad form. The Triumvirate were planning on NO significant rule >>>changes other than the elimination of the loophole we exploited. >>> >>>To fiddle with the Spare Tire Rules is crap. It wasn't part of you scam. >>>Moreover, you're not fixing the thing that is really broken if this works: >>>the judiciary. >>> >>>>There's nothing like killing two birds with one stone... :-) >>> >>>And nothing like breaking one nomic with one bonehead move. >>> >>>If this works we can start talking about the unintended consequences of >>>such an action. >> >>To this end, if Joel refuses to act in his capacity as Administrator, >>separate from what he's done as a player, and select a court for your >>statement, I believe the Triumvirate or the players should choose >>a court, or choose an interim Administrator. > >I agree that Joel has made a very bastardly move, and that Mueller is >probably right. However, it seems to me that we have entered a paradox >of the type that Jensen created earlier...the game in which we are >protesting is over. Now it's possible to argue around this, but I think >that fundamentally we need to consider some serious changes. Just to >reemphasize, though, Joel, you're a hoser. :) I don't think so. Remeber spending all that time trying to fix the judiciary rules so that didn't happen again? Specifically I refer you to R220: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative interpretation. THIS TENTATIVE INTERPRETATION HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS THE FINAL iNTERPRETATION EXCEPT THAT IT MAY IN NO WAY ALTER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDICIAL RULES. Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by the the Statute of Limitations." There was the status quo sitting there. Along came Joel with his scam. An RFJ is submitted and assigned BASED ON THE RFJ BEING TRUE. Joel (after abusing his power as Administrator and doing the wanky assignmen) rules the RFJ true. Accepting the RFJ changes the judicial system (by totally declaring all players gone and ineligible to judge). Therefore these tentative results are subject to appeal. Which I did but have yet to see assigned. Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:14:21 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement Joel wrote: >At 10:24 PM 6/20/99 , Mueller wrote: >>Joel wrote: >>>Another counterscam to remove Gabes 2 and 3 from the game involved the >>>non-exclusivity of our forfiet rules, i.e. that they present _a_ way for >>>players to be deleted, but not _the_ way. Therefore, as it is not a >>>regulated action, I hereby remove all current Players of Berserker Nomic, >>>save myself. >>> >>>----------------- >>> >>>Next, I call for judgment on the following statement: >>> >>>Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game. >>> >>>----------------- >>> >>>Joel Uckelman has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 96: >>> >>>Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game. >> >>I contest this. > >Realize, howerver, that contesting it as a non-player gives you no standing >before the Court. Are you being PURPOSEFULY obtuse or did it just never seem so glaring to me. I am a non-player in your universe. I am a player in my universe. The difference between these universes is that mine is was (and I claim _still is_) the status quo and yours is the product of a questionable scam. >>First, it is my opinion that to be kicked out of the game is a penalty >>worse than losing. As such (by R113 which says "No penalty worse than >>losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.") this >>cannot happen. > >If the rule is to be read in this manner, could I not claim that having >you, Plagge, and Josh be Emperors or having three Gabes in the game are >also penalties worse than losing? Wouldn't it essentially give anyone veto >power over anything e didn't like? I think a more plausable reading of this >would be that given two penalties, X or losing, only the lesser of the two >may be imposed. So if being kicked out really is worse than losing, it >appears that you have lost. Either way, it seems immaterial, as it >accomplishes what I intended. What is your definition of losing? I assume it means I can't win. That's alright, I don't really want to win that much, I'm much more interested in things that have nothing to do with winning like getting interesting props passed. Also, your assumption that veto power on anything is created by R113 is not very well backed. There are important distinctions that can be made about actions targeting my player and those which modify other objects in the game. And either way, I didn't see any actual references to the rules in your arguments.... no reasons have actually been offered to believe your assertions. >>Second, if the statement is true then you are the only player who can judge >>the RFJ. As a judge you rule the RFJ true, establishing the accuracy of the >>thing which made you judge. >> >>This is circular causality. I don't claim that circulartiy is automatically >>invalidating, only that it is not possible to convince someone of the >>properness based on things entirely within the circle who don't ALREADY >>agree to part of it. I search for something that would convince me and >>find nothing. > >Viewed in that way, yes. However, it rests on whether or not I was able to >remove everyone else, which is where the investigation should focus. EXACTLY. The investigation should focus on that. And such an investigation should be done in a rules defined manner. YOU HAVE NOT DONE THIS. See R220. >>Moreover, nomic, as a game of imaginative consensus, requires that other >>people agree and generally for some compelling reason. > >I belive that I have given a compelling reason. I'll deal with this below. >>If, Joel, you insist on persuing this reality, I believe that I will treat >>you as having abandoned the actual game and gone off into your own laa laa >>land. I request that other players do this as well. > >However, I can do the same. But my way would seem to have the notable >advantage of resolving the 3-Gabe problem and eliminating the >recently-established Triumvirate. The triumvirate and the 3-Gabe problem are only the result of scams. Do you actually WANT a scamless nomic? These are not "problems" to be fixed, they are the meat of nomic. Moreover, such considerations are IRRELEVANT in the face of the accurate application of the rules. >>Thirdly, in an attempt to resolve this in a non-circular manner, I submit >>an RFJ on the following statement. >> >>------ >> >>It is not possible for one player or eir controlling human to kick a player >>controlled by another human out of Berseker. >> >>------ >> >>Initiators comments: I think that the key rule is R116. It says "Whatever >>is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with >>the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a >>rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." >> >>To rule this TRUE which I request that the judge assigned to it do, one >>must establish that the elimination of players is regulated or that this >>mechanism is prohibited. >> >>Clearly this mechanism is out of the blue and has not been prohibited. >> >>So, is the eliminintion of players regulated? >> >>R002 defines players. >> >>R113 mentions forfeit (as opposed to continuation of play) as possible to >>players based on eir own decision. >> >>R309 creates a process for adding players. >> >>R310 says in total "Players' attributes may not be altered except in >>accordance with the rules. This rule takes precedence over all other rules >>dealing with attributes, or the permissibility of actions." > >Is "being a player" a Player attribute? Maybe it should be, but it's not >listed in the attribute rule, leading me to belive that it does not fall >under such a prohibition. Acutally, that was an objection I was going to make but DIDN'T because it wasn't sufficiently rules based. >>R319 says players in Limbo can leave limbo or leave the game. ALSO this >>rule has provisions for KICKING A PLAYER out without eir permission in >>section F. > >Again, this provides an example that is compatible with either interpretation. > >>R327 defines player attributes as {score, Wins, Subers, property, Alias} >> >>R418 has provisions for dealing with property in case of players leaving >>the game. >> >>It seems to me that two separate legal arguments could indepedently be used >>to justify ruling the statement TRUE. Perhaps there are others, but I'll >>leave those to be found by the Judge. >> >>1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an >>attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the >>RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by >>R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of >>attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. > >R418 only comes into play when players forfeit. As I mentioned above, no >forfeits were involved in my actions. Therefore, I did not alter any >player's property attribute. As I read the rules forfeit and voluntarily leaving the game are equivalent. Look at what forfeit is CONTRASTED to in R113 (you can be in the game or you can forfeit. >>2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not >>prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate >>players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. > >R319 regulates ONE way players may forfeit against their will. In no way >does it imply that it is the sole way for players to cease being so. So the area IS REGULATED, but only with one mechanism??!? If this was the standard for regulation, Poulenc would have won WITHOUT worrying about score/point distinctions. >>> >>>In the matter of RFJ 96, the Court rules TRUE. Because nothing in R4/1, >>>R113/0, R226/0, and R418/0 indicates that forfeit is the sole way for >>>Players to be removed from the game, R116/0 allows the arbitrary removal of >>>Players through means other than forfeit. >> >>That is not the criteia laid out by R116. Prohibited or regulated is the >>standard. This judgement (even if Joel had been assigned judge by >>non-circular means) is crap. > >How so? "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and >unregulated..." In my Judgment, I find nowhere in which removal of players >is prohibited, nor anywhere that a blanket statement regulates removals >other than through a long stay in Limbo. If we are ignoring synonyms as meaning anything then.... In Joel's Universe I as a human I flaumber the game, which is very similar but not the same as joining. SO now I have a player again. Then I piratize the office of Administrator, which means I take it away from whoever has it and assume its priveleges. Then I "remove" Joel from the game. Then I submitt "Tom Mueller is Administrator." as an RFJ. I am the only player so it goes to me. I rule it true by R116. I submit a special proposal which says "Transmute Rule 116 to mutable and repeal it." I vote for this special proposal. Remember I do this ONLY in Joel's universe. I hope you the absurdity of these actions and thereby Joel's. >>On the off chance that Joel reassigns things later and it is determined >>that he was Judge anyway and this judgment is proper, I appeal this judgement. > >And this puts me in something of a bind. As Administrator, I am required to >select judges for RFJs made by players. As a player, I hold that I am >currently the sole player. Selecting a judge for your RFJ would be >conceeding the illegality of my move, thus precluding a favorable verdict. >But refusing to select a judge assumes the legality of my move, which is >exaclty the thing at issue. So it seems that, in so acting, I must either >give all of my ground or beg the question, both of which are unacceptable. >Where does this leave us? I'm not sure, to be honest. Folllowing R220! >>Note that this is exactly the reason for our last judicial reform when the >>game kicked out last time: making sure that crap judgements don't trash the >>judicial process. > >Technically, the game didn't end last time, we just started another one. >More importantly, it should be noted that this was done in response to a >move that would have given three players supreme power... So what? Let's follow the rules. >>This is NOT final even if Joel succeeds because (by R220 which says in part >>"This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final >>interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the >>Judicial rules.") it would consitute a judiciary altering decision and >>couldn't be used until it was true in the universe it arose from (a >>universe where we were all players). > >Which is fine, except that the above is conditional upon the possibility of >further appeals. If I'm the only player, there are no more appeals, so this >doesn't apply. To claim otherwise would commit one to the position that a >court could be chosen from among those who are no longer players, which is >clearly illegal. > >>So, presuming you buy that this judge assignment actaully happened, I can >>still appeal and have done so. > >Nope. If I'm the only player, there can't be a court with 3 judges on it, >meaning that the case closed immediately after the judgement was issued. Only in your universe which created itself in violation R220. >>> >>>So, at this point, you may be asking yourself, what's the upshot of all >>>this? During the massive public outcry, I plan to fix the Spare Tire and >>>Player rules, readmit everyone, and have it all running again by tomorrow. >> >>Your plan would have made yourself emperor effectively. I think that this >>is TOTALLY bad form. The Triumvirate were planning on NO significant rule >>changes other than the elimination of the loophole we exploited. >> >>To fiddle with the Spare Tire Rules is crap. It wasn't part of you scam. >>Moreover, you're not fixing the thing that is really broken if this works: >>the judiciary. > >But the Spare Tire is what led up to this. It may not have been part of my >scam, but it was the impetus for it. > >Besides, the judiciary isn't really broken -- it's the forfeit rules that >are. This only happened due to an abnormally small judicial pool. Whatever. >>>There's nothing like killing two birds with one stone... :-) >> >>And nothing like breaking one nomic with one bonehead move. > >I submit that this is a reasonable response to yesterday's takeover move. >And such a break is easily repaired. The break isn't in a normal Emperorship but perhaps in areas like Turns and majorities. >>If this works we can start talking about the unintended consequences of >>such an action. Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:27:39 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement "Ole Andersen" writes: >: 2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not >: prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate >: players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and >shut. > >I fail to see 'forfeit' and 'leaving the game' as absolutely synomynous. >R113 deals with forfeit being the worst penalty. >R319 deals with prolonged stays in Limbo, and the consequences thereof. According to rule 4, anyone who leaves the game forfeits, and anyone who forfeits leaves the game, where "leaves the game" is understood as "fails to meet the definition of being a player, in some way." >You might get the chance to appeal when you are readmitted, but not now, >since you are not a player. At least, that is how I think it is. I am no >player, either, you see. Not if Joel has his way - under the dubious circumstances of his judgment, the case became immediately unappealable because there were no longer sufficient players to form a level 2 court. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:25:30 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement Joel Uckelman writes: >At 10:41 PM 6/20/99 , Josh wrote: >> >> Rule 4/1(m) : Definition of Forfeit >> >> A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player. >> >>I think the "iff" in rule 4 indicates that you are in fact wrong in >>claiming that the forfeit rule is not exclusive. A player forfeits >>only if e fails to meet at least one of the conditions of playerhood, >>which failure does not occur upon your announcement of the removal >>of all the other players. > >However, I don't claim that anyone forfeited. _Removal_ is not >_forfeiture_. Thus, R4/0 does not apply to this situation. If removal occurs, so must forfeiture, according to rule 4 - thus, that which you claim is unregulated by the rules is in fact strongly regulated, so your appeal to rule 116 is a useless one. > >>It's required that, to leave the game, a player forfeit. This is >>because any player which leaves the game by any other means has >>failed to meet the definition of a player (cf. "represented by," >>or the very notion of being a "game entity"). The equivalence in >>rule 4 then applies. > >I disagree. The relation is more like "it is required that a forfeiting >player leave the game," i.e., here you confuse P -> Q with Q -> P. As Mueller has said: are you just being unbelieveably, purposefully obtuse? The equivalence here is clear, and someone like you with a background in logic should see it. The if and only if in rule 4 links any Player's "leaving the game," by whatever means, and eir forfeiture. The key here is that the thing you claim is unregulated is totally regulated by the rules, and thus you've made a false judgment. This is where Mueller's discussion of the "status quo" comes in. Josh -- In _Gravity's Rainbow_ Thomas Pynchon wrote that paper is used in three ways-- for "shit, money, and The Word." I tend to look at guitars in the same way. - Brent Dicrescenzo ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:06:11 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement Joel Uckelman writes: >>RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by >>R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of >>attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. > >R418 only comes into play when players forfeit. As I mentioned above, no >forfeits were involved in my actions. Therefore, I did not alter any >player's property attribute. Forfeit and leaving the game, by any means, are equivalent by rule 4. It doesn't matter what you CLAIM you were doing, the rules tell us the necessary consequences of your actions. >>2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not >>prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate >>players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. > >R319 regulates ONE way players may forfeit against their will. In no way >does it imply that it is the sole way for players to cease being so. R4 again. >How so? "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and >unregulated..." In my Judgment, I find nowhere in which removal of players >is prohibited, nor anywhere that a blanket statement regulates removals >other than through a long stay in Limbo. R4. >>On the off chance that Joel reassigns things later and it is determined >>that he was Judge anyway and this judgment is proper, I appeal this judgement >. > >And this puts me in something of a bind. As Administrator, I am required to >select judges for RFJs made by players. As a player, I hold that I am >currently the sole player. Selecting a judge for your RFJ would be >conceeding the illegality of my move, thus precluding a favorable verdict. >But refusing to select a judge assumes the legality of my move, which is >exaclty the thing at issue. So it seems that, in so acting, I must either >give all of my ground or beg the question, both of which are unacceptable. >Where does this leave us? I'm not sure, to be honest. Supposedly, your impartiality as Administrator holds sway over all - including your inclinations as a player. Given that I don't see how you can not follow, at least tentatively, with Mueller's argument, in order to be a fair administrator. >>Note that this is exactly the reason for our last judicial reform when the >>game kicked out last time: making sure that crap judgements don't trash the >>judicial process. > >Technically, the game didn't end last time, we just started another one. >More importantly, it should be noted that this was done in response to a >move that would have given three players supreme power... And who didn't do anything at all with it. You haven't even given us a chance to show our stuff. Think old-school tyrants, not facists. All we had planned were a few rule reforms and some wins. Still have planned. >>This is NOT final even if Joel succeeds because (by R220 which says in part >>"This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final >>interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the >>Judicial rules.") it would consitute a judiciary altering decision and >>couldn't be used until it was true in the universe it arose from (a >>universe where we were all players). > >Which is fine, except that the above is conditional upon the possibility of >further appeals. If I'm the only player, there are no more appeals, so this >doesn't apply. To claim otherwise would commit one to the position that a >court could be chosen from among those who are no longer players, which is >clearly illegal. > >>So, presuming you buy that this judge assignment actaully happened, I can >>still appeal and have done so. > >Nope. If I'm the only player, there can't be a court with 3 judges on it, >meaning that the case closed immediately after the judgement was issued. I don't believe Emperor Mueller is on the right track with all of this. While Joel's actions could be seen as effectively reinterpreting the powers of the judiciary, the real problem here is a legitimation problem, like those in the scams involving Mr. Jensen. Let's suppose that I claim to revoke all US citizens' citizenship. In fact, this may be possible - it seems like a loophole the government may not have had to consider before. What's to stop me? According to the letter of the law, nothing - and since it's not prohibited by the law, it's tentatively legal, unless it's ruled otherwise by a court of law. Would US citizens find it reasonable to allow _me_ to choose the court, consisting of me, on the grounds that I had already revoked all their citizenships and thus their abilities to sit on the court? No, because the question of whether or not I _had_ kicked them out must be determined before we can use the answer to that question as justification for further actions. In the same way, we can't allow Joel to continue making the decisions as to the legality of his actions, when it's really we that must decide the legality of his first action. Joel's court selection was utterly compromised as a direct consequence of his illegal actions, and as such we should put no stock in it whatsoever. Otherwise, we condone a kind of solipsism. As Mueller has said, this is largely a game of agreements. When we open up the game to the point where any player who squeezes shut his eyes and plugs up his ears with his fingers can claim "control" over the game, we have ceased to be playing Nomic, and instead have started playing the sort of made-up child's game at which no one wins and no one has any fun, because there is no method of arbitration or legitimation. "No you didn't, because I had a force field!" "Well I had a special elf friend that snuck through your force field!" "Well..." So, Joel, unless you can provide justification for _why_ we should put any stake in your actions re the judiciary, I don't see why we shouldn't just select a new Administrator and proceed in an ad-hoc fashion. I don't want to hear justifications under your currently limited interpretation of the rules, but rather a meta-justification. >Besides, the judiciary isn't really broken -- it's the forfeit rules that >are. This only happened due to an abnormally small judicial pool. The judiciary still has brain-dead rules in the case of "single player games," which may or may not be arrived at dubiously. >I submit that this is a reasonable response to yesterday's takeover move. >And such a break is easily repaired. Perhaps reasonable for a player who is not administrator, but your dual position leaves you in a compromising situation. Our "break" wasn't, yet, and it wasn't going to stay that way. What fun would the Nomic be if left in an ongoing state of tyrant rule? I would like to hear the opinions of other active players. I am inclined to have someone else select courts temporarily, since it's clear Joel is unable or refuses to. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:13:25 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement Mueller writes: >>However, I can do the same. But my way would seem to have the notable >>advantage of resolving the 3-Gabe problem and eliminating the >>recently-established Triumvirate. I note that Gabe recently expressed his desire to give in and play nice, after his scam succeded - and don't think we weren't going to rid him of some excess players, anyway. >The triumvirate and the 3-Gabe problem are only the result of scams. Do >you actually WANT a scamless nomic? These are not "problems" to be fixed, >they are the meat of nomic. As a matter of fact, Joel has often expressed that desire to me. Which makes it all the more ironic that he uses scams to try protecting his golden vision of what a nomic should be. >So the area IS REGULATED, but only with one mechanism??!? > >If this was the standard for regulation, Poulenc would have won WITHOUT >worrying about score/point distinctions. Indeed - Joel seems to be using the same sort of argument Poulenc used, that the thing he's doing is unrelated to the forfeiture of players, when in fact the rules state that they are one and the same (which is how the standard reading of "equivalent" goes, as Joel well knows). In fact Joel's argument is more blatantly false, because Poulenc's at least depended on abusing the common interpretation of the way "score" and "points" are linked. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:15:04 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Not that Re: Nomic: announcement I just got an idea. Shoot it down. How about having third-party Judges? We could contact another Nomic, and let their judicial system take care of some of our questions. We could then take care of some of their questions - all to be regulated in various ways, of course. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:46:17 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Not that Re: Nomic: announcement "Ole Andersen" writes: >I just got an idea. Shoot it down. > >How about having third-party Judges? > >We could contact another Nomic, and let their judicial system take care of >some of our questions. We could then take care of some of their questions - >all to be regulated in various ways, of course. Hmmm. We still haven't heard from any other players not involved in the scams, save for Ole. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:08:38 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement > >I agree that Joel has made a very bastardly move, and that Mueller is > >probably right. However, it seems to me that we have entered a paradox > >of the type that Jensen created earlier...the game in which we are > >protesting is over. Now it's possible to argue around this, but I think > >that fundamentally we need to consider some serious changes. Just to > >reemphasize, though, Joel, you're a hoser. :) > > I don't think so. Remeber spending all that time trying to fix the > judiciary rules so that didn't happen again? > > Specifically I refer you to R220: > > "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation > provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment > in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other > situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its > response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative > interpretation. THIS TENTATIVE INTERPRETATION HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS THE > FINAL iNTERPRETATION EXCEPT THAT IT MAY IN NO WAY ALTER THE INTERPRETATION > OF THE JUDICIAL RULES. > > Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made > possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by > the the Statute of Limitations." > > There was the status quo sitting there. > > Along came Joel with his scam. > > An RFJ is submitted and assigned BASED ON THE RFJ BEING TRUE. > Damn. A month and a half away from Nomic will do bad things to you. I had forgotten about that clause..now there are still some weird areas here, but that makes our case quite a bit better, really. By the way, I transfer one slack from Joel to Mueller. I'd burn him at the stake too but I don't feel like looking up the procedure. :) > Joel (after abusing his power as Administrator and doing the wanky > assignmen) rules the RFJ true. > > Accepting the RFJ changes the judicial system (by totally declaring all > players gone and ineligible to judge). > > Therefore these tentative results are subject to appeal. > > Which I did but have yet to see assigned. > > Mueller > > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:06:38 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Moving along in the real world Well, I havn't heard any legal objections to the Triumvirate's formation, and it gives us a rule based mechanism for moving the game along without a cooperative Administrator. I'll see what my co-emperors think of this: I create and vote Yes on the following Imperial Proposal... Summary: I've split off proposals and RFJs from the Administrator's functions creating two new offices: Law Librarian and Clerk of the Courts. Joel keeps the prop stuff and I have tentatively volunteered in the proposal to be CotC. If my co-Emperors like this then I will be stepping down from office immeadiately assiging the controversial RFJs so as to put the office back on democratic footing. ---------------------------------- Amend Rule 215 by replacing "Administrator" with "Clerk of the Courts". Amend Rule 229 by replacing "{Judge, Administrator, Foreign Minister, Treasury Minister}" with "{Judge, Administrator, Foreign Minister, Treasury Minister, Clerk of the Courts, Law Librarian}" Create Rule 403 with the LAWKEEPER delimited text. Amend Rule 465 to Read "All Eligible Voters may cast votes on current Proposals by sending eir votes in an email to the Law Librarian." Create Rule 404 with the JUDICIALOFFICER delimited text. Amend Rule 326 by replacing its text with the following SAFERFROMABUSE delimited text. Amend Rule 394 by appending the following ALLOFFICESNOTJUSTADMINISTRATER delimted text as a new paragraph. LAWKEEPER The office of Law Librarian exists. The duties of the Law Librarian are: 1) tracking proposal creation, numbering, and resolution, and 2) making publicly available the current rules of Berserker, and 3) making publicly available the proposals (past and present) of Berserker, and 4) posting the text of proposals when eir voting period begins, and 5) recieving (privately or publicly) the votes on proposals, and 6) making publicly available the voting record of players on each past proposal, and 7) following all instructions in other rules indicating actions to be performed by this office. The Law Librarian shall receive the standard salary for each full turn e holds Office. {{The Law Librarian is Joel Uckelman.}} LAWKEEPER JUDICIALOFFICER The office of Clerk of the Courts exists. The duties of the Clerk of the Courts are: 1) tracking the status of past and present RFJs, and 2) assigning judges to RFJs upon eir creation or appeal, and 3) maintaining publicly a record of past and present RFJs, the history of eir status and all relevant arguments posted in conjunciton with em, and 4) publicly maintaining a list of those who are in the Judicial Pool, and 5) following all instructions in other rules indicating actions to be performed by this office. The Clerk of the Courts shall receive the standard salary for each full turn e holds Office. {{The Clerk of the Courts is Tom Mueller.}} JUDICIALOFFICER SAFERFROMABUSE The office of Administrator exists. The duties of the Administrator are: 1) providing links to the rules mandated web pages of other officers from the main page, which e shall maintain, and 2) to hold the elections for offices, and 3) to administer the informal porposals for the entry of new players, and 4) to track and make publicly available all information not tracked by other offices, and 5) following all instructions in other rules indicating actions to be performed by this office. The Administrator shall receive the standard salary for each full turn e holds Office. {{The Administrator is Joel Uckelman.}} SAFERFROMABUSE ALLOFFICESNOTJUSTADMINISTRATER Information is Privileged if it is available to an officer or officers due to eir position but not to other players. Information ceases to be Privileged when it is publicly available. No officer may share Privileged information with any Player, directly or indirectly. ALLOFFICESNOTJUSTADMINISTRATER ----------------------------------- Tom Mueller, Emperor of the people ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:24:15 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: Moving along in the real world Mueller writes: >Well, I havn't heard any legal objections to the Triumvirate's formation, >and it gives us a rule based mechanism for moving the game along without a >cooperative Administrator. > >I'll see what my co-emperors think of this: > >I create and vote Yes on the following Imperial Proposal... > >Summary: I've split off proposals and RFJs from the Administrator's >functions creating two new offices: Law Librarian and Clerk of the Courts. >Joel keeps the prop stuff and I have tentatively volunteered in the >proposal to be CotC. If my co-Emperors like this then I will be stepping >down from office immeadiately assiging the controversial RFJs so as to put >the office back on democratic footing. "immediately AFTER", I assume? I vote yes on the special proposal. If Kuhns were around I would nominate him to the Clerk of Courts office. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:37:00 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: Moving along in the real world I vote yes on Mueller's excellent proposal. Joel, you should learn to exercise caution before abusing your power... hehheh. Long live the Emperors. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:31:35 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens > >We still haven't heard from any other players not involved in the >scams, save for Ole. > I was out of town... what a surprise to come back and learn that the revolution has come and gone. Personally I'm glad to see this. Something is happening other than the usual disagreement over semantics followed by days of whining and judicial wheel-spinning. It is encouraging to see that the ideals Subcommandante Marcos fought for have not vanished completely. As for Jo-El and his shocking abuse of authority, WAY TO GO JOEL. I honestly didn't believe he would ever do something like that. I certainly didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. As interesting as the coup might have been, at this point I favor simply accepting the counter-revolution and going on. Let's face it, this game doesn't exist without Joel. Plus, if we have to try to sort out which state of the game is "real" it will get back into a discussion of black boxes, and I'd really rather avoid that. Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:34:08 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Nomic: A note on equivalences I comment on this because I anticipate that someone may misunderstand it or try to abuse it in some way. It's customary in logic (and math, one of whose important daily tools is logic) that when two things are equivalent, i.e., when each implies the other, written for example "A iff B," to consider the two things as in a sense one and the same. That is, if you have B, and you know that A <=> B, then you also have A - always, immediately, simultaneously. The symbolism says nothing about causality, or the order in which things happen, things are, or the order in which things may be determined. Thus, even if Joel may choose to say "I did something which is not forfeiture, and the rule only says that forfeiture is IMPLIED by what I did," he is incorrect. According to common usage, a thing which "happens" and its equivalent forms "happen together." This is not some head-in-the-clouds interpretation brought on solely by my training in my chosen profession, rather one which we have, unwittingly or not, chosen to assume along with the sort of language of logic that we've chosen to use in our game. I have few doubts that Joel is aware of it. If you would like things nailed down more properly, a nomic metaphysics is in order - i.e., how nomic causality works, etc. I believe ats wanted to work on such things, this past spring. Josh -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:55:28 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) Tom wrote: (quoting me) : > : >I see no 'if and only if' here. : : This was discussed long ago. "Iff" is commonly-accepted shorthand for : "if and only if." Thus it is acceptable in the context. : OK, then. If and when I can issue a Request for Judgement, I state: "The word 'iff' is a commonly-accepted shorthand for 'if and only if'." I want this Statement Judged, if and when such an opportunity arises. Ahh.. in case this already is in the log, my profoundest apologies. If and when I can change my Spare Tire Creed, I change it to: "Being a hoser is prerequisite to win." If and when I can transfer one Slack from Gabe to Gabe, I do so. Btw, Joel, you have a bunch of RFJs to look into. I suspect you'll have to appoint yourself to the court. I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. I can't believe what Charlene did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Charlene should be punished by The Mob. I can't believe what Tom Mueller did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Tom Mueller should be punished by The Mob. I can't believe what Josh did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Josh should be punished by The Mob. I can't believe what Tom Plagge did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Tom Plagge should be punished by The Mob. I can't believe what Joel did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, Joel should be punished by The Mob. I can't believe what I did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't one, I should be punished by The Mob. Did I leave anybody out? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:47:53 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens Matthew J Kuhns writes: >> >>We still haven't heard from any other players not involved in the >>scams, save for Ole. >> > >I was out of town... what a surprise to come back and learn that the >revolution has come and gone. That's often the way it is with revolutions, isn't it? >Personally I'm glad to see this. Something is happening other than the >usual disagreement over semantics followed by days of whining and judicial >wheel-spinning. It is encouraging to see that the ideals Subcommandante >Marcos fought for have not vanished completely. > >As for Jo-El and his shocking abuse of authority, WAY TO GO JOEL. I >honestly didn't believe he would ever do something like that. I certainly >didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. Well, nobody... >As interesting as the coup might have been, at this point I favor simply >accepting the counter-revolution and going on. Let's face it, this game >doesn't exist without Joel. Plus, if we have to try to sort out which state >of the game is "real" it will get back into a discussion of black boxes, >and I'd really rather avoid that. That is the most offensive reason for following along with Joel's faulty scam that I can think of. If we acted like that, then Joel would always have some justification for fucking with the game when things weren't going the way _he_ wanted - much like a "it's my ball and I'll take it home if you don't play the way I want" kind of thing. That's bullshit. As I recall I'm the one that suggested we start a game anyway, and the game wouldn't be where it is without a sizable number of players. Other nomics have shown us that bookkeeping can be distributed, if need be. Giving in to Joel's scam amounts to little more than being swayed by the fact that he is also Administrator - and that's something that he himself should be mortified by, as it's a compromise of his impartiality that he could avoid, easily. Given that Joel's "booting" players and his subsequent RFJ are really part of one illegal action, and that the RFJ was assigned under the assumption that the statement it asked to be judged was already true, I don't see much of a problem with black boxes. There's one box, and we're in it. Joel's just standing in the corner, miming "I'm inside a box, eh?" Josh -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:53:19 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) "Ole Andersen" writes: >Tom wrote: >(quoting me) >: > >: >I see no 'if and only if' here. >: >: This was discussed long ago. "Iff" is commonly-accepted shorthand for >: "if and only if." Thus it is acceptable in the context. >: > >OK, then. > >If and when I can issue a Request for Judgement, I state: > >"The word 'iff' is a commonly-accepted shorthand for 'if and only if'." > >I want this Statement Judged, if and when such an opportunity arises. Not sure what purpose this serves. Check the message logs; we've talked about this before. Why does it matter anyway? >I can't believe what I did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since >there isn't one, I should be punished by The Mob. > >Did I leave anybody out? Well, I was going to say _you_, but you took care of that for me. :) Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:59:28 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: A note on equivalences >I comment on this because I anticipate that someone may misunderstand >it or try to abuse it in some way. > >It's customary in logic (and math, one of whose important daily tools >is logic) that when two things are equivalent, i.e., when each implies >the other, written for example "A iff B," to consider the two things >as in a sense one and the same. > >That is, if you have B, and you know that A <=> B, then you also have >A - always, immediately, simultaneously. > >The symbolism says nothing about causality, or the order in which >things happen, things are, or the order in which things may be determined. >Thus, even if Joel may choose to say "I did something which is not >forfeiture, and the rule only says that forfeiture is IMPLIED by what >I did," he is incorrect. According to common usage, a thing which >"happens" and its equivalent forms "happen together." > >This is not some head-in-the-clouds interpretation brought on solely by >my training in my chosen profession, rather one which we have, unwittingly >or not, chosen to assume along with the sort of language of logic >that we've chosen to use in our game. I have few doubts that Joel >is aware of it. Alright, this seems reasonable. And it doesn't say anything about a black box either. While I admire Joel's assertiveness in trying to re-order the game, I will admit that having been away I'm not entirely sure of its validity, so would you be willing to explain how your above comments apply to recent events? If it makes sense and has a chance of happening, I would definitly be up for avoiding a re-boot of Nomic (which would probably end this current spike in significant and interesting events). >If you would like things nailed down more properly, a nomic metaphysics >is in order - i.e., how nomic causality works, etc. I believe ats >wanted to work on such things, this past spring. But instead he bought antique Macs and mutated them--d'Oh. Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:17:49 CDT From: Andrew D Proescholdt Subject: Nomic:look what happens when you leave I get it, I stop paying attention to Nomic for a little while and everything goes to hell. So, if I am a player in this Nomic: I remove myself from Limbo. I add myself to the judging pool. Comment: Joel is a hoser. Or worse. My geuss at interpreting the rules would be that he is required to assign judges. Of course, is there a rule that says when he is required to do this? I transfer one slack from myself to Gabe. I can't believe what Joel did! It is an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't, Joel should be punished by the Mob! I can't believe what Josh did! It is an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't, Josh should be pubished by the Mob! I can't believe what Tom Plagge did! It is an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't, Tom should be punished by the Mob! I can't believe what Tom Mueller did! It is an outrage! There outta be a law! Since Tom would like to lose points, he shouldn't be punished by the Mob! I can't believe what Gabe did! I've been meaning to do that! That will teach me to be too lazy to act on a loophole when I see one! Just for good measure: I can't believe what Joel did! It is an outrage! There outta be a law! Since there isn't, Joel should be punished by the mob! By the way: "outta" is the way its spelled in the ruleset on the web... Burning people at the stake is just not enough, but it makes me feel better. I have a question: if you guys call for a vote of confidence on the administrator, who will maintain the web page, etc. etc.? I'd be a little cautious in this. However, would it be a good idea to split up the duties currently held by the administrator? Since I don't have anything else to say right now, I'll go back into Limbo. I'll be there no longer than six months. If anyone has a good reason for me to leave Limbo, make sure to say so. I'm only playing reading the digest... Ed ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:15:19 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens At 04:47 PM 6/21/99 , Josh wrote: > >Matthew J Kuhns writes: >>> >>>We still haven't heard from any other players not involved in the >>>scams, save for Ole. >>> >> >>I was out of town... what a surprise to come back and learn that the >>revolution has come and gone. > >That's often the way it is with revolutions, isn't it? > >>Personally I'm glad to see this. Something is happening other than the >>usual disagreement over semantics followed by days of whining and judicial >>wheel-spinning. It is encouraging to see that the ideals Subcommandante >>Marcos fought for have not vanished completely. >> >>As for Jo-El and his shocking abuse of authority, WAY TO GO JOEL. I >>honestly didn't believe he would ever do something like that. I certainly >>didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. > >Well, nobody... > >>As interesting as the coup might have been, at this point I favor simply >>accepting the counter-revolution and going on. Let's face it, this game >>doesn't exist without Joel. Plus, if we have to try to sort out which state >>of the game is "real" it will get back into a discussion of black boxes, >>and I'd really rather avoid that. > >That is the most offensive reason for following along with Joel's >faulty scam that I can think of. If we acted like that, then Joel would >always have some justification for fucking with the game when things >weren't going the way _he_ wanted - much like a "it's my ball and I'll >take it home if you don't play the way I want" kind of thing. >That's bullshit. As I recall I'm the one that suggested we start a >game anyway, and the game wouldn't be where it is without a sizable >number of players. Other nomics have shown us that bookkeeping can >be distributed, if need be. Giving in to Joel's scam amounts to little >more than being swayed by the fact that he is also Administrator - and >that's something that he himself should be mortified by, as it's a >compromise of his impartiality that he could avoid, easily. In doing this, I have in no way compromised myself as administrator. To see why, some explanation is in order. Under the circumstances, I could only select a judge based on the result of the RFJ for which I was selecting a judge. Selecting anyone but myself would necessitate that the statement was FALSE -- something I clearly do not believe. The seeming impropriety stems from my making the RFJ and selecting the judge, which in this case was tantamount to ruling on the RFJ. Had anyone else done this, rest assured that e would have been selected as judge to the same effect. Furthermore, frequent recourse has been made to R220/2 in attempts to show me my error. paragraph 1, R220/2: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the Judicial rules." My judgment ceased being a tenative interpretation at the moment that no further appeals were possible (, nor did I at any point alter the interpretation of the judical rules themselves. Paragraph two of R214/3 disallows further appeals, and step seven of R230/0 subsequently closes the Case. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:19:15 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: A note on equivalences Matthew J Kuhns writes: >>I comment on this because I anticipate that someone may misunderstand >>it or try to abuse it in some way. >> >>It's customary in logic (and math, one of whose important daily tools >>is logic) that when two things are equivalent, i.e., when each implies >>the other, written for example "A iff B," to consider the two things >>as in a sense one and the same. >> >>That is, if you have B, and you know that A <=> B, then you also have >>A - always, immediately, simultaneously. >> >>The symbolism says nothing about causality, or the order in which >>things happen, things are, or the order in which things may be determined. >>Thus, even if Joel may choose to say "I did something which is not >>forfeiture, and the rule only says that forfeiture is IMPLIED by what >>I did," he is incorrect. According to common usage, a thing which >>"happens" and its equivalent forms "happen together." >> >>This is not some head-in-the-clouds interpretation brought on solely by >>my training in my chosen profession, rather one which we have, unwittingly >>or not, chosen to assume along with the sort of language of logic >>that we've chosen to use in our game. I have few doubts that Joel >>is aware of it. > >Alright, this seems reasonable. And it doesn't say anything about a black >box either. While I admire Joel's assertiveness in trying to re-order the >game, I will admit that having been away I'm not entirely sure of its >validity, so would you be willing to explain how your above comments apply >to recent events? If it makes sense and has a chance of happening, I would >definitly be up for avoiding a re-boot of Nomic (which would probably end >this current spike in significant and interesting events). I quote from Joel's reply to me: > Rule 4/1(m) : Definition of Forfeit > > A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player. > >I think the "iff" in rule 4 indicates that you are in fact wrong in >claiming that the forfeit rule is not exclusive. A player forfeits >only if e fails to meet at least one of the conditions of playerhood, >which failure does not occur upon your announcement of the removal >of all the other players. However, I don't claim that anyone forfeited. _Removal_ is not _forfeiture_. Thus, R4/0 does not apply to this situation. >It's required that, to leave the game, a player forfeit. This is >because any player which leaves the game by any other means has >failed to meet the definition of a player (cf. "represented by," >or the very notion of being a "game entity"). The equivalence in >rule 4 then applies. I disagree. The relation is more like "it is required that a forfeiting player leave the game," i.e., here you confuse P -> Q with Q -> P. This last bit from Joel here confuses me slightly; he seems to be saying that forfeiture doesn't happen when a player leaves the game, which according to the common-sense reading of the equivalence (iff) in rule 4, it does (as I describe in the quote). So, my comments apply in that, aside from the voodoo with the judgment Joel made afterward, his action (booting players) was not only NOT "unregulated by the rules" as he claims in the judgment, but it was EXACTLY regulated by the rules, through a past oversight of our own. If you take as given that any time a player leaves the game, e stops meeting the definition of a player, then by rule 4 you MUST also hold that e forfeits. >>If you would like things nailed down more properly, a nomic metaphysics >>is in order - i.e., how nomic causality works, etc. I believe ats >>wanted to work on such things, this past spring. > >But instead he bought antique Macs and mutated them--d'Oh. Both are admirable pursuits. :) Josh -- In _Gravity's Rainbow_ Thomas Pynchon wrote that paper is used in three ways-- for "shit, money, and The Word." I tend to look at guitars in the same way. - Brent Dicrescenzo ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:12:56 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) I join all active mobs. Poulenc >I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. >I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. >I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. > >I can't believe what Charlene did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Charlene should be punished by The Mob. > >I can't believe what Tom Mueller did! It was an outrage! There outta be a >law! Since there isn't one, Tom Mueller should be punished by The Mob. >I can't believe what Josh did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Josh should be punished by The Mob. >I can't believe what Tom Plagge did! It was an outrage! There outta be a >law! Since there isn't one, Tom Plagge should be punished by The Mob. > >I can't believe what Joel did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Joel should be punished by The Mob. > >I can't believe what I did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since >there isn't one, I should be punished by The Mob. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:30:22 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: a proposal for compromise In light of the fruitlessness of recent discussion, I would like to offer a compromise plan that will hopefully be found acceptable by all parties involved. 1. Acceptance of my move: the legality of my actions of 20 June will be recognized. 2. Gabe-ectomy: two of the three Gabes will be removed. 3. Triumvirate breakup: the three Emperors will be stripped of their powers, but retain the honorary titles and be awarded one win each. 4. Readmittance: either I will forfeit in the fourth game and start the fifth game with all of our players as initial players with the same scores, etc. as before, or I will propose that all former players be added back into the fourth game. 5. Rule changes: the forfeiture rules will be fixed so as to be exclusive, and either the Spare Tire rule will be altered or I will hold the Spare Tire as Administrator until such time as the rule is altered. Any such points in the above are, of course, negotiable, as I want just as much as anyone to set things to rights. Hopefully, this will be received as the olive branch that it is -- it will be difficult to move on from this unless we reach some consensus. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:31:14 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens Joel Uckelman writes: >In doing this, I have in no way compromised myself as administrator. To see If you'll reread what I wrote, you'll note that I was referring to the compromise of your impartiality, in the case that you allow the players to "give in" to your scam simply because you're the administrator and the game can't carry on as is without you. >why, some explanation is in order. Under the circumstances, I could only >select a judge based on the result of the RFJ for which I was selecting a >judge. Selecting anyone but myself would necessitate that the statement >was FALSE -- something I clearly do not believe. The seeming impropriety >stems from my making the RFJ and selecting the judge, which in this case >was tantamount to ruling on the RFJ. Had anyone else done this, rest >assured that e would have been selected as judge to the same effect. What would happen if I did this: The game does not exist. and then made the RFJ: The game does not exist. ? I'm supposing here that the rules place no prohibitions on causing the game to exist or not exist; off the top of my head I can't think of any. This is in many ways similar to what you did: the action, taken as true, forces the judgment (in this case, it also unfortunately makes it impossible to call for an RFJ, if taken as true - but that's a side effect of my example). But for the statement to be judged in the context which we would typically take as reasonable, the game must go on, forcing the judgment to be false. Are you saying above that if another player had removed all other players, then asked for the judgment, he would have been selected as judge? There would have been no administrator; as there are no rules for selection of an administrator, the only recourse may have perhaps been for that player to claim the position, under R116. If not then his RFJ would have never even gone to court. If this is the tack you wish to take then I believe you may have forced us into a situation in which the game should have rightly been considered unplayable, had the judge selection been approached fairly rather than with your goals as claimant in mind. And that is a result I am loathe to consider, because I would rather not Dan Waldron end up with a win out of all of this. Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:45:28 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) I too join all active mobs. If and when this is possible, I transfer one slack from Joel to each Player in the game. jeff At 06:12 PM 6/21/99 -0400, you wrote: > >I join all active mobs. >Poulenc > > > > >>I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >>Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. >>I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >>Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. >>I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >>Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. >> >>I can't believe what Charlene did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >>Since there isn't one, Charlene should be punished by The Mob. >> >>I can't believe what Tom Mueller did! It was an outrage! There outta be a >>law! Since there isn't one, Tom Mueller should be punished by The Mob. >>I can't believe what Josh did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >>Since there isn't one, Josh should be punished by The Mob. >>I can't believe what Tom Plagge did! It was an outrage! There outta be a >>law! Since there isn't one, Tom Plagge should be punished by The Mob. >> >>I can't believe what Joel did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >>Since there isn't one, Joel should be punished by The Mob. >> >>I can't believe what I did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since >>there isn't one, I should be punished by The Mob. > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:48:52 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: a proposal for compromise Joel Uckelman writes: >In light of the fruitlessness of recent discussion, I would like to offer >a compromise plan that will hopefully be found acceptable by all parties >involved. > >1. Acceptance of my move: the legality of my actions of 20 June will be >recognized. In what sense do you mean "recognized?" I am now having my doubts as to whether or not the situation you placed the game in was a playable one, assuming that the decision to select a judge would have happened "fairly" rather than based on the practical imperatives you faced both as adminstrator and claimant. So then, I am hesitant to say that what you did was legal, because as far as I can see it was not in a couple ways. However, my accepting the rest of this plan involves everything that your move would have resulted in, except perhaps the wins in (3). >2. Gabe-ectomy: two of the three Gabes will be removed. >3. Triumvirate breakup: the three Emperors will be stripped of their >powers, but retain the honorary titles and be awarded one win each. These titles should rightly be enshrined in a modified rule 5. :) >4. Readmittance: either I will forfeit in the fourth game and start the >fifth game with all of our players as initial players with the same scores, >etc. as before, or I will propose that all former players be added back >into the fourth game. I see no reason why we shouldn't just consider it a new game, if we're going to award the Emperors with wins (which we were planning on doing quite soon anyway); that would be what would happen, normally, after a win. >5. Rule changes: the forfeiture rules will be fixed so as to be exclusive, >and either the Spare Tire rule will be altered or I will hold the Spare >Tire as Administrator until such time as the rule is altered. The forfeiture rules ARE already exclusive, as I have explained plainly. I think it would be best for now to consider the spare tire rule repealed, as we (Emperors) left it, and then think about a new spare tire rule to replace it, if any. Recall your own ideas for scams involving the spare tire, Joel, and I think you'll agree that for now it would be best to just get rid of it. Subject to the conditions I discuss above, I accept this agreement. The judiciary rules are still broken, though. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:46:28 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: a proposal for compromise >1. Acceptance of my move: the legality of my actions of 20 June will be >recognized. >2. Gabe-ectomy: two of the three Gabes will be removed. >3. Triumvirate breakup: the three Emperors will be stripped of their >powers, but retain the honorary titles and be awarded one win each. >4. Readmittance: either I will forfeit in the fourth game and start the >fifth game with all of our players as initial players with the same scores, >etc. as before, or I will propose that all former players be added back >into the fourth game. >5. Rule changes: the forfeiture rules will be fixed so as to be exclusive, >and either the Spare Tire rule will be altered or I will hold the Spare >Tire as Administrator until such time as the rule is altered. > Um... Joel... generally a "compromise" means that both sides give a little. This seems to be more of a "surrender" on the part of the emperors and myself. -Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:50:08 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) >I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. >I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. Gabe 2 joins the mob. >I can't believe what Gabe did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Gabe should be punished by The Mob. >I can't believe what Charlene did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Charlene should be punished by The Mob. Gabes 1 and 2 join the mob. >I can't believe what Tom Mueller did! It was an outrage! There outta be a >law! Since there isn't one, Tom Mueller should be punished by The Mob. >I can't believe what Josh did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Josh should be punished by The Mob. Gabe 1 joins the mob. >I can't believe what Tom Plagge did! It was an outrage! There outta be a >law! Since there isn't one, Tom Plagge should be punished by The Mob. >I can't believe what Joel did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since there isn't one, Joel should be punished by The Mob. Gabes 1, 2, and 3 join the mob. >I can't believe what I did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since >there isn't one, I should be punished by The Mob. Gabes 1, 2, and 3 join the mob. >Did I leave anybody out? -- Ai! Pedrito! DeeJay * Wrangler ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:11:29 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens At 05:31 PM 6/21/99 , you wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>In doing this, I have in no way compromised myself as administrator. To see > >If you'll reread what I wrote, you'll note that I was referring to >the compromise of your impartiality, in the case that you allow the >players to "give in" to your scam simply because you're the administrator >and the game can't carry on as is without you. > >>why, some explanation is in order. Under the circumstances, I could only >>select a judge based on the result of the RFJ for which I was selecting a >>judge. Selecting anyone but myself would necessitate that the statement >>was FALSE -- something I clearly do not believe. The seeming impropriety >>stems from my making the RFJ and selecting the judge, which in this case >>was tantamount to ruling on the RFJ. Had anyone else done this, rest >>assured that e would have been selected as judge to the same effect. > >What would happen if I did this: > > The game does not exist. > >and then made the RFJ: > > The game does not exist. > >? > >I'm supposing here that the rules place no prohibitions on causing >the game to exist or not exist; off the top of my head I can't think >of any. > >This is in many ways similar to what you did: the action, taken as >true, forces the judgment (in this case, it also unfortunately makes >it impossible to call for an RFJ, if taken as true - but that's a >side effect of my example). But for the statement to be judged in >the context which we would typically take as reasonable, the game >must go on, forcing the judgment to be false. > >Are you saying above that if another player had removed all other >players, then asked for the judgment, he would have been selected >as judge? There would have been no administrator; as there are no >rules for selection of an administrator, the only recourse may have >perhaps been for that player to claim the position, under R116. If >not then his RFJ would have never even gone to court. Not so. R326/3 does not require that the Admin be a player, and I am defined as the Admin by name. So I'd still be the Admin and able to select judges. >If this is the tack you wish to take then I believe you may have >forced us into a situation in which the game should have rightly >been considered unplayable, had the judge selection been approached >fairly rather than with your goals as claimant in mind. > >And that is a result I am loathe to consider, because I would >rather not Dan Waldron end up with a win out of all of this. > >Josh I didn't bring that up because I knew that you would not find it appealing. However, I am almost more inclined to agree with unplayability than what I did. Either way, it's fine with me. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:19:01 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: a proposal for compromise At 05:46 PM 6/21/99 , Gabe wrote: >>1. Acceptance of my move: the legality of my actions of 20 June will be >>recognized. >>2. Gabe-ectomy: two of the three Gabes will be removed. >>3. Triumvirate breakup: the three Emperors will be stripped of their >>powers, but retain the honorary titles and be awarded one win each. >>4. Readmittance: either I will forfeit in the fourth game and start the >>fifth game with all of our players as initial players with the same scores, >>etc. as before, or I will propose that all former players be added back >>into the fourth game. >>5. Rule changes: the forfeiture rules will be fixed so as to be exclusive, >>and either the Spare Tire rule will be altered or I will hold the Spare >>Tire as Administrator until such time as the rule is altered. >> > > >Um... Joel... generally a "compromise" means that both sides give a little. > This seems to be more of a "surrender" on the part of the emperors and >myself. > >-Gabe I was affraid that it would be viewed as such; however, consider: Your extra players would have been removed during the next turn anyway, as there would have been enough votes to pass a proposal removing them. Apparently, the Emperors were also planning to remove two of your players. I'm not sure how you could salvage anything from this one, as those contesting recent events seem to agree on it. Looking back, would anyone be opposed to throwing in something for Gabe too? If the Emperors didn't give up their powers, wouldn't that mean that I get nothing out of the deal, since that was the impetus for my scam? Besides, they each receive wins and keep the titles, while don't get any wins in the deal, even though I certainly could have if my scam has in fact worked. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:38:27 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: A batch of RFJs As Clerk of the Courts I release the following RFJs in a manner consistent with R220 to be judged (and perhaps to end up This is reliant on the following information as nearly as I can determine it (if there are errors please tell me so that I can correct judging asignments): ---------------- Assumption: All players in the SQ who are not in limbo are in the Judging Pool except for Schroeder. Players in SQ Limboers in SQ Not in Judging Pool Ole Andersen Dakota Bailey Jeff Schroeder Roger Carbol Jason Durheim Gabe Drummond-Cole(1) Nate Ellefson Gabe Drummond-Cole(2) Lisa Hamilton Gabe Drummond-Cole(3) Tom Knight Josh Kortbein Nick Osborn Matt Kuhns Andy Palecek Tom Mueller Ed Proescholdt Tom Plagge Aaron Woell Mary Tupper Joel Uckelman Dan Waldron RFJ 92 Judges: Ole Andersen, Roger Carbol, Matt Kuhns, Tom Mueller, Mary Tupper RFJ 93 Judge: Josh Kortbein RFJ 94 Judge: Ole Andersen RFJ 95 Judge: Joel Uckelman ========================================= RFJ 96 Statement: Joel Uckelman is the only Player left in the game. Complainant: Joel Uckelman Complainant's Reasoning: Because nothing in R4/1, R113/0, R226/0, and R418/0 indicates that forfeit is the sole way for Players to be removed from the game, R116/0 allows the arbitrary removal of Players through means other than forfeit. Thus Mr. Uckelman's above actions were within the rules. Judge: Roger Carbol ------------------------------ RFJ 97 Statement: It is not possible for one player or eir controlling human to kick a player controlled by another human out of Berseker. Complainant: Tom Mueller Complainant's Reasoning: I think that the key rule is R116. It says "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." To rule this TRUE which I request that the judge assigned to it do, one must establish that the elimination of players is regulated or that this mechanism is prohibited. Clearly this mechanism is out of the blue and has not been prohibited. So, is the eliminintion of players regulated? R002 defines players. R113 mentions forfeit (as opposed to continuation of play) as possible to players based on eir own decision. R309 creates a process for adding players. R310 says in total "Players' attributes may not be altered except in accordance with the rules. This rule takes precedence over all other rules dealing with attributes, or the permissibility of actions." R319 says players in Limbo can leave limbo or leave the game. ALSO this rule has provisions for KICKING A PLAYER out without eir permission in section F. R327 defines player attributes as {score, Wins, Subers, property, Alias} R418 has provisions for dealing with property in case of players leaving the game. It seems to me that two separate legal arguments could indepedently be used to justify ruling the statement TRUE. Perhaps there are others, but I'll leave those to be found by the Judge. 1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. 2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. Judge: Gabe Drummond-Cole(1) ------------------------------ RFJ 98 Statement: The word 'iff' is a commonly-accepted shorthand for 'if and only if' Complainant: Ole Anderson Complainant's Reasoning: None. Judge: Josh Kortbein ------------------------------ Tom Mueller, Emperor, CotC pro-tem ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:44:51 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: a proposal for compromise Gabe wrote: : : Um... Joel... generally a "compromise" means that both sides give a little. : This seems to be more of a "surrender" on the part of the emperors and : myself. : The emperors gain a win each. I would probably have offered them a win to share, or somesuch. And, by all means put them in Rule 005. That should give Mueller something to repeal, next time he feels like rewriting the rules. ;-) Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:39:53 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) Gevork wrote: : > : >"The word 'iff' is a commonly-accepted shorthand for 'if and only if'." : > : >I want this Statement Judged, if and when such an opportunity arises. : : Not sure what purpose this serves. Check the message logs; we've talked : about this before. Why does it matter anyway? The message logs are quite huge. If 'iff' is worth something, I would like to see it more prominently placed, like in a Judgement. : : >I can't believe what I did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! Since : >there isn't one, I should be punished by The Mob. : > : >Did I leave anybody out? : : Well, I was going to say _you_, but you took care of that for me. :) : Can I be Inciter and X at the same time? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:24:31 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: about the compromise > >So, my comments apply in that, aside from the voodoo with the judgment >Joel made afterward, his action (booting players) was not only NOT >"unregulated by the rules" as he claims in the judgment, but it >was EXACTLY regulated by the rules, through a past oversight of >our own. If you take as given that any time a player leaves the game, >e stops meeting the definition of a player, then by rule 4 you MUST >also hold that e forfeits. Alright, thanks. My original asessment was made too quickly. I am generally in favor of order in the game, and while I view much of our current system as relatively disordered, I assumed this recent upheaval would end in a drawn-out period of even greater disorder followed by a return to our familiar system. In that case I'd rather just skip the middle part. I would actually like to see significant changes in the way decisions are made by the current system, in hope that we can get the trains to run on time, or at least do something different. >>>If you would like things nailed down more properly, a nomic metaphysics >>>is in order - i.e., how nomic causality works, etc. I believe ats >>>wanted to work on such things, this past spring. >> >>But instead he bought antique Macs and mutated them--d'Oh. > >Both are admirable pursuits. :) The one he painted black and (at least planned to have) labeled "mossad" was a cool idea. Anyway, right now the very existence of the game is questionable. In a way placing everyone in an equal status as potential players of whatever comes next. Given that, I propose that if and when the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries reach a compromise, it be placed before all the players of the third game for approval, if only out of principle. Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:14:33 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: a proposal for compromise Joel Uckelman wrote: > In light of the fruitlessness of recent discussion, I would like to offer > a compromise plan that will hopefully be found acceptable by all parties > involved. If this compromise is not accepted, how about: 1) All non-Emporers forfeit. 2) New game starts after it's "fixed." I'll start. I forfeit this round of the game. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:25:43 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens > >And that is a result I am loathe to consider, because I would >rather not Dan Waldron end up with a win out of all of this. > I see we still have place for personal vendetta in this game. Poulenc. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:30:42 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: A batch of RFJs >Statement: It is not possible for one player or eir controlling human to >kick a player controlled by another human out of Berseker. > >Complainant: Tom Mueller > >Complainant's Reasoning: I think that the key rule is R116. It says >"Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and >unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is >permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits >it." > >To rule this TRUE which I request that the judge assigned to it do, one >must establish that the elimination of players is regulated or that this >mechanism is prohibited. > >Clearly this mechanism is out of the blue and has not been prohibited. > >So, is the eliminintion of players regulated? > >R002 defines players. > >R113 mentions forfeit (as opposed to continuation of play) as possible to >players based on eir own decision. > >R309 creates a process for adding players. > >R310 says in total "Players' attributes may not be altered except in >accordance with the rules. This rule takes precedence over all other rules >dealing with attributes, or the permissibility of actions." > >R319 says players in Limbo can leave limbo or leave the game. ALSO this >rule has provisions for KICKING A PLAYER out without eir permission in >section F. > >R327 defines player attributes as {score, Wins, Subers, property, Alias} > >R418 has provisions for dealing with property in case of players leaving >the game. > >It seems to me that two separate legal arguments could indepedently be used >to justify ruling the statement TRUE. Perhaps there are others, but I'll >leave those to be found by the Judge. > >1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an >attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the >RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by >R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of >attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. > >2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not >prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate >players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. > >Judge: Gabe Drummond-Cole(1) > Rule 310 says: Players' attributes may not be altered except in accordance with the rules. This rule takes precedence over all other rules dealing with attributes, or the permissibility of actions. Rule 327 says: The set of Player Attributes is defined as {score, Wins, Subers, property, Alias}. This court does not know the definition of the action 'kicking out'. R116 allows any player to 'kick out' another player, provided that this 'kicking out' does not alter any Player attributes. Any Player may frob, tweak, remove, campuchet, guillotine, choke, swear at, or bamboozle any other Player, provided that these verbs denote no game effects. Since, in the opinion of this court, 'kicking out' means that the Player kicked out ceases to be a Player, the act of kicking out would alter Players' attributes, which is regulated. This means that R116 does not allow a Player to kick out another Player, and as there is no reference to kicking out in the rules, this means that kicking out is not a possible game action, given the current rules of Berserker. This court chooses not to address Mueller's second argument. -Gabe 1 ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:39:41 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Nomic 6: This Time It's Personal >> >>And that is a result I am loathe to consider, because I would >>rather not Dan Waldron end up with a win out of all of this. >> > >I see we still have place for personal vendetta in this game. >Poulenc. Of course we do; if we lose the opportunity for personal vendetta, what do we have left? Seriously, I doubt that anyone is taking Nomic really personally, but as long as one player's actions can (or even seem to) hose another player, then some players aren't going to be likely to act charitably towards some others. I don't know as we've yet seen a real vendetta; I think that would require actively focusing one's efforts on working against another player at every opportunity. Hopefully we'll never have to see that. Matt Kuhns /// mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns "I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." -Ashleigh Brilliant ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:35:01 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: A batch of RFJs At 07:30 PM 6/21/99 -0700, you wrote: >>Statement: It is not possible for one player or eir controlling human to >>kick a player controlled by another human out of Berseker. >> >>Complainant: Tom Mueller >> >>Complainant's Reasoning: I think that the key rule is R116. It says >>"Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and >>unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is >>permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits >>it." >> >>To rule this TRUE which I request that the judge assigned to it do, one >>must establish that the elimination of players is regulated or that this >>mechanism is prohibited. >> >>Clearly this mechanism is out of the blue and has not been prohibited. >> >>So, is the eliminintion of players regulated? >> >>R002 defines players. >> >>R113 mentions forfeit (as opposed to continuation of play) as possible to >>players based on eir own decision. >> >>R309 creates a process for adding players. >> >>R310 says in total "Players' attributes may not be altered except in >>accordance with the rules. This rule takes precedence over all other rules >>dealing with attributes, or the permissibility of actions." >> >>R319 says players in Limbo can leave limbo or leave the game. ALSO this >>rule has provisions for KICKING A PLAYER out without eir permission in >>section F. >> >>R327 defines player attributes as {score, Wins, Subers, property, Alias} >> >>R418 has provisions for dealing with property in case of players leaving >>the game. >> >>It seems to me that two separate legal arguments could indepedently be used >>to justify ruling the statement TRUE. Perhaps there are others, but I'll >>leave those to be found by the Judge. >> >>1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an >>attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the >>RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by >>R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of >>attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. >> >>2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not >>prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate >>players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. >> >>Judge: Gabe Drummond-Cole(1) >> > >Rule 310 says: > >Players' attributes may not be altered except in accordance with the rules. >This rule takes precedence over all other rules dealing with attributes, or >the permissibility of actions. > >Rule 327 says: > >The set of Player Attributes is defined as {score, Wins, Subers, property, >Alias}. > >This court does not know the definition of the action 'kicking out'. R116 >allows any player to 'kick out' another player, provided that this 'kicking >out' does not alter any Player attributes. Any Player may frob, tweak, >remove, campuchet, guillotine, choke, swear at, or bamboozle any other >Player, provided that these verbs denote no game effects. > >Since, in the opinion of this court, 'kicking out' means that the Player >kicked out ceases to be a Player, the act of kicking out would alter >Players' attributes, which is regulated. This means that R116 does not >allow a Player to kick out another Player, and as there is no reference to >kicking out in the rules, this means that kicking out is not a possible >game action, given the current rules of Berserker. > >This court chooses not to address Mueller's second argument. > >-Gabe 1 > That was a TRUE, by the way. -Gabe 1 ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:24:06 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens At 09:25 PM 6/21/99 , you wrote: > >> >>And that is a result I am loathe to consider, because I would >>rather not Dan Waldron end up with a win out of all of this. >> > >I see we still have place for personal vendetta in this game. >Poulenc. > I think it reflects a desire to avoid giving you a win when you didn't do anything for it, i.e., because it just happened to be your turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:48:32 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Summary For Confused Nonparticipants This is an attempt to straighten out the debate and make clear what happened. Saturday Night Tom Plagge, Josh Kortbein and myself used the Spare Tire Rule, some mildly clever Creeds, and the Tire to grant ourselves three person control over the ruleset (leaving the standard system in place in parrallel). As near as I can figure this is clean and clear and happened with no objections. Then we repealed the Spare Tire rule, also without objection. In response Joel claimed that R116 gave him the power to REMOVE any player he wanted from the game, as only mechanisms such as forfeiting and the like were regulated. And he removed everyone but himself from the game. Then he assigned himself an RFJ confirming his action (on the assumption that he was in fact the only player left) and ruled it true. This was VERY contested. Depending on which side is right the following things happened: In The ~Joel's Universe In Joel's Universe The Triumvirate passed a I made up several words which proposal which stripped the were unregulated and I took RFJ and prop functions of to mean entering the game and Admin from Joel and assigned doing what Joel did to us. the RFJ stuff to me, I then Then I made myself did judging assignments as I Administrator, RFJed the action thoght R220 mandated. as true and killed R116 so that this crap couldn't The three RFJs were Joel's happen again. "mistakenly" assigned first RFJ, my counter RFJ, and Ole's This was meant mostly to show clarification of the meaning how absurd Joel's universe was, of "iff". but for some reason the demonstration was not These have not been judged yet. succesful. Nonetheless, the actions themselves were not contested. Now let me run down what i believe are the main arguments against Joels actions (indicating that we are in the ~Joel Universe) and Joel's counter arguments (which claim we are in the column on the right). The two main issues are (1) whether or not Joel's actions were proper... did he acutally follow the rules in all this, and (2) even if they wern't, can we do anything about it seeing as how he claims our participation in the judicial system is now impossible. ================================================ ON THE FIRST ISSUE :: WERE JOEL'S ACTIONS PROPER Josh has one main argument: Rule 4 says "A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a Player." Which Josh parses as "(A Player forfeits) is equivalent to (he ceases to fit the definition of a Player.)" Assuming that the (REMOVE = forfeit) is true, that would mean that the situation is entirely regulated and Joel's actions were improper. I don't remeber Joel saying anthing coherent regarding the logical statements, mostly he has continued to say "Removal is different from forfeiture." If this standard for the functioning of R116 stands (that it is only word for word matches that count for regulation) then Joel has also failed to explain why my actions FAILED where his SUCCEEDED. Unless he makes this distinction, then his counterscam was useless as his own mechanism was then used against him only better because it elminated the loophole. ------- Here are my arguments and Joel's counter arguments: 1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. JOEL> R418 uses forfeit not removal so is irrelevant. 2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. JOEL> "R319 regulates ONE way players may forfeit against their JOEL> will. In no way does it imply that it is the sole way for JOEL> players to cease being so." This second seems to admit that the situation is regulated. I don't see R116 making any distinctions regarding how many TIMES regulation occurs, so I'm not even sure how this was supposed to counter my argument.... ============================================ ISSUE TWO :: CAN JOEL BE FOUGH EVEN STIPULATING THAT HE IS WRONG I've seen two postions on this: (1) No, the game is broken in much the same way it broke with Jenson, and (2) yes, the rule (R220) which we made after Jenson works fine and lets us keep playing. Many have gone for that first. I didn't see much in the way of rules analysis in any of their statements though. If someone would like to take up this argument and actaully tie it to the rules feel free. As for the second I just keep pointing out that R220 says: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the Judicial rules. Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by the the Statute of Limitations." Joel's actions would alter the functioning and interpretation of the Judicial rules. Therefore it is Tentative and not considered binding until it has gone through all levels of the court. In other words, the Status Quo ~Joel Universe holds sway until _within the status quo_ Joel's Universe is validated BECAUSE Joel's scam messes with the judicial system. This is in stark contrast to the Triumvirate Scam which left the legal system INTACT. In response the the R220 argument Joel argues 1. that his judgement is NOT tentative because it was unappealable in the Joel Universe, and 2. he did not alter "the interpretation of the judical rules themselves". To the first I simply point out that he is being circular AGAIN. On the second I propose a test that seems to capture the essence of R220: If upon the acceptance of an RFJ the same "genotypic" Judicial Rules produce a significantly different "phenotype" Judicial System, then reinterpretation has occured. ======================================= CONCLUSION Either we have the Joel game or the ~Joel game. If it is the ~Joel game then R220 is operating as I claim it operates and the issue will be resolved by the Judicial system's normal functions (with the possible result that Joel wins anyway.) If it is the Joel game then I am the Administrator and the only player in the game AND R116 has been repealed. In Joel's Universe In ~Joel's Universe Tom Mueller, Tom Mueller, Administrator, Only Player Emperor, CotC ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:46:43 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens >At 09:25 PM 6/21/99 , you wrote: >> >>> >>>And that is a result I am loathe to consider, because I would >>>rather not Dan Waldron end up with a win out of all of this. >>> >> >>I see we still have place for personal vendetta in this game. >>Poulenc. >> > >I think it reflects a desire to avoid giving you a win when you didn't do >anything for it, i.e., because it just happened to be your turn. > Hah and you though I wasn't secretly in charge of all this confusion... ... errr it's not my fault, really. oh well. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:51:46 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: If you can't beat them.... In Joel's Universe: I informally propose that everyone who was in the game three days ago be added to the game with as many players as they had. (These are separate proposals for each player specified in batch in case anyone cares to quibble.) I request a vote on each of these and vote Yes. Now everybody's back to being players. I make an Imperial Proposal: -------------------------------- Transmute, amend and otherwise manipulate the rules such that the state of the game and ruleset is what it would have been in presuming Joel's attempt to remove everyone had failed with the single exception that the sentence "No one may be removed, eliminated, or otherwise eliminated from the game without eir express permission." is appended as a new paragraph in Rule 005. -------------------------------- ======================================================== In ~Joel's universe I make the following proposal: -------------------------------- Transmute Rule 005 to mutable. Append the sentence "No one may be removed, eliminated, or otherwise eliminated from the game without eir express permission." is appended as a new paragraph in Rule 005. Transmute Rule 005 to immutable. -------------------------------- I vote yes on all the imperial proposals in both Universes and note they will be identical once my co-emperors (here all along and newly rejoined in the respective universes) vote for them. We can continue as before. Tom Mueller, Emperor, CotC ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:01:38 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposed changes The following are the changes I have drafted as previously mentioned. I think they fix the problems with forfeiture and the Player definition. Please comment, as it would be unfortunate not to fix the problem or to do it in an unintentionally half-assed way. ---------------- R2 A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, human being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames. ---------------- R4 A Player forfeits iff e ceases to fit the definition of a Player. Players may leave the game only through forfeiture. ---------------- R319 (alterations to sections A and F only) A. There exists a state called Limbo. When a player is in Limbo, e is neither able nor required to perform any Berserker Nomic-related actions except the following: a. Publicly declaring emself out of Limbo or b. forfeiting. F. Any Player having set an expected time in Limbo and exceeding it by more than half again said expected time, or not having set an expected time in Limbo and having remained in Limbo for more than five turns, is considered to have withdrawn eir consent to be a Player. ----------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:19:22 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Mueller and Divergent Nomic Nice work Mueller. Very useful. The idea of parallel Nomics is actually kind of intriguing. When dealing with time travel fiction, the idea of splitting timelines always allows for a much more stable existence than ones where paradoxes can occur. Certainly an interesting theory; I'm not sure if it could be put into practical application in the game. I would transfer you a slack, but I think I'll hold off on that until I'm sure which universe in which to do so. Matt Kuhns <<>> mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns Nobody ever says "I wanna be a graphic designer when I grow up." ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:25:14 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: proposed changes >The following are the changes I have drafted as previously mentioned. I >think they fix the problems with forfeiture and the Player definition. >Please comment, as it would be unfortunate not to fix the problem or to do >it in an unintentionally half-assed way. This looks good mostly... F. Any Player having set an expected time in Limbo and exceeding it by more >than half again said expected time, or not having set an expected time in >Limbo and having remained in Limbo for more than five turns, is considered >to have withdrawn eir consent to be a Player. Is there a reason why this doesn't say "is considered to have forfeited?" Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:18:07 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Summary For Confused Nonparticipants At 10:48 PM 6/21/99 , Mueller wrote: > >================================================ >ON THE FIRST ISSUE :: WERE JOEL'S ACTIONS PROPER > >Josh has one main argument: > >Rule 4 says "A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a >Player." > >Which Josh parses as "(A Player forfeits) is equivalent to (he ceases to >fit the definition of a Player.)" > >Assuming that the (REMOVE = forfeit) is true, that would mean that the >situation is entirely regulated and Joel's actions were improper. But this cannot be assumed, as it is part of the matter at stake. To do so would be question begging. >I don't remeber Joel saying anthing coherent regarding the logical >statements, mostly he has continued to say "Removal is different from >forfeiture." > >If this standard for the functioning of R116 stands (that it is only word >for word matches that count for regulation) then Joel has also failed to >explain why my actions FAILED where his SUCCEEDED. Unless he makes this >distinction, then his counterscam was useless as his own mechanism was then >used against him only better because it elminated the loophole. Overbreadth. R116 has some boundary, just not a well-defined one. > >Here are my arguments and Joel's counter arguments: > >1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an >attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the >RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by >R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of >attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. When did I modify any attributes? Because my actions could have indirectly caused a modification in attributes does not neccessarily mean that they were illegal. >JOEL> R418 uses forfeit not removal so is irrelevant. > >2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not >prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate >players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. > >JOEL> "R319 regulates ONE way players may forfeit against their >JOEL> will. In no way does it imply that it is the sole way for >JOEL> players to cease being so." > >This second seems to admit that the situation is regulated. I don't see >R116 making any distinctions regarding how many TIMES regulation occurs, so >I'm not even sure how this was supposed to counter my argument.... How many different types of regulation is unimportant; rather, the breadth of things regulated is what I here rely on. I admit that some exits are regulated, but not all. >============================================ > >ISSUE TWO :: CAN JOEL BE FOUGH EVEN STIPULATING THAT HE IS WRONG > >I've seen two postions on this: (1) No, the game is broken in much the same >way it broke with Jenson, and (2) yes, the rule (R220) which we made after >Jenson works fine and lets us keep playing. > >Many have gone for that first. I didn't see much in the way of rules >analysis in any of their statements though. If someone would like to take >up this argument and actaully tie it to the rules feel free. > >As for the second I just keep pointing out that R220 says: > >"Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation >provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment >in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other >situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its >response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative >interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the >final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation >of the Judicial rules. > >Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made >possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by >the the Statute of Limitations." > >Joel's actions would alter the functioning and interpretation of the >Judicial rules. HOW????? My judgement does not alter the workings of the judical system!!!!!! My actions caused no deviation from the judicial rules in any way. You seem to find this point important. PLEASE substantiate it! >Therefore it is Tentative and not considered binding until it has gone >through all levels of the court. Which it has. There are no more levels of court. >In other words, the Status Quo ~Joel Universe holds sway until _within the >status quo_ Joel's Universe is validated BECAUSE Joel's scam messes with >the judicial system. Again, see above. >This is in stark contrast to the Triumvirate Scam which left the legal >system INTACT. > >In response the the R220 argument Joel argues > >1. that his judgement is NOT tentative because it was unappealable in the >Joel Universe, and > >2. he did not alter "the interpretation of the judical rules themselves". > >To the first I simply point out that he is being circular AGAIN. Does a judgment make the statement true, or merely determine whether it is true? If it is the latter, then there is nothing circular here. If it is the former, then aren't all judgments circular? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:45:13 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens >Personally I'm glad to see this. Something is happening other than the >usual disagreement over semantics followed by days of whining and judicial >wheel-spinning. It is encouraging to see that the ideals Subcommandante >Marcos fought for have not vanished completely. Vive la revolucion. >As for Jo-El and his shocking abuse of authority, WAY TO GO JOEL. I >honestly didn't believe he would ever do something like that. I certainly >didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! *chord* >As interesting as the coup might have been, at this point I favor simply >accepting the counter-revolution and going on. Let's face it, this game >doesn't exist without Joel. Plus, if we have to try to sort out which state >of the game is "real" it will get back into a discussion of black boxes, >and I'd really rather avoid that. Ach, the applied metaphysics is the best part of Nomic. Still, it's nice to have your pragmatic ass back around, I guess. heh ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:56:47 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) At 06:39 PM 6/21/99 , you wrote: >Gevork wrote: > > >: > >: >"The word 'iff' is a commonly-accepted shorthand for 'if and only if'." >: > >: >I want this Statement Judged, if and when such an opportunity arises. >: >: Not sure what purpose this serves. Check the message logs; we've talked >: about this before. Why does it matter anyway? > >The message logs are quite huge. If 'iff' is worth something, I would like >to see it more prominently placed, like in a Judgement. We checked...it's in Webster's. >: >I can't believe what I did! It was an outrage! There outta be a law! >Since >: >there isn't one, I should be punished by The Mob. >: > >: >Did I leave anybody out? >: >: Well, I was going to say _you_, but you took care of that for me. :) >: > >Can I be Inciter and X at the same time? Hopefully, when the game eventually reboots, all of these stake-burnings will be erased. But I join the one against Ole for good measure. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:51:34 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposed changes At 11:25 PM 6/21/99 , Kuhns wrote: >>The following are the changes I have drafted as previously mentioned. I >>think they fix the problems with forfeiture and the Player definition. >>Please comment, as it would be unfortunate not to fix the problem or to do >>it in an unintentionally half-assed way. > >This looks good mostly... > >F. Any Player having set an expected time in Limbo and exceeding it by more >>than half again said expected time, or not having set an expected time in >>Limbo and having remained in Limbo for more than five turns, is considered >>to have withdrawn eir consent to be a Player. > >Is there a reason why this doesn't say "is considered to have forfeited?" Forfeit is defined as "ceasing to meet the definition of a player," of which one of the elements is consent. It seemed weird to say that forfeiture caused the failure to meet the defintion of a player; rather, the causal link should be the other way around. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:48:30 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: further analysis It may be the case that whether my player removal was legal is irrelevant, but that by attempting it and calling for the judgement I caused a situiation in which "the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality" (as per R213/0). Why? 1. The removal of players, if successful, indirectly altered the judicial pool so that I was the only eligible judge. The results of this were that I ruled my actions were legal. 2. The removal of players, if not successful, had no effect on the judicial pool, leaving at least six eligible judges. The likely results of this would have been that my actions were illegal. 3. The Administrator is charged with determining who is in the judicial pool and selecting judges as needed from that pool. To do so, e must be able to accurately determine who is in the pool. 4. If I was the only remaining player, RFJ 96 should have been TRUE. Otherwise, RFJ 96 should have been false. 5. The Administrator cannot know the outcome of an RFJ before a decision is delivered by the Court. 6. If RFJ 96 was TRUE, the Administrator should have selected me as judge. If RFJ 96 was FALSE, one of six other individuals should have been judge. 7. Judge selection for RFJ 96 required the Adminstrator to know its outcome beforehand. 8. Because such a thing is impossible, no judge can be legally selected and the move's legality cannot be determined with finality. 9. Therefore, Dan Waldron wins due to R213. (Might the above be considered a "strange loop" al a Go:del?) If any of these statements are disputable, please point them out. The paucity of rules references above should not indicate that it is not a rules-based argument; rather, few rules operate herein. Josh and I discussed this earlier today, and I am now convinced that, regardless of the legality of my move, the above is a correct account of what happened. As a simplification: RFJ: Who is in the pool? To select judges, we must already know the answer. But the only way we can learn the answer is to select judges. It's a catch-22, and neither sanity nor insanity will get us out of the air force. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:02:12 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: proposed changes These changes seem reasonable, although I'd like to see some comment text in R2 giving it the title it the Gabe^3 Rule. At 11:01 PM 6/21/99 , you wrote: >The following are the changes I have drafted as previously mentioned. I >think they fix the problems with forfeiture and the Player definition. >Please comment, as it would be unfortunate not to fix the problem or to do >it in an unintentionally half-assed way. > >---------------- >R2 > >A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, >human being who consents to said representation and is not already >represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified by >eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames. > >---------------- > >R4 > >A Player forfeits iff e ceases to fit the definition of a Player. Players >may leave the game only through forfeiture. > >---------------- > >R319 (alterations to sections A and F only) > >A. There exists a state called Limbo. When a player is in Limbo, e is >neither able nor required to perform any Berserker Nomic-related actions >except the following: a. Publicly declaring emself out of Limbo or b. >forfeiting. > >F. Any Player having set an expected time in Limbo and exceeding it by more >than half again said expected time, or not having set an expected time in >Limbo and having remained in Limbo for more than five turns, is considered >to have withdrawn eir consent to be a Player. > >----------------- > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:15:06 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: a proposal for compromise >1. Acceptance of my move: the legality of my actions of 20 June will be >recognized. There is no doubt in my mind that Joel's actions are illegal; however, because of the general fucked-upedness of the judicial rules, it appears that we have no way to appeal these actions. Thus it seems to me that the compromise plan in something like the form in which Joel presented it is probably our best alternative. As much as I'd like to accept Mueller's anti-nomic, I can't quite buy into the rationale. >2. Gabe-ectomy: two of the three Gabes will be removed. We, as the emperors, were going to do this. However, it does somehow feel like an artificial solution. And since we should probably get unanimous consent before we go ahead with this, I think we should reconsider this clause. >3. Triumvirate breakup: the three Emperors will be stripped of their >powers, but retain the honorary titles and be awarded one win each. Oh I supPOSE. Really, though, we should then acknowledge past emperors Nate, Mike, and Andy, and perhaps also Joel. Since the idea was to reward those with enough cleverness to render the game unplayable, it seems only fair to do so. >4. Readmittance: either I will forfeit in the fourth game and start the >fifth game with all of our players as initial players with the same scores, >etc. as before, or I will propose that all former players be added back >into the fourth game. I would rather have you forfeit. No offense intended to Dan, but the turn-based win system is something I have always disliked, and it seems that we should be awarding credit where credit is due. >5. Rule changes: the forfeiture rules will be fixed so as to be exclusive, >and either the Spare Tire rule will be altered or I will hold the Spare >Tire as Administrator until such time as the rule is altered. We already killed the Spare Tire rule, so you don't have to worry about it. >Any such points in the above are, of course, negotiable, as I want just as >much as anyone to set things to rights. Hopefully, this will be received as >the olive branch that it is -- it will be difficult to move on from this >unless we reach some consensus. Incidentally, as we do move on, I have a few ideas I would like to implement, and I know others do as well. Many of them would be of much more interest were we able to recruit a few more players... ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:20:28 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Summary For Confused Nonparticipants Joel wrote: >At 10:48 PM 6/21/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>================================================ >>ON THE FIRST ISSUE :: WERE JOEL'S ACTIONS PROPER >> >>Josh has one main argument: >> >>Rule 4 says "A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a >>Player." >> >>Which Josh parses as "(A Player forfeits) is equivalent to (he ceases to >>fit the definition of a Player.)" >> >>Assuming that the (REMOVE = forfeit) is true, that would mean that the >>situation is entirely regulated and Joel's actions were improper. > >But this cannot be assumed, as it is part of the matter at stake. To do so >would be question begging. > >>I don't remeber Joel saying anthing coherent regarding the logical >>statements, mostly he has continued to say "Removal is different from >>forfeiture." >> >>If this standard for the functioning of R116 stands (that it is only word >>for word matches that count for regulation) then Joel has also failed to >>explain why my actions FAILED where his SUCCEEDED. Unless he makes this >>distinction, then his counterscam was useless as his own mechanism was then >>used against him only better because it elminated the loophole. > >Overbreadth. R116 has some boundary, just not a well-defined one. OK then: what is it? Please give me a standard by which to measure attempts and separate the scams from the legitimately unregulated. A successful standard will clearly justify your move, invalidate my response, invalidate Poulenc's attempt at winning earlier and be consistent with custom etc. >>Here are my arguments and Joel's counter arguments: >> >>1. Attributes are protected from tampering by R310. Property is an >>attribute according to R327. Joel's action (or any like it covered by the >>RFJ's statement) would cause a player's property to go to the Treasury by >>R418. Therefore, such actions as Joel's would consitute a modification of >>attributes and be a violation of 310 and, thus, be impossible. > >When did I modify any attributes? Because my actions could have indirectly >caused a modification in attributes does not neccessarily mean that they >were illegal. > >>JOEL> R418 uses forfeit not removal so is irrelevant. >> >>2. R116 would only let actions like Joel's happen if they are not >>prohibited and occur in an unregulated area. R113 and R319 regulate >>players leaving the game of eir own volition and without it. Open and shut. >> >>JOEL> "R319 regulates ONE way players may forfeit against their >>JOEL> will. In no way does it imply that it is the sole way for >>JOEL> players to cease being so." >> >>This second seems to admit that the situation is regulated. I don't see >>R116 making any distinctions regarding how many TIMES regulation occurs, so >>I'm not even sure how this was supposed to counter my argument.... > >How many different types of regulation is unimportant; rather, the breadth >of things regulated is what I here rely on. I admit that some exits are >regulated, but not all. > >>============================================ >> >>ISSUE TWO :: CAN JOEL BE FOUGH EVEN STIPULATING THAT HE IS WRONG >> >>I've seen two postions on this: (1) No, the game is broken in much the same >>way it broke with Jenson, and (2) yes, the rule (R220) which we made after >>Jenson works fine and lets us keep playing. >> >>Many have gone for that first. I didn't see much in the way of rules >>analysis in any of their statements though. If someone would like to take >>up this argument and actaully tie it to the rules feel free. >> >>As for the second I just keep pointing out that R220 says: >> >>"Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation >>provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment >>in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other >>situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its >>response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative >>interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the >>final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation >>of the Judicial rules. >> >>Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made >>possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by >>the the Statute of Limitations." >> >>Joel's actions would alter the functioning and interpretation of the >>Judicial rules. > >HOW????? My judgement does not alter the workings of the judical >system!!!!!! My actions caused no deviation from the judicial rules in any >way. You seem to find this point important. PLEASE substantiate it! > >>Therefore it is Tentative and not considered binding until it has gone >>through all levels of the court. > >Which it has. There are no more levels of court. > >>In other words, the Status Quo ~Joel Universe holds sway until _within the >>status quo_ Joel's Universe is validated BECAUSE Joel's scam messes with >>the judicial system. > >Again, see above. > >>This is in stark contrast to the Triumvirate Scam which left the legal >>system INTACT. >> >>In response the the R220 argument Joel argues >> >>1. that his judgement is NOT tentative because it was unappealable in the >>Joel Universe, and >> >>2. he did not alter "the interpretation of the judical rules themselves". >> >>To the first I simply point out that he is being circular AGAIN. > >Does a judgment make the statement true, or merely determine whether it is >true? If it is the latter, then there is nothing circular here. If it is >the former, then aren't all judgments circular? Joel, thank you for SNIPPING my pre-emptive response to most of your comments. If Joel had left in the next bit of text this is what would have been there: >2. he did not alter "the interpretation of the judical rules >themselves". > >To the first I simply point out that he is being circular AGAIN. > >On the second I propose a test that seems to capture the >essence of R220: If upon the acceptance of an RFJ the same >"genotypic" Judicial Rules produce a significantly different >"phenotype" Judicial System, then reinterpretation has occured. Neither the text of the judicial rules nor had any part of the game state but the specific act in question had changed, the but the judiciary had, indicating that a reinterpretation had occured. If R220 works as designed (to prevent moves like Jenson's and Uckelman's from breaking the game) then we have a way to test the legality and the game is not over.... it means we are in the ~Joel Universe. Also, I request that Plagge and Kortbein vote Yes on the two props just so things are straight and clean. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:02:13 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis In the ~Joel thread, I submit the following RFJ: Joel Uckelman forfeited the game within the last week. Reasoning: Rule 101 says: All Players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. This rule takes precedence over all other rules. Rule 2 says: A Player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. A Player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human fore- and surnames. As both are immutable, Rule 101, which claims precedence, has precedence. Thus, to be a Player, not only must the human fit the definitions outlined in Rule 2, but also must follow the rules. To not follow the rules is to cease being a player. This causes forfeiture as per rule 4. At some point in Joel's course of actions (removing all players, assigning the RFJ to himself, misjudging it, etc...) he broke the rules, ceased being a player, and thus forfeited. Note that although this is submitted in the ~Joel thread, it can still be ruled false, in which case, unless appealed, it validates the Joel thread. separate note to COTC Mueller: you must pay attention to the threadsplit this causes when assigning this RFJ. -Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:28:49 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: a proposal for compromise Roger Carbol writes: >Joel Uckelman wrote: > >> In light of the fruitlessness of recent discussion, I would like to offer >> a compromise plan that will hopefully be found acceptable by all parties >> involved. > >If this compromise is not accepted, how about: > >1) All non-Emporers forfeit. >2) New game starts after it's "fixed." It's meaningless anyway, as the game ended when Joel broke it. -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:29:40 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: a proposal for compromise "Ole Andersen" writes: >Gabe wrote: >: >: Um... Joel... generally a "compromise" means that both sides give a >little. >: This seems to be more of a "surrender" on the part of the emperors and >: myself. >: > >The emperors gain a win each. I would probably have offered them a win to >share, or somesuch. It's not unreasonable that a group of people would win all at once. That's how my, Tom, and Ed's wins over Christmas were. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:28:14 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens Dan Waldron writes: > >> >>And that is a result I am loathe to consider, because I would >>rather not Dan Waldron end up with a win out of all of this. >> > >I see we still have place for personal vendetta in this game. It's against my finely honed moral precepts to let you benefit from other people's hard work. But anyway I'm never closed to personal vendetta. I note that I have not yet had any, however. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:27:05 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: I go away for 2 days and look what happens Joel Uckelman writes: >At 09:25 PM 6/21/99 , you wrote: >> >>> >>>And that is a result I am loathe to consider, because I would >>>rather not Dan Waldron end up with a win out of all of this. >>> >> >>I see we still have place for personal vendetta in this game. >>Poulenc. >> > >I think it reflects a desire to avoid giving you a win when you didn't do >anything for it, i.e., because it just happened to be your turn. Damn straight. -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:26:12 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: If you can't beat them.... Mueller writes: >I vote yes on all the imperial proposals in both Universes and note they >will be identical once my co-emperors (here all along and newly rejoined in >the respective universes) vote for them. > >We can continue as before. I'm afraid I must break with Mr. Mueller in refusing to continue on making and voting for imperial proposals; there is no longer any reason to. The only thing we lose in the agreement Joel set out is the ability to fuck around a little, and I think it's clear that Joel broke the game. If we simply agree on his (unassuming) plan then we can start playing again. Josh -- Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:23:51 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: proposed changes Joel Uckelman writes: >The following are the changes I have drafted as previously mentioned. I >think they fix the problems with forfeiture and the Player definition. >Please comment, as it would be unfortunate not to fix the problem or to do >it in an unintentionally half-assed way. > >---------------- >R2 > >A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, >human being who consents to said representation and is not already >represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified by >eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames. I agree with Tom re the Gabe^3 rule. The rest of the changes seem OK. 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: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:22:56 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: proposed changes Matthew J Kuhns writes: >>The following are the changes I have drafted as previously mentioned. I >>think they fix the problems with forfeiture and the Player definition. >>Please comment, as it would be unfortunate not to fix the problem or to do >>it in an unintentionally half-assed way. > >This looks good mostly... > >F. Any Player having set an expected time in Limbo and exceeding it by more >>than half again said expected time, or not having set an expected time in >>Limbo and having remained in Limbo for more than five turns, is considered >>to have withdrawn eir consent to be a Player. > >Is there a reason why this doesn't say "is considered to have forfeited?" Sounded funny. They're still equivalent according to the rule but for planned improvements in the game's causality system, it would have made for a stinker. Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:22:15 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: Summary For Confused Nonparticipants Joel Uckelman writes: >At 10:48 PM 6/21/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>================================================ >>ON THE FIRST ISSUE :: WERE JOEL'S ACTIONS PROPER >> >>Josh has one main argument: >> >>Rule 4 says "A Player forfeits iff he ceases to fit the definition of a >>Player." >> >>Which Josh parses as "(A Player forfeits) is equivalent to (he ceases to >>fit the definition of a Player.)" >> >>Assuming that the (REMOVE = forfeit) is true, that would mean that the >>situation is entirely regulated and Joel's actions were improper. > >But this cannot be assumed, as it is part of the matter at stake. To do so >would be question begging. To be clear here: I agree with Joel's subsequent message on the inability to decide, via the courts, whether his action was illegal. I do though think it's clear that his action was illegal, to us - we just can't use the court system to judge it. Now, I hope we can drop all arguing about this part of the scamming, because Joel has presented the reality of the situation quite clearly (as I presented it to him, in person, earlier today). Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:30:46 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: A batch of RFJs Mueller writes: >RFJ 98 > >Statement: The word 'iff' is a commonly-accepted shorthand for 'if and only >if' > >Complainant: Ole Anderson > >Complainant's Reasoning: None. > >Judge: Josh Kortbein I'm not going to make a judgment on this because I believe this entire ad-hoc court system is now unnecessary. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:31:57 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: a proposal for compromise Joel Uckelman writes: >If the Emperors didn't give up their powers, wouldn't that mean that I get >nothing out of the deal, since that was the impetus for my scam? Besides, >they each receive wins and keep the titles, while don't get any wins in the >deal, even though I certainly could have if my scam has in fact worked. Without a proper RFJ you would have had to wait at LEAST a turn in order to make enough proposals to earn the points. :) Josh -- In _Gravity's Rainbow_ Thomas Pynchon wrote that paper is used in three ways-- for "shit, money, and The Word." I tend to look at guitars in the same way. - Brent Dicrescenzo ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 02:59:53 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Side Note Oh, Joel, as a matter of curiosity: Who is in the Voting Pool anyway? Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 02:59:10 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis At 11:48 PM 6/21/99 -0500, you wrote: >It may be the case that whether my player removal was legal is irrelevant, >but that by attempting it and calling for the judgement I caused a >situiation in which "the legality of a move cannot be determined with >finality" (as per R213/0). > >Why? > >1. The removal of players, if successful, indirectly altered the judicial >pool so that I was the only eligible judge. The results of this were that I >ruled my actions were legal. This is where I break with my fellow Emperors and Joel. Either the initial court for this rules TRUE in which case it is does not yet take effect and everybody could have been on the court at that time, OR it is ruled FALSE and the same thing is true. This is because of the first paragraph of R220. Joel could not have been assigned the RFJ. It should have been assigned to legitimate members of the judging pool. IF, after this had been appealed as far as possible, Joel's actions were vindicated... THEN the part of R220 that says "Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by the the Statute of Limitations." the court actions would be undone and Joel's scam would be officially successful. The only response I've been given is that R220 does not apply because Joel did not reinterpret the judicial rules. I explained that I believed he had... The standard I proposed was that IF the Judicial rules themselves stay the same AND the thing being questioned by an RFJ would give a different Judiciary depending on its truth, THEN a reinterpretation was caused by the RFJ. I've seen no argument against this. I do not see a rule which can tell us exactly what is meant by "interpretation" so I will, reluctantly leave the rules behind and argue for the elegance of this application of the rules: 1. It seems to fit the intent of R220 which was instituted to prevent RFJ monkeying like this from occuring... Did we fiddle with the judicial rules last time around for NOTHING? 2. It keeps the nomic going. I CRINGE each time I see "Administrative Review" in the rule histories. It represents a failure on our part to find a rule based way out. But worse is the hypocrisy of "continuing" the nomic but adding stuff by fiat in the middle. 3. It is pragmatically acceptable. We preserve the gamestate as much as possible if Plagge and Kortbein ratify the Imperial Proposals and we step down. The "split" is rectified, there being no discernable difference between the two states and the game has finally WEATHERED a crisis instead of GIVING UP over it. ---the rest of the mail snipped as irrelevant---- Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:56:57 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) Plagge wrote: : > : >The message logs are quite huge. If 'iff' is worth something, I would like : >to see it more prominently placed, like in a Judgement. : : We checked...it's in Webster's. : Not in the Webster's here on my shelf. Besides, shorthands are fine, but they are not necessary in the ruleset. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 02:19:27 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) "Ole Andersen" writes: >Plagge wrote: >: > >: >The message logs are quite huge. If 'iff' is worth something, I would >like >: >to see it more prominently placed, like in a Judgement. >: >: We checked...it's in Webster's. >: > >Not in the Webster's here on my shelf. Besides, shorthands are fine, but >they are not necessary in the ruleset. I think that "iff" moves beyond a shorthand. In common usage it's a term in its own right, really only a shorthand in name. People rarely write out "if and only if." Perhaps in introductory textbooks and such, and in ridigly formal writing. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 02:17:15 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis Mueller writes: >At 11:48 PM 6/21/99 -0500, you wrote: >>It may be the case that whether my player removal was legal is irrelevant, >>but that by attempting it and calling for the judgement I caused a >>situiation in which "the legality of a move cannot be determined with >>finality" (as per R213/0). >> >>Why? >> >>1. The removal of players, if successful, indirectly altered the judicial >>pool so that I was the only eligible judge. The results of this were that I >>ruled my actions were legal. > >This is where I break with my fellow Emperors and Joel. > >Either the initial court for this rules TRUE in which case it is does not >yet take effect and everybody could have been on the court at that time, OR >it is ruled FALSE and the same thing is true. > >This is because of the first paragraph of R220. > >Joel could not have been assigned the RFJ. It should have been assigned to >legitimate members of the judging pool. As Joel has stated (and which I back up), the question of how to choose the court for Joel's RFJ was undecidable - choosing either way would have been equally legal and illegal. >2. It keeps the nomic going. I CRINGE each time I see "Administrative >Review" in the rule histories. It represents a failure on our part to find >a rule based way out. But worse is the hypocrisy of "continuing" the nomic >but adding stuff by fiat in the middle. > >3. It is pragmatically acceptable. We preserve the gamestate as much as >possible if Plagge and Kortbein ratify the Imperial Proposals and we step >down. The "split" is rectified, there being no discernable difference >between the two states and the game has finally WEATHERED a crisis instead >of GIVING UP over it. The problem is, the nomic maintains the pretense of being a self-sufficient game. If a real body of law experienced problems, it could sort them out internally because real lawmakers are more apt to just fuck around with things when they need fucking around with. Our perverse desire to stay true to the rules often makes it totally impractical or impossible to get out of tangles while still staying true to the rules, though. In this case, restarting the game is the option prescribed by the rules because, as I have stated, Joel broke the game by making his RFJ. This is not giving up; it is by the rules. "Weathering" the crisis by ignoring what has happened and passing some imperial proposals will NOT be a way out via the rules, because it blindly ignores the problems of assigning the judgment. Your tack with arguing 220, whatever the argument is exactly, is completely off base. You haven't said anything about Joel's (careful) explanation of why the game is broken. Do you agree, and if not why not? Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:33:30 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis At 02:17 AM 6/22/99 CDT, you wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>At 11:48 PM 6/21/99 -0500, you wrote: >>>It may be the case that whether my player removal was legal is irrelevant, >>>but that by attempting it and calling for the judgement I caused a >>>situiation in which "the legality of a move cannot be determined with >>>finality" (as per R213/0). >>> >>>Why? >>> >>>1. The removal of players, if successful, indirectly altered the judicial >>>pool so that I was the only eligible judge. The results of this were that I >>>ruled my actions were legal. >> >>This is where I break with my fellow Emperors and Joel. >> >>Either the initial court for this rules TRUE in which case it is does not >>yet take effect and everybody could have been on the court at that time, OR >>it is ruled FALSE and the same thing is true. >> >>This is because of the first paragraph of R220. >> >>Joel could not have been assigned the RFJ. It should have been assigned to >>legitimate members of the judging pool. > >As Joel has stated (and which I back up), the question of how to choose >the court for Joel's RFJ was undecidable - choosing either way would >have been equally legal and illegal. > >>2. It keeps the nomic going. I CRINGE each time I see "Administrative >>Review" in the rule histories. It represents a failure on our part to find >>a rule based way out. But worse is the hypocrisy of "continuing" the nomic >>but adding stuff by fiat in the middle. >> >>3. It is pragmatically acceptable. We preserve the gamestate as much as >>possible if Plagge and Kortbein ratify the Imperial Proposals and we step >>down. The "split" is rectified, there being no discernable difference >>between the two states and the game has finally WEATHERED a crisis instead >>of GIVING UP over it. > >The problem is, the nomic maintains the pretense of being a self-sufficient >game. If a real body of law experienced problems, it could sort them >out internally because real lawmakers are more apt to just fuck around >with things when they need fucking around with. Our perverse desire >to stay true to the rules often makes it totally impractical or impossible >to get out of tangles while still staying true to the rules, though. > >In this case, restarting the game is the option prescribed by the rules >because, as I have stated, Joel broke the game by making his RFJ. This >is not giving up; it is by the rules. "Weathering" the crisis by ignoring >what has happened and passing some imperial proposals will NOT >be a way out via the rules, because it blindly ignores the problems >of assigning the judgment. > >Your tack with arguing 220, whatever the argument is exactly, is >completely off base. > >You haven't said anything about Joel's (careful) explanation of >why the game is broken. Do you agree, and if not why not? No. Because he was not in a catch-22 situation. Judicial Rules+SQ => produces => Judiciary If Judiciary+case => produces => different judiciary then the judgement on the case (would be a reinterpretation of the judicial rules and) WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN EFFECT until everything was resolved. (by R220) This means that if the level 1 court ruled true or false then it still had the effect of false until the SQ had finished with all its appeals and agreed to the changed Judiciary. (At that time the second paragraph of R220 kicks in and all this is undone... if you think that's how the courts would have gone... I take it that not even Joel thinks thats how it would have worked.) Therefore, all results of the level one court ended in Joel not yet being the only player and not having been able to judge things. There was no catch-22, there was no illegal/legal bind, and the game can continue. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 02:51:24 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis Mueller writes: >No. > >Because he was not in a catch-22 situation. > >Judicial Rules+SQ => produces => Judiciary > >If Judiciary+case => produces => different judiciary Are those supposed to be implications or just arrows into "produces"? >then the judgement on the case (would be a reinterpretation of the judicial >rules and) WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN EFFECT until everything was resolved. (by >R220) > >This means that if the level 1 court ruled true or false then it still had >the effect of false until the SQ had finished with all its appeals and >agreed to the changed Judiciary. > >(At that time the second paragraph of R220 kicks in and all this is >undone... if you think that's how the courts would have gone... I take it >that not even Joel thinks thats how it would have worked.) > >Therefore, all results of the level one court ended in Joel not yet being >the only player and not having been able to judge things. SQ? Status quo? You're going to have to go at this slowly if you want anyone to follow what you're saying. Your earlier arguments were muddled and irrelevant, and as such I need your patience if you want to show how this one is neither. How does Joel ruling true on his RFJ change the judicial rules? The rules are set up such that they WILL still work with only one player, in fact there is no change at all necessary because the rules are written up using a variable for the number of judges available. No reinterpretation takes place. If you think otherwise, what is that precise reinterpretation? Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:23:22 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis At 02:51 AM 6/22/99 CDT, you wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>No. >> >>Because he was not in a catch-22 situation. >> >>Judicial Rules+SQ => produces => Judiciary >> >>If Judiciary+case => produces => different judiciary > >Are those supposed to be implications or just arrows into >"produces"? Produces, here and below. >>then the judgement on the case (would be a reinterpretation of the judicial >>rules and) WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN EFFECT until everything was resolved. (by >>R220) >> >>This means that if the level 1 court ruled true or false then it still had >>the effect of false until the SQ had finished with all its appeals and >>agreed to the changed Judiciary. >> >>(At that time the second paragraph of R220 kicks in and all this is >>undone... if you think that's how the courts would have gone... I take it >>that not even Joel thinks thats how it would have worked.) >> >>Therefore, all results of the level one court ended in Joel not yet being >>the only player and not having been able to judge things. > >SQ? Status quo? > >You're going to have to go at this slowly if you want anyone >to follow what you're saying. Your earlier arguments were muddled and >irrelevant, and as such I need your patience if you want to show >how this one is neither. > >How does Joel ruling true on his RFJ change the judicial rules? >The rules are set up such that they WILL still work with only one >player, in fact there is no change at all necessary because the rules >are written up using a variable for the number of judges available. >No reinterpretation takes place. If you think otherwise, what >is that precise reinterpretation? Consider a game state GS and the text of the rules. These produce a given Judiciary J1. Now consider an arbitrary game action A. GS+A and the rules may produce the same judiciary (J1) or they may produce a new one (J2). If an RFJ is called on A, then we test: Does A being true cause J1 to remain? If YES then no worries. If NO then A produces J2 by being true... but we use J1 UNTIL we get some final answer. This final answer might cause us to realize that J2 is actually proper. In which case, we undo all the previous actions (as per R220 paragraph 2) and J2 becomes official. Now, this terminology make it seem very far from R220, but I think that this is ultimately how R220 should be interpreted.... If this is followed then Joel (or whoever tries this next time (and therNEVER judges his own scam (as he shouldn't, if our reforms from Jenson's scam were being applied). Instead he would distribute to the normal (read J1) people. They would then decide whether they actually SHOULD have recieved anything... Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:39:54 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: From Limbo to Chaos I'm officially out of Limbo, if I can 'officially' be anything. I'm not sure if that makes any difference to the game of Joel, ~Joel, or Imperial Beserker. Heck, I'm not even sure what games I am a Player in. I don't even know which games exist in my universe. I think you have all found a way to punish people who go into Limbo- Chaotic havoc that believes it is regulated accompanied by massive emails with 2 KB replies that included 2 sentences of new material. Mary -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application has reported a 'Not My Fault' in module KRNL.EXE in line 0200:103F http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:45:37 CDT From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Concerning Imperial Nomic By an odd coincidence, I happened to bring up our current nomic debacle at work (in the context of getting too much damned email) and an engineer I work with mentioned that he once played nomic. Specifically, Imperial Nomic. He stated that he found that nomic via emperorship was far more efficient than old-fashioned "piddle around and wait for votes" nomic, and encouraged us to give it a try. :) No, seriously. -tom ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:17:33 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: Concerning Imperial Nomic Tom Plagge writes: >By an odd coincidence, I happened to bring up our current nomic debacle at >work (in the context of getting too much damned email) and an engineer I work >with mentioned that he once played nomic. Specifically, Imperial Nomic. He >stated that he found that nomic via emperorship was far more efficient than >old-fashioned "piddle around and wait for votes" nomic, and encouraged us to >give it a try. :) No, seriously. -tom This isn't that much email. Past scams have generated LOTS more. Tell your engineer friend that he is just too cool. :) Josh -- In such an ugly time the real protest is beauty. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:19:17 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Side Note At 01:59 AM 6/22/99 , Mueller wrote: >Oh, Joel, as a matter of curiosity: > >Who is in the Voting Pool anyway? > >Mueller If by "voting pool", you mean the "set of eligible voters," that would (have been) everyone not in Limbo. I the Standings page is current as to who is currently active; if not, I plan to do a bunch of maintenance tonight, so it will be by the time I go to sleep. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:33:59 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis Mueller writes: >Consider a game state GS and the text of the rules. These produce a given >Judiciary J1. > >Now consider an arbitrary game action A. > >GS+A and the rules may produce the same judiciary (J1) or they may produce >a new one (J2). > >If an RFJ is called on A, then we test: > >Does A being true cause J1 to remain? > >If YES then no worries. >If NO then A produces J2 by being true... but we use J1 UNTIL we get some >final answer. > >This final answer might cause us to realize that J2 is actually proper. In >which case, we undo all the previous actions (as per R220 paragraph 2) and >J2 becomes official. > > >Now, this terminology make it seem very far from R220, but I think that >this is ultimately how R220 should be interpreted.... > >massive "Adminstrative Reviewing" here> > >If this is followed then Joel (or whoever tries this next time (and >therNEVER judges his own scam (as he shouldn't, if our reforms from >Jenson's scam were being applied). > >Instead he would distribute to the normal (read J1) people. They would >then decide whether they actually SHOULD have recieved anything... Now, please explain to me how Joel's judging his own statement true changed the judiciary. And what precisely do you mean by judiciary? As I see it his judgment changed nothing - the judiciary rules were still in place. I consider "the judiciary" to be the set of rules dealing with the court system. I don't think a drastic change in the number of players constitutes a change in the judiciary, because the rules are set up so as to not care HOW many players are available to be judges. Josh -- In _Gravity's Rainbow_ Thomas Pynchon wrote that paper is used in three ways-- for "shit, money, and The Word." I tend to look at guitars in the same way. - Brent Dicrescenzo ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:36:15 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis At 01:59 AM 6/22/99 , Mueller wrote: >At 11:48 PM 6/21/99 -0500, you wrote: >>It may be the case that whether my player removal was legal is irrelevant, >>but that by attempting it and calling for the judgement I caused a >>situiation in which "the legality of a move cannot be determined with >>finality" (as per R213/0). >> >>Why? >> >>1. The removal of players, if successful, indirectly altered the judicial >>pool so that I was the only eligible judge. The results of this were that I >>ruled my actions were legal. > >This is where I break with my fellow Emperors and Joel. Are you disputing #1 here? I'm not clear on this. >Either the initial court for this rules TRUE in which case it is does not >yet take effect and everybody could have been on the court at that time, OR >it is ruled FALSE and the same thing is true. I agree, but how could we know which situation obtains BEFORE the court rules? Especially since we need the information generated by the court at that time? >This is because of the first paragraph of R220. > >Joel could not have been assigned the RFJ. It should have been assigned to >legitimate members of the judging pool. We apparently have vastly different interpretations of R220, and I'm not sure how to resolve this. Are you claiming that indireclty altering the judicial pool alters the prevailing interpretation of the judicial rules? I think I merely affected the inputs and that the rules themselves operated normally. (Of course, all of this is predicated upon there being no halt due to the inability to selecte a judge, which no longer believe to be the case.) >IF, after this had been appealed as far as possible, Joel's actions were >vindicated... > >THEN the part of R220 that says "Game actions found to be illegal must be >undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal >actions, but only as allowed by the the Statute of Limitations." the court >actions would be undone and Joel's scam would be officially successful. > >The only response I've been given is that R220 does not apply because Joel >did not reinterpret the judicial rules. > >I explained that I believed he had... The standard I proposed was that > >IF the Judicial rules themselves stay the same >AND the thing being questioned by an RFJ would give a different Judiciary >depending on its truth, >THEN a reinterpretation was caused by the RFJ. Doesn't this assume what you're trying to prove, viz. that I caused a reinterpretation? How can you derive (P & Q) -> R, if given only P & R? >I've seen no argument against this. > >I do not see a rule which can tell us exactly what is meant by >"interpretation" so I will, reluctantly leave the rules behind and argue >for the elegance of this application of the rules: > >1. It seems to fit the intent of R220 which was instituted to prevent RFJ >monkeying like this from occuring... Did we fiddle with the judicial rules >last time around for NOTHING? I often wonder that myself, as they seem to be the most-amended rules in the game. The problem we tried to correct last time ran deeper than I suspected at the time. C'est la vie. >2. It keeps the nomic going. I CRINGE each time I see "Administrative >Review" in the rule histories. It represents a failure on our part to find >a rule based way out. But worse is the hypocrisy of "continuing" the nomic >but adding stuff by fiat in the middle. I don't like it either. I'd prefer to avoid doing it at all. But there seems to be theoretical evidence (q.v. Go:del) for the impossibilty making the game crash-proof. Meta-level intervention is a necessary evil, and one that, each time I use it, I hope I never need recourse to again. And if there is no rule-based way out, it's not realy a failure on our part (except that we make the rules...). As for hypocrisy, we're not technically continuing the same game. The one that will start tonight will actaully be Berserker 5, but it'll look a lot like the previous incarnation. >3. It is pragmatically acceptable. We preserve the gamestate as much as >possible if Plagge and Kortbein ratify the Imperial Proposals and we step >down. The "split" is rectified, there being no discernable difference >between the two states and the game has finally WEATHERED a crisis instead >of GIVING UP over it. If the game actually ended, there's simply nothing to give up. I wouldn't want us to "weather" a crisis by ignoring the possibilty that there's nothing left to weather. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:44:41 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Concerning Imperial Nomic At 01:45 PM 6/22/99 , you wrote: >By an odd coincidence, I happened to bring up our current nomic debacle at >work (in the context of getting too much damned email) and an engineer I work >with mentioned that he once played nomic. Specifically, Imperial Nomic. He >stated that he found that nomic via emperorship was far more efficient than >old-fashioned "piddle around and wait for votes" nomic, and encouraged us to >give it a try. :) No, seriously. -tom Odd. I think our voting system is one of the things which we have more or less right. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:38:00 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: announcement (possible future RFJ and stuff) At 12:56 AM 6/22/99 , Ole wrote: >Plagge wrote: >: > >: >The message logs are quite huge. If 'iff' is worth something, I would >like >: >to see it more prominently placed, like in a Judgement. >: >: We checked...it's in Webster's. >: > >Not in the Webster's here on my shelf. Besides, shorthands are fine, but >they are not necessary in the ruleset. > >Ole It's in the one here on my shelf. Not to mention that it's tedious to repeat "if and only if" lots of times, as we seem to need it often. Anyway, this is a minor point. I'd hate to have a full scale spat over "iff". J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:50:59 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: Concerning Imperial Nomic Joel Uckelman writes: >At 01:45 PM 6/22/99 , you wrote: >>By an odd coincidence, I happened to bring up our current nomic debacle at >>work (in the context of getting too much damned email) and an engineer I work > >>with mentioned that he once played nomic. Specifically, Imperial Nomic. He >>stated that he found that nomic via emperorship was far more efficient than >>old-fashioned "piddle around and wait for votes" nomic, and encouraged us to >>give it a try. :) No, seriously. -tom > >Odd. I think our voting system is one of the things which we have more or >less right. Someday Joel too will laugh. -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:25:13 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>Consider a game state GS and the text of the rules. These produce a given >>Judiciary J1. >> >>Now consider an arbitrary game action A. >> >>GS+A and the rules may produce the same judiciary (J1) or they may produce >>a new one (J2). >> >>If an RFJ is called on A, then we test: >> >>Does A being true cause J1 to remain? >> >>If YES then no worries. >>If NO then A produces J2 by being true... but we use J1 UNTIL we get some >>final answer. >> >>This final answer might cause us to realize that J2 is actually proper. In >>which case, we undo all the previous actions (as per R220 paragraph 2) and >>J2 becomes official. >> >> >>Now, this terminology make it seem very far from R220, but I think that >>this is ultimately how R220 should be interpreted.... >> >>>massive "Adminstrative Reviewing" here> >> >>If this is followed then Joel (or whoever tries this next time (and >>therNEVER judges his own scam (as he shouldn't, if our reforms from >>Jenson's scam were being applied). >> >>Instead he would distribute to the normal (read J1) people. They would >>then decide whether they actually SHOULD have recieved anything... > >Now, please explain to me how Joel's judging his own statement true >changed the judiciary. And what precisely do you mean by judiciary? > >As I see it his judgment changed nothing - the judiciary rules were >still in place. I consider "the judiciary" to be the set of rules >dealing with the court system. I don't think a drastic change in >the number of players constitutes a change in the judiciary, because >the rules are set up so as to not care HOW many players are available >to be judges. Finally I think I see the problem. When I say judicial rules, I mean the actual texts. When I say Judiciary I mean the courts produced by the authority of these texts. Let's say there are four players A,B,C, and D (all eligible judges). A announces that he is doing X which eliminates D from eligibility. Before the RFJ on this is distrubuted we saw to ourselves if its true then D CAN'T judge and if its false D CAN judge. Then we hit our foreheads realizing that R220 says that the first court decision DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT until things our resolved if it affects the courts. SO ACTUALLY: if its true then D _CAN_ judge and if its false D CAN judge. So the CotC does eir random determination with B,C,and D as potential judges. If later the RFJ is appealed as far as possible and ends up True, then the second paragraph of R220 kicks in, all the judging is declared to have been faulty, and we know that D can't judge. ----- Now the basic obection here is whether R220 really means this is the way we do RFJs. You guys say (I think) "The judicial RULES are like a function into which the gamestate is plugged and out comes the courts. IF (THE FUNCTION) DOESN'T CHANGE then there was no reinterpretation." I say "The judicial RULES are like a function into which the gamestate is plugged and out comes the courts. IF (THE FUNCTION) OR (THE PART OF THE GAMESTATE BEING QUESTIONED) WOULD NOT CHANGE THE OUTPUT, then there was no reinterpretation." I say that which of these two parsings we choose to follow is ultimately arbitrary EXCEPT that: 1. Custom would have us use mine, considering all the effort and discussion that went into these rules when Jenson pulled his trick seemed to establish that Berserker thought it was lame and we should DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY next time the judicial system was raped. 2. Spirit seems to be that we don't like cringing over "administrative reviews". ============================== Conclusory Remarks: It appears to me that the game reset plans are a result of personal interactions outside the Berserker sphere. If you would stop for a moment and try to look at WHAT THE RULES SAY, and WHAT THEY LET US DO, you will see we don't have to kick out the last supports for a game that we have. I was in a nomic where something like this happened and let pigheaded idiocy win out that time. Most of the players got together face-to-face and we came to conclusions about the game that rested on our social interactions, not what the rules said. In retrospect, I'm sad that happened as it represented a total failure of what I think nomic is about. Please just go look at the rules and think about Berserkers much vaunted "pragmatism"... my reading of the rules is consistent, and is the only rules-based pragmatism that is still being advocated. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:10:12 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis Mueller writes: >Finally I think I see the problem. When I say judicial rules, I mean the >actual texts. When I say Judiciary I mean the courts produced by the >authority of these texts. > >Let's say there are four players A,B,C, and D (all eligible judges). > >A announces that he is doing X which eliminates D from eligibility. > >Before the RFJ on this is distrubuted we saw to ourselves if its true then >D CAN'T judge and if its false D CAN judge. > >Then we hit our foreheads realizing that R220 says that the first court >decision DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT until things our resolved if it affects the >courts. > >SO ACTUALLY: if its true then D _CAN_ judge and if its false D CAN judge. > >So the CotC does eir random determination with B,C,and D as potential judges. > >If later the RFJ is appealed as far as possible and ends up True, then the >second paragraph of R220 kicks in, all the judging is declared to have been >faulty, and we know that D can't judge. > >----- > >Now the basic obection here is whether R220 really means this is the way we >do RFJs. > >You guys say (I think) "The judicial RULES are like a function into which >the gamestate is plugged and out comes the courts. IF (THE FUNCTION) >DOESN'T CHANGE then there was no reinterpretation." > >I say "The judicial RULES are like a function into which the gamestate is >plugged and out comes the courts. IF (THE FUNCTION) OR (THE PART OF THE >GAMESTATE BEING QUESTIONED) WOULD NOT CHANGE THE OUTPUT, then there was no >reinterpretation." > >I say that which of these two parsings we choose to follow is ultimately >arbitrary EXCEPT that: > >1. Custom would have us use mine, considering all the effort and discussion >that went into these rules when Jenson pulled his trick seemed to establish >that Berserker thought it was lame and we should DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY next >time the judicial system was raped. Within the constraints of the rules, yes. The problem Joel created is just like Jensen's problem in that it compromises our ability to judge things in the way we'd LIKE them to be judged. It can be fixed via a few modifications. However, the problem ENDED THE GAME. You haven't provided any justification for your notion that the judiciary includes the courts. I believe it is counter to game custom and spirit, that deriving from the way in which the judicial rules are written (i.e., in a manner such that judicial pool size does not matter). I don't dispute that your interpretation is more like the kind we would like, but I think that it stretches R220 much farther than is reasonable. >2. Spirit seems to be that we don't like cringing over "administrative >reviews". Problems aren't pretty sometimes. >It appears to me that the game reset plans are a result of personal >interactions outside the Berserker sphere. If you would stop for a moment >and try to look at WHAT THE RULES SAY, and WHAT THEY LET US DO, you will >see we don't have to kick out the last supports for a game that we have. Why the insistence on holding this game up? First of all, because of the way we play, it's really more like a "round" than a game proper. Life goes on, so does nomic. Second of all, we're in a special situation. We're working inside a formal system, and trying as hard as possible to avoid playing in ways that depend on things outside of the rules. Unfortunately, the game we play can result in problems which can't be fixed from within the game. Yes, this problem can be fixed with a cross-eyed interpretation of the rules, so that we don't have to "stop the game." What incentive do we have to do that, though? We have a history of simply fixing problems in the ways that are needed, and if it weren't for this arguing we would already be playing again, as the fixes were short and sweet. >I was in a nomic where something like this happened and let pigheaded >idiocy win out that time. Most of the players got together face-to-face Thanks for the compliment, I suppose. >and we came to conclusions about the game that rested on our social >interactions, not what the rules said. In retrospect, I'm sad that >happened as it represented a total failure of what I think nomic is about. My conclusions rest on a fairly strict reading of the rules. The only social aspect of my conclusions comes from the fact that I reasoned them out in person with Joel. >Please just go look at the rules and think about Berserkers much vaunted >"pragmatism"... my reading of the rules is consistent, and is the only >rules-based pragmatism that is still being advocated. The problem with your pragmatic approach is that it's not fixed enough; it's open enough to reinterpretation that we can have the same problem as soon as the game starts back up. If you'll look back to other problems the game's had, you'll see we only really STOPPED the game when the problems were such that the fixes needed to be done before people could exploit them again. Sure, we could have hoped for calm, because it would be bad form to exploit rules which had just shown to be broken, but we don't all have good form. 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: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:58:08 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: changes (and off we go) Each of these are the new text of the specified rule (this is a stopgap so everyone has them before I actually insert them into the rules file and update the page) So as to limit the possibility of mistakes herein, these rules become part of the ruleset and the game starts at 23 June 12:00 CDT, unless there is some objection as to their content, completeness, or accuracy sent prior to that time. This should give everyone time to grok the changes and offer comments (if necessary). 1. I removed the "iff " in R4 because it no longer seems necessary. Thoughts? 2. Would it be proper or deisrable to change R2 and R4 to mutable at this point? ------------- R2/2 (immutable) A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, human being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address; and by any non-ambiguous name in all else. ------------ R4/2 (immutable) A Player forfeits if e ceases to fit the definition of a Player. Players may leave the game only through forfeiture. ------------ R319/3 (mutable) A. There exists a state called Limbo. When a player is in Limbo, e is neither able nor required to perform any Berserker Nomic-related actions except the following: a. Publicly declaring emself out of Limbo or b. forfeiting. B. A Player may go into Limbo only by a) publicly declaring emself in Limbo or b) failing a Limbo Check. C. The Administrator executes a Limbo Check for a player by determining if that Player has taken any game related action [[e.g. voting, proposing, commenting]] over the period of fifteen days immediately prior to the Limbo Check. If a player has not taken any game related action within fifteen days prior to the Limbo Check, that Player has failed the Limbo Check. Any Player may request a Limbo Check on any other Player at any time. D. If a player is in Limbo when it is eir turn, or if a player goes into Limbo during eir turn, then that player forfeits eir turn to the next player in the rotation. 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 having set an expected time in Limbo and exceeding it by more than half again said expected time, or not having set an expected time in Limbo and having remained in Limbo for more than five turns, is considered to have withdrawn eir consent to be a Player. This provision takes precedence over all previous rules relating to turn lengths and rotations. ------------ R5/1 (mutable) The title of Emperor is reserved for the exclusive use of Josh Kortbein, Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge in honor of their actions on 20 June 1999. ------------ R221/2 (mutable) {{ Josh Kortbein, Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge gain one win each. The latter two Gabe Drummond-Coles are considered to have withdrawn their consent as Players. Cases for RFJs 94, 95, and 96 are considered closed without resolution and all fines assessed in conjunction with them after 20 June 1999 00:00 CDT are undone. [[These three are moot at this point, and everyone forgot about the first two in last weekend's excitement.]] With the above exceptions, the game state at the time of judge selection for 1 Court for RFJ 96 [[i.e. at the time of the game crash]] is hereby adopted. }} ----------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:10:01 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) <> I don't know what YOU are playing, Joel. I am playing Berserker Nomic, Game 4, according to the rules, and will continue to do so as long as I can. If you persist in this, i have the distinct feeling we may annoy each other, since we will be playing different nomics on the same list. -Gabe (who thinks Joel's logic is even worse than Ole's -- Ole is being honest, while Joel is being a sneaky, two-tongued devilknocker) ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:29:37 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) Joel Uckelman wrote: > So as to limit the possibility of mistakes herein, these rules become part > of the ruleset and the game starts at 23 June 12:00 CDT, unless there is > some objection as to their content, completeness, or accuracy sent prior to > that time. Having forfeited the previous game, I'd like to be a Player in the one which will start 23 June. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 23:58:49 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>Finally I think I see the problem. When I say judicial rules, I mean the >>actual texts. When I say Judiciary I mean the courts produced by the >>authority of these texts. example snipped >>You guys say (I think) "The judicial RULES are like a function into which >>the gamestate is plugged and out comes the courts. IF (THE FUNCTION) >>DOESN'T CHANGE then there was no reinterpretation." >> >>I say "The judicial RULES are like a function into which the gamestate is >>plugged and out comes the courts. IF (THE FUNCTION) OR (THE PART OF THE >>GAMESTATE BEING QUESTIONED) WOULD NOT CHANGE THE OUTPUT, then there was no >>reinterpretation." >> >>I say that which of these two parsings we choose to follow is ultimately >>arbitrary EXCEPT that: >> >>1. Custom would have us use mine, considering all the effort and discussion >>that went into these rules when Jenson pulled his trick seemed to establish >>that Berserker thought it was lame and we should DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY next >>time the judicial system was raped. > >Within the constraints of the rules, yes. > >The problem Joel created is just like Jensen's problem in that it >compromises our ability to judge things in the way we'd LIKE them >to be judged. > >It can be fixed via a few modifications. > >However, the problem ENDED THE GAME. You haven't provided any justification >for your notion that the judiciary includes the courts. So the entire basis of disagreement is whether or not the word judiciary encompasses a court?!?! Synonyms for judiciary: court the bar tribunal the court bench judges >I believe it >is counter to game custom and spirit, that deriving from the way in >which the judicial rules are written (i.e., in a manner such that >judicial pool size does not matter). So we should ignore intent and what people want when looking for "spirit" and "custom"? >I don't dispute that your interpretation is more like the kind we >would like, but I think that it stretches R220 much farther than >is reasonable. AAAARRRGHH! That's just it! We are in the zone of interpretation on this! We pick one or the other ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WE LIKE. >>2. Spirit seems to be that we don't like cringing over "administrative >>reviews". > >Problems aren't pretty sometimes. But this is SO EASILY fixed.... Or are you just being "cruelly tough" and ignoring me. I can't tell. >>It appears to me that the game reset plans are a result of personal >>interactions outside the Berserker sphere. If you would stop for a moment >>and try to look at WHAT THE RULES SAY, and WHAT THEY LET US DO, you will >>see we don't have to kick out the last supports for a game that we have. > >Why the insistence on holding this game up? > >First of all, because of the way we play, it's really more like >a "round" than a game proper. Life goes on, so does nomic. No! Its not like a round. Witness Joel casually dropping out totally unimportant "iff"'s and leaving in a broken (at least the way he reads them) R116 and broken Judicial rules. Modifying unclear rules and replacing them with something STRONGER and LESS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION is what the playing should be about. It looks to me like Joel is not fixing what is broken and is just trying to reestablish his "happy paradise" and move along. >Second of all, we're in a special situation. We're working inside >a formal system, and trying as hard as possible to avoid playing >in ways that depend on things outside of the rules. Unfortunately, >the game we play can result in problems which can't be fixed from >within the game. Yes, this problem can be fixed with a cross-eyed >interpretation of the rules, so that we don't have to "stop the game." How is it cross-eyed? It's what seems _reasonable_ to me... >What incentive do we have to do that, though? We have a history of >simply fixing problems in the ways that are needed, and if it weren't >for this arguing we would already be playing again, as the fixes >were short and sweet. No they aren't. It won't solve anything. The way you're doing it now just means that the next time Joel doesn't like something he'll use the same "broken" judging rules and R116 and come up with some other ridiculous area to fiddle with. > >The problem with your pragmatic approach is that it's not fixed enough; >it's open enough to reinterpretation that we can have the same >problem as soon as the game starts back up. If you'll look back to >other problems the game's had, you'll see we only really STOPPED the >game when the problems were such that the fixes needed to be done >before people could exploit them again. Sure, we could have hoped >for calm, because it would be bad form to exploit rules which had >just shown to be broken, but we don't all have good form. When we keep going we will have established in custom and thus easy to defend in court: How the court system works. How R116 should be interpreted (and not interpreted that simple synonyms don't get you around R116's regulation provisions). The powers of CotC stripped from Joel and not subject to the hands of someone who we know will abuse them. (Of course whoever ultimately gets it will be an unknown quantity...) I've never actually said what this all resolves to, but basically: Joel never assigned his first RFJ, any more than assigning it to a nonplayer would be taken seriously. We've got several RFJ's to rule on (like the "iff" one) and then the turn flips over and we just move along. Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:00:37 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: ><> > >I don't know what YOU are playing, Joel. I am playing Berserker Nomic, >Game 4, according to the rules, and will continue to do so as long as I >can. If you persist in this, i have the distinct feeling we may annoy each >other, since we will be playing different nomics on the same list. > >-Gabe > (who thinks Joel's logic is even worse than Ole's -- Ole is being honest, >while Joel is being a sneaky, two-tongued devilknocker) Have any reasons for that? Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:17:38 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis Mueller writes: >>However, the problem ENDED THE GAME. You haven't provided any justification >>for your notion that the judiciary includes the courts. > >So the entire basis of disagreement is whether or not the word judiciary >encompasses a court?!?! > >Synonyms for judiciary: >court >the bar >tribunal >the court >bench >judges Synonyms aren't necessarily equivalent to the word for which they are synonyms. You seem to want your interpretation of judiciary to encompass the judges themselves. But because the judicial pool may fluctuate in size and membership, what this really means is that you want your definition of judiciary to encompass any unexpected thing that might happen to the players which constitute, or may constitute, the judicial pool. I anticipate that such a reading would cause trouble in the future because it is overly sensitive to change. I can't think of any examples offhand, but it seems as if such an interpretation lends itself to rule-wanking by people who don't like judgments. Why would your interpretation be more stable than what we have now? The one way I can think of immediately is in protecting us from problems of the special sort we've just encountered - and that's something that we can deal with in another way, a way which will have better consequences. >>I believe it >>is counter to game custom and spirit, that deriving from the way in >>which the judicial rules are written (i.e., in a manner such that >>judicial pool size does not matter). > >So we should ignore intent and what people want when looking for "spirit" >and "custom"? If they haven't intended it or wanted it yet, it's not "spirit" or "custom." It's the domain of people closing their eyes to the reality of the situation in an attempt to "preserve" the game. >But this is SO EASILY fixed.... > >Or are you just being "cruelly tough" and ignoring me. I can't tell. > >>>It appears to me that the game reset plans are a result of personal >>>interactions outside the Berserker sphere. If you would stop for a moment >>>and try to look at WHAT THE RULES SAY, and WHAT THEY LET US DO, you will >>>see we don't have to kick out the last supports for a game that we have. >> >>Why the insistence on holding this game up? >> >>First of all, because of the way we play, it's really more like >>a "round" than a game proper. Life goes on, so does nomic. > >No! Its not like a round. Witness Joel casually dropping out totally >unimportant "iff"'s and leaving in a broken (at least the way he reads >them) R116 and broken Judicial rules. Those things are fixes that need to be made, but they're not major. I don't see a problem with the fixes. The ones yet to be made, which will protect against the problems we just faced, should be made once the game is rolling again: e.g., the introduction of a metaphysics of actions that is explicit about temporal ordering, and a modified judicial system which is "protected" from damaging actions like Joel's booting and RFJ. >Modifying unclear rules and replacing them with something STRONGER and LESS >OPEN TO INTERPRETATION is what the playing should be about. It looks to me >like Joel is not fixing what is broken and is just trying to reestablish >his "happy paradise" and move along. That's something that will happen within the game, as soon as you stop complaining. > >>Second of all, we're in a special situation. We're working inside >>a formal system, and trying as hard as possible to avoid playing >>in ways that depend on things outside of the rules. Unfortunately, >>the game we play can result in problems which can't be fixed from >>within the game. Yes, this problem can be fixed with a cross-eyed >>interpretation of the rules, so that we don't have to "stop the game." > >How is it cross-eyed? It's what seems _reasonable_ to me... Rule 220/2(m) : Effects of Judgments Rules must be followed in accordance with the final interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case iff no more appeals of a Case are possible. In all other situations, the legal interpretation provided by the Statement and its response in the highest level of Judgment in a Case is only a tentative interpretation. This tentative interpretation has the same effect as the final interpretation except that it may in no way alter the interpretation of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Judicial rules. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I see that for some reason you've started throwing around the term "judiciary" as if it were what was being protected by rule 220. This is not so. I think it's clear from the above (note underline) that the rule protects the RULES THEMSELVES. Not the "judiciary." Not the courts. Not the judicial pool. THE RULES. Given this your reading of the rule is very specious. Give me ANY good reasons why I should distort my reasonable understanding of what "interpretation of the judicial rules" constitutes so that you can have your precious continuity. >No they aren't. It won't solve anything. The way you're doing it now just >means that the next time Joel doesn't like something he'll use the same >"broken" judging rules and R116 and come up with some other ridiculous area >to fiddle with. Like I say above, we don't intend to let those remain broken. We do not, however, want to modify them on our own. Remember the voting process, etc.? That's where they'll be fixed. > >When we keep going we will have established in custom and thus easy to >defend in court: > >How the court system works. > >How R116 should be interpreted (and not interpreted that simple synonyms >don't get you around R116's regulation provisions). I think Joel was legitimately not catching the thing with the equivalence in R4, hence his argument. >The powers of CotC stripped from Joel and not subject to the hands of >someone who we know will abuse them. (Of course whoever ultimately gets it >will be an unknown quantity...) I don't believe that constituted an abuse. EITHER WAY, JOEL'S DECISION WOULD HAVE BEEN UNFAIR. If he had selected from the standard judicial pool he would have been forcing the courts to rule FALSE, which would not have been an equitable consequence of his actions as administrator. >I've never actually said what this all resolves to, but basically: > >Joel never assigned his first RFJ, any more than assigning it to a >nonplayer would be taken seriously. True, he never did assign it, as the game ended upon his making the request for judgment. >We've got several RFJ's to rule on (like the "iff" one) and then the turn >flips over and we just move along. Oh yeah, that's a real important RFJ. All of those RFJs are lost. They were not game actions - the game had ended. Josh -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:27:49 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) At 12:00 AM 6/23/99 -0500, you wrote: > >"Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >><> >> >>I don't know what YOU are playing, Joel. I am playing Berserker Nomic, >>Game 4, according to the rules, and will continue to do so as long as I >>can. If you persist in this, i have the distinct feeling we may annoy each >>other, since we will be playing different nomics on the same list. >> >>-Gabe >> (who thinks Joel's logic is even worse than Ole's -- Ole is being honest, >>while Joel is being a sneaky, two-tongued devilknocker) > >Have any reasons for that? > > > >Josh > for what? My accusation on his logic? Or my continued play of the real Berserker? -- Emperor Ai! Pedrito! DeeJay * Wrangler ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:47:59 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) >------------ > >R5/1 (mutable) > >The title of Emperor is reserved for the exclusive use of Josh Kortbein, >Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge in honor of their actions on 20 June 1999. > >------------ Kick ass. >R221/2 (mutable) > >{{ Josh Kortbein, Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge gain one win each. > >The latter two Gabe Drummond-Coles are considered to have withdrawn their >consent as Players. > >Cases for RFJs 94, 95, and 96 are considered closed without resolution and >all fines assessed in conjunction with them after 20 June 1999 00:00 CDT >are undone. [[These three are moot at this point, and everyone forgot about >the first two in last weekend's excitement.]] > >With the above exceptions, the game state at the time of judge selection >for 1 Court for RFJ 96 [[i.e. at the time of the game crash]] is hereby >adopted. }} Two suggested changes: Add a win for Joel, since he could easily vote himself one, and add something to 5/1 concerning the Gabes. This is, after all, a compromise. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:52:55 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) At 10:10 PM 6/22/99 , one of the Gabes wrote: >I don't know what YOU are playing, Joel. I am playing Berserker Nomic, >Game 4, according to the rules, and will continue to do so as long as I >can. If you persist in this, i have the distinct feeling we may annoy each >other, since we will be playing different nomics on the same list. See, it's hard to accuse Joel of being too far out in left field here. You seem to be putting too much stock in "game custom" and not enough in the rules from which said customs were derived. If you can point out a flaw in the logic, then fine, but it seems clear to me that Berserker 4 is currently as dead as Berserker 3. And more dead than B2, if such a thing is possible. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:57:55 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >At 12:00 AM 6/23/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >>"Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >>><> >>> >>>I don't know what YOU are playing, Joel. I am playing Berserker Nomic, >>>Game 4, according to the rules, and will continue to do so as long as I >>>can. If you persist in this, i have the distinct feeling we may annoy each >>>other, since we will be playing different nomics on the same list. >>> >>>-Gabe >>> (who thinks Joel's logic is even worse than Ole's -- Ole is being honest, >>>while Joel is being a sneaky, two-tongued devilknocker) >> >>Have any reasons for that? >> >> >> >>Josh >> > > >for what? My accusation on his logic? Or my continued play of the real >Berserker? I assume the two are intimately related. -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:57:28 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis At 10:58 PM 6/22/99 , you wrote: >No! Its not like a round. Witness Joel casually dropping out totally >unimportant "iff"'s and leaving in a broken (at least the way he reads >them) R116 and broken Judicial rules. > >Modifying unclear rules and replacing them with something STRONGER and LESS >OPEN TO INTERPRETATION is what the playing should be about. It looks to me >like Joel is not fixing what is broken and is just trying to reestablish >his "happy paradise" and move along. No, Joel's not fixing the ultimate cause, and mostly for reasons you have laid out--that is, it is better for us to make substantive changes via the rules, if at all possible. Administrative Review-like situations should be minimized such that they only fix what is absolutely necessary for the game to continue. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:58:48 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis At 12:17 AM 6/23/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>>However, the problem ENDED THE GAME. You haven't provided any justification >>>for your notion that the judiciary includes the courts. OK. The the three of you (Mueller, Joel, Josh), and probably myself and Ole, should shut up. Since Joel's scam started, here are the message totals: Josh 33 Joel 18 Tom Mueller 14 Tom Plagge 10 Gabe 7 (8 including this one) Ole 7 Matt 6 Dan 3 Roger 2 Andrew 1 Jeff 1 Mary 1 Perhaps it's just me, but I'd like to see someone other than the top 3 posting opinions on this. I know that Joel and Josh have a view of the rules and game state utterly inconsistent with that shared by Mueller and myself. Carbol has made it clear that he stands on the Joel/Josh side, but from the other players I get mainly confusion and uncertainty. It might help if you all posted YOUR opinions. If one side sees that most of the other side disagrees, perhaps they will either give in or quit. I think that is the most productive thing that we as nomic players can do now, given the circumstances. --Gabe ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:43:33 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis >>1. Custom would have us use mine, considering all the effort and discussion >>that went into these rules when Jenson pulled his trick seemed to establish >>that Berserker thought it was lame and we should DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY next >>time the judicial system was raped. > >Within the constraints of the rules, yes. > >The problem Joel created is just like Jensen's problem in that it >compromises our ability to judge things in the way we'd LIKE them >to be judged. > >It can be fixed via a few modifications. Which we should just go ahead and do sometime, you know. We've had a year, after all. But in retrospect, Jensen's scam was legitimate and Joel's is also, for much the same reasons. Of course it was a terrible rape of the rules, but that's what a good scam is all about. I don't think that admitting to the rules' failure constitues any sort of "cheapening" (or whatever) of Nomic...rather, I think it speaks well of our ability (developed over time...scams have gotten much less bloody as we've grown more experienced) to follow the proper logical interpretation of the ruleset. And that's kind of the point, if you ask me. >However, the problem ENDED THE GAME. You haven't provided any justification >for your notion that the judiciary includes the courts. I believe it >is counter to game custom and spirit, that deriving from the way in >... ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 23:04:42 -0700 From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis > >OK. The the three of you (Mueller, Joel, Josh), and probably myself and >Ole, should shut up. Add Plagge to that. Updated numbers: Josh 34 Joel 18 Tom Mueller 14 Tom Plagge 14 Gabe 9 Ole 7 Matt 6 Dan 3 Roger 2 Andrew 1 Jeff 1 Mary 1 -gabe ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:28:45 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >> >>OK. The the three of you (Mueller, Joel, Josh), and probably myself and >>Ole, should shut up. > >Add Plagge to that. Updated numbers: > >Josh 34 >Joel 18 >Tom Mueller 14 >Tom Plagge 14 >Gabe 9 >Ole 7 >Matt 6 >Dan 3 >Roger 2 >Andrew 1 >Jeff 1 >Mary 1 So, Gabe, why is it that you agree with Mueller's reading of R220, which says that judgments shall not alter the JUDICIAL RULES, as saying that judgments shall not alter the JUDICIARY, which is apparently much more amorphous and voluminous? I believe now that that's the main point of disagreement. Tom's probably gone to bed but I'd like to hear what you have to say, yourself. Before, I was confused as to what Tom was arguing. Now I can't see how any conventional reading of the rule in question could result in what he wants. Josh yes, familiar with "just because you can't imagine it..." etc. but is not fucking kidding -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:25:56 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >At 12:17 AM 6/23/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Mueller writes: >>>>However, the problem ENDED THE GAME. You haven't provided any justification >>>>for your notion that the judiciary includes the courts. > > >OK. The the three of you (Mueller, Joel, Josh), and probably myself and >Ole, should shut up. > >Since Joel's scam started, here are the message totals: > >Josh 33 >Joel 18 >Tom Mueller 14 >Tom Plagge 10 >Gabe 7 (8 including this one) >Ole 7 >Matt 6 >Dan 3 >Roger 2 >Andrew 1 >Jeff 1 >Mary 1 > >Perhaps it's just me, but I'd like to see someone other than the top 3 >posting opinions on this. I know that Joel and Josh have a view of the >rules and game state utterly inconsistent with that shared by Mueller and >myself. Carbol has made it clear that he stands on the Joel/Josh side, but >from the other players I get mainly confusion and uncertainty. It might >help if you all posted YOUR opinions. If one side sees that most of the >other side disagrees, perhaps they will either give in or quit. I think >that is the most productive thing that we as nomic players can do now, >given the circumstances. Mary and Ed are in limbo - Ed returned shortly but left immediately. This distribution is not unlike the usual distribution, I think. Furthermore, it takes time to argue something like this. Sometimes, more than one would like. IIRC the extent to which we've heard from some players was mostly in the mob activity during the time of confusion. This does not speak well as to future input, to me. Josh ok with adding another to the pile -- 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: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:37:57 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis Josh wrote: > >"Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" writes: >>> >>>OK. The the three of you (Mueller, Joel, Josh), and probably myself and >>>Ole, should shut up. >> >>Add Plagge to that. Updated numbers: >> >>Josh 34 >>Joel 18 >>Tom Mueller 14 >>Tom Plagge 14 >>Gabe 9 >>Ole 7 >>Matt 6 >>Dan 3 >>Roger 2 >>Andrew 1 >>Jeff 1 >>Mary 1 > >So, Gabe, why is it that you agree with Mueller's reading of R220, >which says that judgments shall not alter the JUDICIAL RULES, >as saying that judgments shall not alter the JUDICIARY, which is >apparently much more amorphous and voluminous? You still misunderstand. We can in "no way alter the (INTERPRETATION of the Judicial rules)." I think that this five word reference could be rewritten: Can in "no way alter the (process by which the rules indicate judgements are rendered)." Tom ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:44:33 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis Mueller writes: >>So, Gabe, why is it that you agree with Mueller's reading of R220, >>which says that judgments shall not alter the JUDICIAL RULES, >>as saying that judgments shall not alter the JUDICIARY, which is >>apparently much more amorphous and voluminous? > >You still misunderstand. We can in "no way alter the (INTERPRETATION of >the Judicial rules)." > >I think that this five word reference could be rewritten: > >Can in "no way alter the (process by which the rules indicate judgements >are rendered)." So sue me, I dropped a couple words. My point is the same. And I said it right before, in the mail you didn't respond to. How would Joel's judgment change the PROCESS at all? You're into math, you should know something about isomorphism. In either case the PROCESS remains the same. The data are different (the judicial pool, etc.), but the PROCESS doesn't care what the data are. The interpretation you're pushing is an unconventional interpretation of "interpretation." I liken it to saying that a change which changed the number of points a player had altered the interpretation of the rules governing points. That's simply absurd. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:12:27 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Game Crash If I could get a word in edgeways, I would like to point out that despite all the messages to the contrary, the game would appear to have crashed. Even if any of the competing versions of what used to be Berserker Nomic have any actual weight, we have stopped using the judicial system, flawed as it is, to argue our cases for the interpretations of the rules. The mailing list has become a forum for people to sound off about their own interpretation without any legal weight, and often enough, without any reason either. From this point I can see only two ways we can continue: 1. admit the game crashed and restart. 2. send a message to the Internomic list asking for an impartial judge to come in and sort things out. If there is support for this idea I will carry through with it, seeing as how I was FM before the crash. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:39:20 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: Game Crash Dan Waldron writes: >If I could get a word in edgeways, I would like to point out that despite >all the messages to the contrary, the game would appear to have crashed. > >Even if any of the competing versions of what used to be Berserker Nomic >have any actual weight, we have stopped using the judicial system, flawed >as it is, to argue our cases for the interpretations of the rules. The >mailing list has become a forum for people to sound off about their own >interpretation without any legal weight, and often enough, without any >reason either. From this point I can see only two ways we can continue: > >1. admit the game crashed and restart. > >2. send a message to the Internomic list asking for an impartial judge to >come in and sort things out. If there is support for this idea I will >carry through with it, seeing as how I was FM before the crash. Compared to past breakdowns we've barely had any time to sort things out. I note that no one's been STOPPING you from getting in that edgewise word. Josh -- we await silent tristero's empire ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:08:02 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Game Crash > >Compared to past breakdowns we've barely had any time to sort things >out. with the breakdown of the judicial system there is nothing to give any legal weight to any arguments that we may have. The only way it will be decided is when most of the players get so disgusted with it that we go along with whatever is thrown at us. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:40:53 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) Gabe wrote: : -Gabe : (who thinks Joel's logic is even worse than Ole's -- Ole is being honest, : while Joel is being a sneaky, two-tongued devilknocker) I assume that is some kind of compliment. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:39:42 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) Comments: : ------------- : R2/2 (immutable) : : A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, : human being who consents to said representation and is not already : represented in the game as another Player. : : A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir : corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address; and by : any non-ambiguous name in all else. The last 'or' is not an XOR, I hope. : ------------ : : R4/2 (immutable) : : A Player forfeits if e ceases to fit the definition of a Player. Players : may leave the game only through forfeiture. Just to be sure: Are all ways to forfeiture defined? And, are all ways of 'ceasing to fit...' defined? : : ------------ : : R5/1 (mutable) : : The title of Emperor is reserved for the exclusive use of Josh Kortbein, : Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge in honor of their actions on 20 June 1999. Does that mean that I may not use it in, say, 'Emperor Plagge'? : : ------------ : : R221/2 (mutable) : : {{ Josh Kortbein, Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge gain one win each. : : The latter two Gabe Drummond-Coles are considered to have withdrawn their : consent as Players. : : Cases for RFJs 94, 95, and 96 are considered closed without resolution and : all fines assessed in conjunction with them after 20 June 1999 00:00 CDT : are undone. [[These three are moot at this point, and everyone forgot about : the first two in last weekend's excitement.]] : : With the above exceptions, the game state at the time of judge selection : for 1 Court for RFJ 96 [[i.e. at the time of the game crash]] is hereby : adopted. }} Fine. I think the Gabes get too much here. Gabe should probably get some kind of mention, but this amounts to accepting his being three players. Well, mud under the bridge... What happened to Charlene Tupper's application, btw? Ole ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:42:17 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) Ole Andersen wrote: > What happened to Charlene Tupper's application, btw? Well as near as I can figure out, Charlene was not vetoed as a Player, and was mentioned as being X in one of the many mobs. (I am pleased to see that Mary was never mentioned as being the target of a Mob. Once again, I've slipped past the hands of an angry mob) I suppose a case could be made that Charlene is just as much of a Player as Gabe^3. However, I got my point across, and the rules have been (or will be soon) repaired to my satisfaction so the Player of Charlene is no longer a member of Beserker. The email address has already been removed from the list. One other point, I, Mary aka Xylen, came out of Limbo yesterday. I did not use the magic words "I am out of Limbo". It doesn't really matter, because if the game is broke, why bother applying the rules, but I just want to clear that little detail up. I am in support of Joel's actions and manner of repairing the game and getting it moving again. I agree with the changes made, especially R2/2. Now maybe we can get things going again. I much prefer the confusions of a legislature to the confusion of an insurrection. Mary -- ----- cut here to destroy monitor -----8<----- http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:57:28 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: further analysis At 10:58 PM 6/22/99 , Mueller wrote: > >Modifying unclear rules and replacing them with something STRONGER and LESS >OPEN TO INTERPRETATION is what the playing should be about. It looks to me >like Joel is not fixing what is broken and is just trying to reestablish >his "happy paradise" and move along. AFIK, inserting rules that would actually result in a permanent fix wouldn't be justified (disregarding that I've done this before -- I've since changed my mind on the matter), since they would be far more extensive and should be subject to the normal voting procedure. > >No they aren't. It won't solve anything. The way you're doing it now just >means that the next time Joel doesn't like something he'll use the same >"broken" judging rules and R116 and come up with some other ridiculous area >to fiddle with. The forfeit rule should now be clear enough that, should the same situation arise again, the Administrator could reasonably select a judge. > >The powers of CotC stripped from Joel and not subject to the hands of >someone who we know will abuse them. (Of course whoever ultimately gets it >will be an unknown quantity...) > I've not abused my power of selecting judges. Had anyone else done this, I would have selected them as judge. However, in light of Josh's explanation, I see that no judge should have been selected. So was selecting a judge at all an abuse of power, or a mistake? Since I was acting in good faith, I chalk it up as a mistake. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:18:54 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: changes (and off we go) At 05:39 AM 6/23/99 , Ole wrote: Change the second paragraph of R2/2 to the following: "A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; and by any non-ambiguous name in all else." Hopefully this clearer. : ------------ >: >: R4/2 (immutable) >: >: A Player forfeits if e ceases to fit the definition of a Player. Players >: may leave the game only through forfeiture. > >Just to be sure: >Are all ways to forfeiture defined? >And, are all ways of 'ceasing to fit...' defined? I think so. >: >: R5/1 (mutable) >: >: The title of Emperor is reserved for the exclusive use of Josh Kortbein, >: Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge in honor of their actions on 20 June 1999. > >Does that mean that I may not use it in, say, 'Emperor Plagge'? Good point. Change R5/1 to read: "The title of Emperor is reserved for application exclusively to Josh Kortbein, Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge in honor of their actions on 20 June 1999." That should fix it. > >: >: ------------ >: >: R221/2 (mutable) >: >: {{ Josh Kortbein, Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge gain one win each. >: >: The latter two Gabe Drummond-Coles are considered to have withdrawn their >: consent as Players. >: >: Cases for RFJs 94, 95, and 96 are considered closed without resolution and >: all fines assessed in conjunction with them after 20 June 1999 00:00 CDT >: are undone. [[These three are moot at this point, and everyone forgot >about >: the first two in last weekend's excitement.]] >: >: With the above exceptions, the game state at the time of judge selection >: for 1 Court for RFJ 96 [[i.e. at the time of the game crash]] is hereby >: adopted. }} > >Fine. I think the Gabes get too much here. >Gabe should probably get some kind of mention, but this amounts to accepting >his being three players. Well, mud under the bridge... I think Gabe would argue that he's actually getting to little... >What happened to Charlene Tupper's application, btw? Josh called for a vote on it. The voting was still active when the game ended. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:26:49 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: final? draft So as to limit the possibility of mistakes herein, these rules become part of the ruleset and the game starts at 23 June 12:00 CDT, unless there is some objection as to their content, completeness, or accuracy sent prior to that time. This should give everyone time to grok the changes and offer comments (if necessary). ------------- R2/2 (immutable) A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, human being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; and by any unambiguous name in all else. ------------ R4/2 (immutable) A Player forfeits if e ceases to fit the definition of a Player. Players may leave the game only through forfeiture. ------------ R5/1 (mutable) The title of Emperor is reserved for application exclusively to Josh Kortbein, Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge in honor of their actions on 20 June 1999. ------------ R319/3 (mutable) A. There exists a state called Limbo. When a player is in Limbo, e is neither able nor required to perform any Berserker Nomic-related actions except the following: a. Publicly declaring emself out of Limbo or b. forfeiting. B. A Player may go into Limbo only by a) publicly declaring emself in Limbo or b) failing a Limbo Check. C. The Administrator executes a Limbo Check for a player by determining if that Player has taken any game related action [[e.g. voting, proposing, commenting]] over the period of fifteen days immediately prior to the Limbo Check. If a player has not taken any game related action within fifteen days prior to the Limbo Check, that Player has failed the Limbo Check. Any Player may request a Limbo Check on any other Player at any time. D. If a player is in Limbo when it is eir turn, or if a player goes into Limbo during eir turn, then that player forfeits eir turn to the next player in the rotation. 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 having set an expected time in Limbo and exceeding it by more than half again said expected time, or not having set an expected time in Limbo and having remained in Limbo for more than five turns, is considered to have withdrawn eir consent to be a Player. This provision takes precedence over all previous rules relating to turn lengths and rotations. ------------ R221/2 (mutable) {{ Josh Kortbein, Tom Mueller, and Tom Plagge gain one win each. The latter two Gabe Drummond-Coles are considered to have withdrawn their consent as Players. Mary Tupper is not in Limbo. Cases for RFJs 94, 95, and 96 are considered closed without resolution and all fines assessed in conjunction with them after 20 June 1999 00:00 CDT are undone. [[These three are moot at this point, and everyone forgot about the first two in last weekend's excitement.]] With the above exceptions, the game state at the time of judge selection for 1 Court for RFJ 96 [[i.e. at the time of the game crash]] is hereby adopted. }} ----------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:18:21 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: final? draft >So as to limit the possibility of mistakes herein, these rules become part >of the ruleset and the game starts at 23 June 12:00 CDT, unless there is >some objection as to their content, completeness, or accuracy sent prior to >that time. This should give everyone time to grok the changes and offer >comments (if necessary). Well, they look good to me, but 23 June 12:00 CDT is 2 hours away unless I am making some serious error in math. Matt Kuhns "Gravity doesn't exist, mjkuhns@iastate.edu the Earth sucks." http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns -anonymous ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:32:46 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: Game Crash Dan Waldron writes: > >> >>Compared to past breakdowns we've barely had any time to sort things >>out. > >with the breakdown of the judicial system there is nothing to give any >legal weight to any arguments that we may have. The only way it will be >decided is when most of the players get so disgusted with it that we go >along with whatever is thrown at us. We have our reason. -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:35:56 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: final? draft Matthew J Kuhns writes: >>So as to limit the possibility of mistakes herein, these rules become part >>of the ruleset and the game starts at 23 June 12:00 CDT, unless there is >>some objection as to their content, completeness, or accuracy sent prior to >>that time. This should give everyone time to grok the changes and offer >>comments (if necessary). > >Well, they look good to me, but 23 June 12:00 CDT is 2 hours away unless I >am making some serious error in math. Yes, you are correct; Joel intended things to kick in at noon. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:24:15 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: final? draft >So as to limit the possibility of mistakes herein, these rules become part >of the ruleset and the game starts at 23 June 12:00 CDT, unless there is >some objection as to their content, completeness, or accuracy sent prior to >that time. This should give everyone time to grok the changes and offer >comments (if necessary). Ample time? I have 45 minutes only and there are probably those who won't check their mail until tonight... Other than that they seem fine, but do we want to limit our options to quit the game solely through forefit? If one ceases to fit the definition of Player it can be argued that they can't quit the game because they haven't forfited. Of course there are arguments otherwise, but wouldn't it be better to make this clear? (In light of our current situation) I'm sure there are other situations where leaving the game might not be a forfit, such as if you are in Limbo for too long. It might be assumed that these Players forfit, but again, this isn't too clear, and we all know what "assume" means! :) Especially since this rule is numbered so low, it takes presidence over other rules... >A Player forfeits if e ceases to fit the definition of a Player. Players >may leave the game only through forfeiture. ^^^^ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:33:41 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: final? draft Jeff N Schroeder writes: >>So as to limit the possibility of mistakes herein, these rules become part >>of the ruleset and the game starts at 23 June 12:00 CDT, unless there is >>some objection as to their content, completeness, or accuracy sent prior to >>that time. This should give everyone time to grok the changes and offer >>comments (if necessary). > >Ample time? I have 45 minutes only and there are probably those who >won't check their mail until tonight... > >Other than that they seem fine, but do we want to limit our options to >quit the game solely through forefit? If one ceases to fit the definition >of Player it can be argued that they can't quit the game because they >haven't forfited. Of course there are arguments otherwise, but wouldn't The way forfeiture is defined, this "is" forfeiture, as that's all forfeiture needs. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:15:03 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: where are we? Although R221 resets the game to its state (mostly) at the time of the crash, I haven't quite determined what that state is yet (lost of mail to examine). I'm working on it now, so I should have it all done by this evening. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:28:55 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: where are we? Joel Uckelman writes: >Although R221 resets the game to its state (mostly) at the time of the >crash, I haven't quite determined what that state is yet (lost of mail to >examine). I'm working on it now, so I should have it all done by this evening. In the meantime I'd like to make the following proposal. ------- Any proposal may be designated by its author a "shared proposal." This designation may be added or removed at any time before the proposal is voted on. When designating a proposal shared, its author must also specify players with whom to share. The number of players which may be shared with is limited by the number of current players, but otherwise any number of players may be specified. If a shared proposal passes, the points which would be rewarded to its author under rule 222 are instead divided amongst the author and the players e specified. Points shall be divided in integral amounts, and the author receives any leftover points which cannot be split evenly amongst the author and the players specified. If a shared proposal fails, its author alone takes the penalties, according to any other rules which deal penalties for failed proposals. ------- Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:47:42 CDT From: Andrew D Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: my opinion The game will restart/continue eventually. Restarting in a timely manner is secondary to making it playable and eventually being able to fix what let people break the game. I only really have 2 major concerns: 1. The only rule changes made after the game crash are those necessary for getting the game running. Of course, I don't know how much dispute over the exact time of the crash there is. I've mostly only skimmed the mails on the list, but none of the rule changes I've seen are unreasonable... 2. As we discussed last time the game crashed, maybe we should have a rule covering crashes. Maybe the time is now ripe for such a proposal... This would have to be done after the game is restarted, of course. My ideas (feel free to take them, I probably won't propose anything): Someone can attempt to declare a state of emergency, if a strong majority (2/3 or 4/5?) of players not in Limbo agree, some special abbreviated ruleset becomes active, taking precedence over the main one. This would probably have to be immutable, so it could take precedence over immutable rules. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:56:44 -0400 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: my opinion At 05:47 PM 6/23/99 CDT, you wrote: > >The game will restart/continue eventually. Restarting in a timely manner >is secondary to making it playable and eventually being able to fix what let >people break the game. I only really have 2 major concerns: > >1. The only rule changes made after the game crash are those necessary for >getting the game running. Of course, I don't know how much dispute over the >exact time of the crash there is. I've mostly only skimmed the mails on >the list, but none of the rule changes I've seen are unreasonable... > >2. As we discussed last time the game crashed, maybe we should have a >rule covering crashes. Maybe the time is now ripe for such a proposal... >This would have to be done after the game is restarted, of course. >My ideas (feel free to take them, I probably won't propose anything): >Someone can attempt to declare a state of emergency, if a strong majority >(2/3 or 4/5?) of players not in Limbo agree, some special abbreviated >ruleset becomes active, taking precedence over the main one. This would >probably have to be immutable, so it could take precedence over immutable >rules. Good luck... Proposal 373 : 3 December 1998, 22:01 CST : Tom Mueller : Failed (1-3-1-2) If Rule 213 exists then modify modify it by replacing its entire text with the following SAFEQUICK delmited text. Otherwise, create Rule 213 with the same SAFEQUICK delmited text: SAFEQUICK If it seems that (except by the application of this rule) further play is impossible, or the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or a move appears equally legal and illegal, then any player may submit a RFJ which points this out. If an RFJ of this type is substantially similar to a previous one, which is either not yet ruled on or has been ruled True (in the opinion of the Judge(s) who are assigned it), then the new RFJ shall be ruled False. If this RFJ is true and cannot be appealed then the player who requested it may submit a Screaming For Help Document which describes modifications to be made to the ruleset. Unless two players object to the Screaming For Help Document within three days, it is accepted and the modifications it describes are applied to the ruleset. Any Screaming For Help Document may be objected to for any reason. The modifications" of a Screaming For Help Document are not "rule-changes", and as such do not require a vote (merely silence), and may effect any rule(s) regardless of their mutability. If the Screaming For Help Document is successfully objected to, another may be issued by the RFJ's Complainant until one is accepted. Alternately, they can abandone the effort if they feel there are too many political obstacles to its implementation. When an Screaming For Help Document is accepted, its author is credited with a win and the game continues. This rule takes precedence over every other rule. SAFEQUICK You guys will probably want to take out the references to RFJs and anything else in there so that whatever systems breaks doens't contaminate this process. I should have done that, in retrospect. Of course it will be voted down anyway.... :) Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:21:34 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: my opinion Mueller writes: >Good luck... > >Proposal 373 : 3 December 1998, 22:01 CST : Tom Mueller : Failed (1-3-1-2) You know full well that sometimes failed proposals can be resurrected. Dec 12 was a bad time to vote, because it was near the end of our semester. I note that the no votes were from Joel, Tom P., and some other guy. I abstained, probably because I wasn't sure if I was opposed or for and didn't want to hurt the outcome. >You guys will probably want to take out the references to RFJs and anything >else in there so that whatever systems breaks doens't contaminate this >process. I should have done that, in retrospect. Why don't you repropose it? Josh -- I am large; I contain multitudes ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:55:05 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: my opinion At 05:56 PM 6/23/99 , Mueller wrote: > >Of course it will be voted down anyway.... :) > >Mueller I've never been able to grasp how that rule could have come into effect if the game really was broken. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:47:48 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judicial pool I have the following players in the judicial pool at present: Ole Andersen Roger Carbol Josh Kortbein Matt Kuhns Tom Mueller Joel Uckelman Dan Waldron J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:49:04 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (1 J93) Ok, I finally figured out what happens next. We're still at the end of Dan Waldron's turn, pending a ruling on RFJ 93 (...so the proposal that Josh made wasn't legal yet). Ole Andersen has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 93: Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, because nomics are not single players. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:58:29 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: my opinion The thing that bothered me about your proposal, Mueller, was that it didn't seem to get to the essence of the problem. Most of the game-crashing scams have totally subverted the judicial system, such that the rules no longer had any de facto effects on the situation. We need to modify the judicial system such that this *can't happen.* After-the-fact solutions aren't going to cut it, IMHO. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:02:32 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Game Reset Just a quick question. Was the last game won due to impossibility of further play or was there another reason? I ask because I'm curious if 317/2 applies or not. Mary -- ----- cut here to destroy monitor -----8<----- http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:40:30 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: Game Reset Xylen writes: >Just a quick question. Was the last game won due to impossibility of >further play or was there another reason? > >I ask because I'm curious if 317/2 applies or not. "And I would've got away with it too, if it wasn't your you blasted kids and your dog." -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:28:13 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: New Player (a real one) I sponsor Matt Potter (mpotter@iastate.edu). For those of you who don't know him, he was actually a charter Berserker, but he skipped out on II, III, and IV. And he will kick your ass if you don't let him in. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:39:39 CDT From: Gevork Hartoonian Subject: Re: Nomic: New Player (a real one) Tom Plagge writes: >I sponsor Matt Potter (mpotter@iastate.edu). For those of you who don't >know him, he was actually a charter Berserker, but he skipped out on II, >III, and IV. And he will kick your ass if you don't let him in. Boy, if I was the cautious sort that would make me want to call for a vote. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:36:31 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: Potter is real? >I sponsor Matt Potter (mpotter@iastate.edu). For those of you who don't >know him, he was actually a charter Berserker, but he skipped out on II, >III, and IV. And he will kick your ass if you don't let him in. Hm, Potter is Plagge's roommate this summer--could they just be cooking up some sinister scheme to undermine the game and generally promulgate Evil? I hope so! =) Welcome back to the game Potter. Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:23:03 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (1 J93) : Ole Andersen has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 93: : : Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, because nomics are : not single players. #### R2/2 (immutable) A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, human being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; and by any unambiguous name in all else. #### R2/2 requires that a player has human fore- and surnames. Nomics do not have human fore- and surnames. A given Nomic might, perhaps, have human fore- and surnames, but Nomics, generally speaking, do not. So my Judgement is TRUE. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:41:26 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Proposal The following "FIXITUP" delimited text is a Proposal. FIXITUP Amend rule 215 by appending the follwing paragraph: In all cases judging the legality of action a, the judges are chosen and the ruling is determined based on the game state immediately preceding that action a. FIXITUP This should solve any little problems we have with self-legalising actions. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:54:10 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (1 J93) In rule 2/2, there is no requirement for real human fore- and surnames, they are in the second paragraph of that rule and merely provide a means of identification. Required attributes are mentioned in the first paragraph, they include, that the representative must be one, real, must be living, and must be human, and must be unique. The RFJ was requesting judgement on the issue of the one-ness of Nomics, and the judgement only answered the question of names. Therefore I see fit to appeal the judgement 1/93 I also submit the following statement for judging: Nomics may not be players in Berserker Nomic. Poulenc. >: Ole Andersen has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 93: >: >: Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, because nomics are >: not single players. > >#### >R2/2 (immutable) > >A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, >human being who consents to said representation and is not already >represented in the game as another Player. > >A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir >corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir >real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; and by any >unambiguous name in all else. >#### > >R2/2 requires that a player has human fore- and surnames. Nomics do not have >human fore- and surnames. A given Nomic might, perhaps, have human fore- and >surnames, but Nomics, generally speaking, do not. > > >So my Judgement is TRUE. > > >Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:28:36 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (1 J93) Dan Waldron writes: > >In rule 2/2, there is no requirement for real human fore- and surnames, >they are in the second paragraph of that rule and merely provide a means of >identification. Required attributes are mentioned in the first paragraph, >they include, that the representative must be one, real, must be living, >and must be human, and must be unique. The RFJ was requesting judgement on >the issue of the one-ness of Nomics, and the judgement only answered the >question of names. If nothing else, game custom guides us to not allow things which can't be identified. Under rule 2 a nomic playing in ours couldn't be identified under the rules, since it would have no human names. Furthermore, as to the question of "representation:" I believe Dan is trying to use it in a different sense than the rule. ALL Nomic Mu players "represent" it in the sense that they guide its play, just as a player's human "represents" it by guiding its play. Dan is choosing himself as "representative" of NMU in the sense that he will represent the wants and needs of other humans. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:58:20 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 08:41 AM 6/26/99 , Dan wrote: >The following "FIXITUP" delimited text is a Proposal. > > >FIXITUP > >Amend rule 215 by appending the follwing paragraph: > >In all cases judging the legality of action a, the judges are chosen and >the ruling is determined based on the game state immediately preceding that >action a. > >FIXITUP > >This should solve any little problems we have with self-legalising actions. > >Poulenc I think this should only apply to the selection of judges rather than the ruling itself. If the ruling is based on the game state immediately prior to the action in question, there would be nothing on which to rule. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:38:35 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (1 J93) >Dan Waldron writes: >If nothing else, game custom guides us to not allow things which >can't be identified. Under rule 2 a nomic playing in ours couldn't >be identified under the rules, since it would have no human names. Rule 2/2 A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, human being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; and by any unambiguous name in all else. The rule clearly states that an email address is used in cases where the name is not unique. Berserker does not currently have any email address for the Nomic MU. > >Furthermore, as to the question of "representation:" I believe Dan >is trying to use it in a different sense than the rule. ALL >Nomic Mu players "represent" it in the sense that they guide its >play, just as a player's human "represents" it by guiding its play. >Dan is choosing himself as "representative" of NMU in the sense that >he will represent the wants and needs of other humans. I think I made it quite clear in my reasoning, that I was not arguing here the issue of representation. That is an issue for another RFJ, which I submitted, that deals with the question in its entirety. The ruling on this RFJ will not settle the question of NMU's membership, because this RFJ does not deal with the question of membership but of one-ness. Just to make the point, however, I believe that the issue of Representation is not as entirely one-sided as Josh makes out. The ofice of comunicator with the outside of NMU gives the holder a considerable amount of discresionary power to make decisions. According to the revised version of rule 2, the human representative must be unique, therefore, I CANNOT be the representative for the Nomic MU. One of the other players, however could eventually hold the ofice and be eligible to represent the Nomic MU as a player in Berserker. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 02:30:19 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (1 J93) Dan Waldron writes: >Just to make the point, however, I believe that the issue of Representation >is not as entirely one-sided as Josh makes out. The ofice of comunicator >with the outside of NMU gives the holder a considerable amount of >discresionary power to make decisions. Resembling the power of... what's that? A single person? -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:52:52 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection (2 J93, 1 J97) Roger Carbol, Matt Kuhns, and Joel Uckelman have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 93: Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, because nomics are not single players. -------------- Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 97: Nomics may not be players in Berserker Nomic. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:46:03 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal R463 defines our mailing list as nomic@iastate.edu. In 2 years when I go to grad school and ISU deletes this list, or before then, if something catastrophic happens we will need to get another list. Having it defined in a rule as the only public way to communicate could make this impossible. Also, this proposal allows the easy creation of other lists if we should happen to need them. ---------- Fora are areans in which Players may communicate. Fora may be public or private. Actions, with the exception of creating a new public forum, may only be taken in public fora. Only the Administrator may, at any time, create public fora, and only if said fora are reasonably accessable to all Players. Only the Administrator may, at any time, change previously public fora to private, and only if such changes do not eliminate all public fora. The Administrator must, in a timely fashion, maintain and make available to all Players a list of all public fora. {{The majordomo list nomic@iastate.edu is a public forum.}} J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:05:38 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Joel Uckelman writes: >R463 defines our mailing list as nomic@iastate.edu. In 2 years when I go to >grad school and ISU deletes this list, or before then, if something >catastrophic happens we will need to get another list. Having it defined in >a rule as the only public way to communicate could make this impossible. >Also, this proposal allows the easy creation of other lists if we should >happen to need them. > >---------- > >Fora are areans in which Players may communicate. Fora may be public or >private. > >Actions, with the exception of creating a new public forum, may only be >taken in public fora. > >Only the Administrator may, at any time, create public fora, and only if >said fora are reasonably accessable to all Players. Only the Administrator >may, at any time, change previously public fora to private, and only if >such changes do not eliminate all public fora. The phrasing here might be abused so that other players might be able to create public fora, at specific times. -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:31:58 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Nomic: Proposal I'm resubmitting the last proposal I made, regarding "shared proposals," now that we're allowed to submit proposals again. Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:31:23 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection (2 J93, 1 J97) Joel Uckelman writes: >Josh Kortbein has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 97: > >Nomics may not be players in Berserker Nomic. I note that rule 2 is: Rule 2/2(i) : Definition of Player A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, human being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; and by any unambiguous name in all else. TRUE According to the most plausible justification for adding nomics as players I have heard from Mr. Waldron, nomics would be represented by single humans, who do not already represent players in our game. However, that is not the notion expressed in Mr. Waldron's statement. His statement asks whether or not nomics themselves may be players. Not whether or not their representatives may be players. In general, I take a "nomic" to be a collection of players, rules, and structures identified by the rules, which derives in some way from Peter Suber's original nomic concept. In this sense, then, a nomic cannot be a player, as a nomic is not a single human being. If Mr. Waldron wishes to argue that a nomic might have its interests represented in our nomic in some more complicated way, he should submit a more precise statement for judgment. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 17:40:26 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Wbfu Xbegorva wrote: > > Joel Uckelman writes: > >R463 defines our mailing list as nomic@iastate.edu. In 2 years when I go to > >grad school and ISU deletes this list, or before then, if something > >catastrophic happens we will need to get another list. Having it defined in > >a rule as the only public way to communicate could make this impossible. > >Also, this proposal allows the easy creation of other lists if we should > >happen to need them. > > > >---------- > > > >Fora are areans in which Players may communicate. Fora may be public or > >private. > > > >Actions, with the exception of creating a new public forum, may only be > >taken in public fora. > > > >Only the Administrator may, at any time, create public fora, and only if > >said fora are reasonably accessable to all Players. So the Administrator can create a Public Forum, making it accessible, but not tell anybody about it? Why? But any Player can create a Private forum just by announcing it in the Public forum, but what about access to the private forum? Who controls that? > >Only the Administrator > >may, at any time, change previously public fora to private, and only if > >such changes do not eliminate all public fora. > > The phrasing here might be abused so that other players might be > able to create public fora, at specific times. > > -- > all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes Xylen -- ----- cut here to destroy monitor -----8<----- http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:29:45 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal revision This is a slight revision, some rewording. ---------- Fora are arenas in which Players may communicate. Fora may be public or private. Actions may only be taken in public fora, with the exception of creating a new public forum when there are no extant public fora. Only the Administrator may designate fora as public, and only if said fora are reasonably accessible to all Players. Only the Administrator may designate previously public fora as private, and only if such changes do not eliminate all public fora. The Administrator may redesignate fora at any time. The Administrator must, in a timely fashion, maintain and make available to all Players a list of all public fora. {{The majordomo list nomic@iastate.edu is a public forum.}} J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:55:04 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: 2 proposals 1. This fixes UPC awards so that players can't get loads of UPCs by making lots of proposals intended to fail. --------------- Change the first sentence of R466/3 to: A Player receives one UPC for each failed Proposal for which e voted favorably but did not propose. --------------- 2. This slightly alters the way Osborn's Demon votes so a player cannot perpetually take advantage of it by running down eir score. --------------- Amend R384/0 to read: There exists a homunculus, hereafter known as Osborn's Demon, who is an eligible voter only during proposal voting. Osborn's Demon shall vote with the Player or a plurality of the group of Players having the minimal score among eligible voters, or auto-abstain if no such plurality exists. It Osborn's Demon has voted with a single Player more than five times consecutively and said Player has a nonnegative score at no time during those five turns, e is excluded from consideration in the above voting method until e has a nonnegative score at the time the Demon's votes are determined. This rule takes precedence over all rules concerned with voting. ---------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:04:11 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 06:40 PM 6/27/99 , Mary wrote: >> > >> >Only the Administrator may, at any time, create public fora, and only if >> >said fora are reasonably accessable to all Players. > >So the Administrator can create a Public Forum, making it accessible, >but not tell anybody about it? Why? But any Player can create a >Private forum just by announcing it in the Public forum, but what about >access to the private forum? Who controls that? Oh. I consider a forum that no one knows about to be inaccessible, so it couldn't be public. Maybe I'll add a provision that the Admin must also subscribe everyone to it (to avoid that problem). The reason that I didn't make it such that new public fora have to be announced in a a public forum is so this applies to situations in which we have no public fora. As for the creataion of private fora, that's completely unregulated. A private forum is created anytime any of us communicate outside of the mailing list. Whoever creates the private forum would presumably have control over it through whatever real-world mechanisim that normally gives people control over their own communications. The only reason that I mentioned private fora at all is that they are the oppisite of public fora. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:10:39 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal revision (II) Changes to the third paragraph, specifically addressing Mary's concerns. ---------- Fora are arenas in which Players may communicate. Fora may be public or private. Actions may only be taken in public fora, with the exception of creating a new public forum when there are no extant public fora. Only the Administrator may designate fora as public, and only if said fora are reasonably accessible to all Players. Specifically, all Players must either be notified of or subscribed by the Administrator to new email fora before they may become public. Only the Administrator may designate previously public fora as private, and only if such changes do not eliminate all public fora. The Administrator must notify ten days in advance all Players using or subscribed to a public forum before redesignating it as private. The Administrator may redesignate fora at any time. The Administrator must, in a timely fashion, maintain and make available to all Players a list of all public fora. {{The majordomo list nomic@iastate.edu is a public forum.}} J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:29:56 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revision (II) Joel Uckelman wrote: > > Changes to the third paragraph, specifically addressing Mary's concerns. > Thank you. I'm happy now. So happy in fact, that I place myself in the Judging pool. Mary -- ----- cut here to destroy monitor -----8<----- http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen731 Internet Apps http://members.tripod.com/~Xylen My home page ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 21:34:00 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: mass forfeiture Due to the forced forfeiture of several long-inactive players, the Treasury inherits all of their subers (S6000). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 21:31:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: removal The following players were removed from Berserker Nomic on 26 June 1999 02:23 CDT, as per section F of Rule 319/2: Dakota Bailey Jason Durheim Nate Ellefson Lisa Hamilton Tom Knight Andy Palecek Sorry about this. If at any time in the future you wish to rejoin the game, do not hesitate to contact me. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:58:29 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: 2 J93 Statement: >Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, because nomics are >not single players. Ruling: DISMISSED Reasoning: This is a poorly-worded statement for judgment. The fact that it's an if/then construction makes in vague--am I to judge whether nomics may be added as players, or whether "nomics are not single players" is the reason nomics may not be added as players? More importantly, "nomics are not single players" doesn't even fit with the first part. It would have made more sense as "...because nomics are not single human beings." Or better still, just the first half by itself. Since the first half essentially has been submitted as a separate RFJ, and ruled as TRUE by Emperor Kortbein, there seems to be no reason to bother with this awkwardly-worded version. Matt Kuhns | Hope is the path to the DARK SIDE. mjkuhns@iastate.edu | Hope leads to trying. Trying leads to failure. | Failure leads to CYNICISM. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 20:49:18 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: where are we? At 04:28 PM 6/23/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel Uckelman writes: >>Although R221 resets the game to its state (mostly) at the time of the >>crash, I haven't quite determined what that state is yet (lost of mail to >>examine). I'm working on it now, so I should have it all done by this evening. > >In the meantime I'd like to make the following proposal. > >------- > >Any proposal may be designated by its author a "shared proposal." >This designation may be added or removed at any time before the >proposal is voted on. > >When designating a proposal shared, its author must also specify >players with whom to share. The number of players which may be >shared with is limited by the number of current players, but >otherwise any number of players may be specified. > >If a shared proposal passes, the points which would be rewarded to >its author under rule 222 are instead divided amongst the author >and the players e specified. Points shall be divided in integral >amounts, and the author receives any leftover points which cannot >be split evenly amongst the author and the players specified. > >If a shared proposal fails, its author alone takes the penalties, >according to any other rules which deal penalties for failed >proposals. > >Josh Why should those who share the potential benefits not also share the potential losses? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:10:53 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: P529 revision Insert this line as the first line of P529: "Amend R463/0 to read:" I accidentally omitted this from the most recent revision. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:39:09 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: message volume I recall Josh noting that during last weekend's scams, the amount of mail did not rise to that during times of great consternation in the past; however, I just counted (Yes, I do that by hand. That will be one of the first things I write a perl script for when I switch everything to Linux.), and 21 June has the the fourth highest message volume overall. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:50:40 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: where are we? > >Why should those who share the potential benefits not also share the >potential losses? because then we could include other players in our shared proposal, without their consent, so that they would lose points when it failed. It is my opinion that inclusion in a shared proposal should require the consent of the included player. Then the potential losses could also be shared. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:17:55 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Proposal The following is a Proposal Create a rule with the title "Kryten" +++++++ Kryten is an entity within Berserker Nomic, and has voting priviliges. Initially, Kryten's personal ruleset is as follows: 1. (immutable) Once per turn, each Player may submit a proposal to change one of my mutable rules. These proposals are voted on using the same method as Proposals to change the Rules of Berserker. At the conclusion of voting, the proposal that recieved the most votes in favor is adopted. 2. (mutable) Immediately before each voting period, I submit a Proposal entitled "Clean Up the Ruleset" with the text "Repeal rule x" where x is the number of a randomly selected mutable rule of Berserker Nomic. 3. (mutable) Immediately before the end of each voting period, I cast my vote on each ballot-item in the same way as do a majority of the other Players voting on that item. If there is no majority, I do not vote on that item. 4. (mutable) Whenever I may join a Mob, I do so. Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's Personal Ruleset. Kryten is considered a Player. +++++++ Here ends the Proposal Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:19:41 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: message volume Joel Uckelman writes: >I recall Josh noting that during last weekend's scams, the amount of mail >did not rise to that during times of great consternation in the past; >however, I just counted (Yes, I do that by hand. That will be one of the >first things I write a perl script for when I switch everything to Linux.), >and 21 June has the the fourth highest message volume overall. See - it didn't hit third, second, or first. It didn't rise to THOSE levels. :) Josh -- In such an ugly time the real protest is beauty. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:19:01 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: where are we? Joel Uckelman writes: >Why should those who share the potential benefits not also share the >potential losses? I see shared proposals as a way for fair-minded players to allow those who have contributed generously to the development of their proposals to reap some benefits. Perhaps it might encourage a heightened discourse re: proposal modification. Along the same lines, I think that anyone who authors a proposal, then takes bad advice from someone, has dug eir own hole - the advice may have been bad but the author ultimately decided whether or not to follow it. Some might see these as symmetric, but I prefer to weight the good more favorably. "Shared" as in "sharing" is the key. Josh -- all doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:21:59 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Dan Waldron writes: >The following is a Proposal > >Create a rule with the title "Kryten" SUUUUUCKS >Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's >Personal Ruleset. Kryten is considered a Player. Who represents Kryten? Josh -- In such an ugly time the real protest is beauty. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:20:35 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: where are we? Dan Waldron writes: > >> >>Why should those who share the potential benefits not also share the >>potential losses? > >because then we could include other players in our shared proposal, without >their consent, so that they would lose points when it failed. > >It is my opinion that inclusion in a shared proposal should require the >consent of the included player. Then the potential losses could also be >shared. But why share potential losses? Without them there's no need for consent, as the rule can only generate windfall for beneficiaries of proposals not of their authoring. Josh -- Sabotage will set us free. Throw a rock in the machine. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:56:37 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal >Dan Waldron writes: >>The following is a Proposal >> >>Create a rule with the title "Kryten" > > >SUUUUUCKS > > >>Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's >>Personal Ruleset. Kryten is considered a Player. > >Who represents Kryten? nobody. I thought I made this clear in the text of my proposal. If I had wanted Kryten to be exactly like a player, I would have written "Kryten IS a player". Hmm, perhaps I was not clear. Okay, I change that part of my proposal to read Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's Personal Ruleset. Kryten is considered a Player despite not having a human representitive, or meeting the exact definition of a Player. I have to make Kryten a player so that nobody can force em to do things not normally allowed to players, like arbitrarily changing the number of points a player has, or eating proposals. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:58:36 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Dan Waldron writes: >>Dan Waldron writes: >>>The following is a Proposal >>> >>>Create a rule with the title "Kryten" >> >> >>SUUUUUCKS >> >> >>>Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's >>>Personal Ruleset. Kryten is considered a Player. >> >>Who represents Kryten? > >nobody. I thought I made this clear in the text of my proposal. If I had >wanted Kryten to be exactly like a player, I would have written "Kryten IS >a player". > >Hmm, perhaps I was not clear. > >Okay, I change that part of my proposal to read > >Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's >Personal Ruleset. Kryten is considered a Player despite not having a human >representitive, or meeting the exact definition of a Player. > > > >I have to make Kryten a player so that nobody can force em to do things not >normally allowed to players, like arbitrarily changing the number of points >a player has, or eating proposals. I am not clear on whether or not "considering" something to be an X means that it is like an X, for the purposes of the rules, or if it's just a name, in which case what's the point. -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:50:41 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal > > >I am not clear on whether or not "considering" something to be an >X means that it is like an X, for the purposes of the rules, or if >it's just a name, in which case what's the point. > There are many places in the rules in which we "consider" things, to the point that if we decide that "considering" is vague, or we don't understand it, the ruleset is seriously flawed. I use "considered" here in a manner consistant with the rest of the rules. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:07:39 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Dan Waldron writes: >> >> >>I am not clear on whether or not "considering" something to be an >>X means that it is like an X, for the purposes of the rules, or if >>it's just a name, in which case what's the point. >> > >There are many places in the rules in which we "consider" things, to the >point that if we decide that "considering" is vague, or we don't understand >it, the ruleset is seriously flawed. I use "considered" here in a manner >consistant with the rest of the rules. This smacks of something different, though. I checked; all other places which "consider" things to be other things, or have properties which might not otherwise be associated with them, are explicit as to what they "consider." In this case, "consideration" in the sense that we're used to using it would mean that Kryten IS a player, despite his violation of the definition of a player. That being the case I would rather that you find some other way to protect him from things from which players are protected. It seems that a general enough modification to the rules could include Kryten and things like the Demon, while staying clear of the definition of player, which I think we've clearly got some specific, special uses for. Josh -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:25:12 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: proposal revised The following is the revised version of the Proposal. I have expanded it to create a class of entities called "playerlike", and standardise the various non-player voting entities that we have. Create a rule with the title "Playerlike Entities" and the following "-------" delimited text, and the number 420 ------- Entities may be Playerlike. Playerlike entites may only be created and destroyed as specified in the Rules of Berserker. A Playerlike Entity may destroy itself. Playerlike entites are subject to all rules and restrictions which affect Players. Unless otherwise specified in the rules, a rule which applies to Players also applies to playerlike entities. Playerlike entities are not required to meet the definition of Player. Any non-player entity with voting priviliges is playerlike. ------- Create a rule with the title "Kryten" and the following "+++++++" delimited text, and the number 420 +++++++ Kryten is a playerlike entity within Berserker Nomic, and has voting priviliges. Initially, Kryten's personal ruleset is as follows: 1. (immutable) Once per turn, each Player may submit a proposal to change one of my mutable rules. These proposals are voted on using the same method as Proposals to change the Rules of Berserker. At the conclusion of voting, the proposal that recieved the most votes in favor is adopted. 2. (mutable) Immediately before each voting period, I submit a Proposal entitled "Clean Up the Ruleset" with the text "Repeal rule x" where x is the number of a randomly selected mutable rule of Berserker Nomic. 3. (mutable) Immediately before the end of each voting period, I cast my vote on each ballot-item in the same way as do a majority of the other Players voting on that item. If there is no majority, I do not vote on that item. 4. (mutable) Whenever I may join a Mob, I do so. Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's Personal Ruleset. +++++++ Append the following "\\\\\\\" delimited text to rule 384: \\\\\\\ Osborne's Demon is a playerlike entity. \\\\\\\ Append the following "///////" delimited text to rule 466: /////// The Grand Prize is a playerlike entity. /////// Here ends the Proposal Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:31:50 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised Dan Waldron writes: >The following is the revised version of the Proposal. I have expanded it >to create a class of entities called "playerlike", and standardise the >various non-player voting entities that we have. > > > >Create a rule with the title "Playerlike Entities" and the following >"-------" delimited text, and the number 420 > >------- >Entities may be Playerlike. > >Playerlike entites may only be created and destroyed as specified in the >Rules of Berserker. A Playerlike Entity may destroy itself. > >Playerlike entites are subject to all rules and restrictions which affect >Players. Unless otherwise specified in the rules, a rule which applies to >Players also applies to playerlike entities. > >Playerlike entities are not required to meet the definition of Player. > >Any non-player entity with voting priviliges is playerlike. >------- > > > > >Create a rule with the title "Kryten" and the following "+++++++" delimited >text, and the number 420 > >+++++++ >Kryten is a playerlike entity within Berserker Nomic, and has voting >priviliges. Initially, Kryten's personal ruleset is as follows: > >1. (immutable) Once per turn, each Player may submit a proposal to change >one of my mutable rules. These proposals are voted on using the same >method as Proposals to change the Rules of Berserker. At the conclusion of >voting, the proposal that recieved the most votes in favor is adopted. > >2. (mutable) Immediately before each voting period, I submit a Proposal >entitled "Clean Up the Ruleset" with the text "Repeal rule x" where x is >the number of a randomly selected mutable rule of Berserker Nomic. > >3. (mutable) Immediately before the end of each voting period, I cast my >vote on each ballot-item in the same way as do a majority of the other >Players voting on that item. If there is no majority, I do not vote on >that item. > >4. (mutable) Whenever I may join a Mob, I do so. > >Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's >Personal Ruleset. > >+++++++ > > >Append the following "\\\\\\\" delimited text to rule 384: > >\\\\\\\ >Osborne's Demon is a playerlike entity. >\\\\\\\ > >Append the following "///////" delimited text to rule 466: >/////// >The Grand Prize is a playerlike entity. >/////// > > > > > > >Here ends the Proposal Now you might consider breaking this up as well. I'm intrigued by the non-Kryten parts but don't see any reason to vote for Kryten. Josh has a bad relationship with british comedy -- Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:45:26 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised >> >> >> >> >>Here ends the Proposal > >Now you might consider breaking this up as well. > >I'm intrigued by the non-Kryten parts but don't see any reason >to vote for Kryten. > I cannot break it up because kryten depends on the other parts. Kryten is the only new thing in the whole proposal. Everything else is just tinkering! Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:54:50 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised Dan Waldron writes: > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Here ends the Proposal >> >>Now you might consider breaking this up as well. >> >>I'm intrigued by the non-Kryten parts but don't see any reason >>to vote for Kryten. >> > >I cannot break it up because kryten depends on the other parts. > >Kryten is the only new thing in the whole proposal. Everything else is >just tinkering! You say that like tinkering is a bad thing. If both proposals pass then there's no problem. Josh -- Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:01:35 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised > >If both proposals pass then there's no problem. > > yes but if just Kryten passes, then we have a problem, with potential scams. poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:12:06 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised Dan Waldron writes: > >> >>If both proposals pass then there's no problem. >> >> > >yes but if just Kryten passes, then we have a problem, with potential scams. You could just wait a turn for that one. Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:13:05 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised > >yes but if just Kryten passes, then we have a problem, with potential scams. >poulenc Could you maybe propose the "playerlike" part this round, then providing it passes, propose Kryten next turn? I know it involves waiting, but it's crazy enough that it just might work. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:22:13 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised Matthew J Kuhns writes: >> >>yes but if just Kryten passes, then we have a problem, with potential scams. >>poulenc > >Could you maybe propose the "playerlike" part this round, then providing it >passes, propose Kryten next turn? I know it involves waiting, but it's >crazy enough that it just might work. The hell you say! -- In such an ugly time the real protest is beauty. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:23:47 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised >Dan Waldron writes: >> >>> >>>If both proposals pass then there's no problem. >>> >>> >> >>yes but if just Kryten passes, then we have a problem, with potential scams. > >You could just wait a turn for that one. Or they could be voted on like this. By next turn there will be other stuff I want to do. what have you got against kryten anyway? Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:27:26 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised >> >>yes but if just Kryten passes, then we have a problem, with potential scams. >>poulenc > >Could you maybe propose the "playerlike" part this round, then providing it >passes, propose Kryten next turn? I know it involves waiting, but it's >crazy enough that it just might work. > > why not have them both now? Kryten's a friendly little fellow, and he can't do any harm. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:32:55 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised >>yes but if just Kryten passes, then we have a problem, with potential scams. >>poulenc > >Could you maybe propose the "playerlike" part this round, then providing it >passes, propose Kryten next turn? I know it involves waiting, but it's >crazy enough that it just might work. You can just put an "if" statement in the proposal for Kryten, so he wouldn't take effect unless the other part passes. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:37:20 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised Dan Waldron writes: >>> >>>yes but if just Kryten passes, then we have a problem, with potential scams. >>>poulenc >> >>Could you maybe propose the "playerlike" part this round, then providing it >>passes, propose Kryten next turn? I know it involves waiting, but it's >>crazy enough that it just might work. >> >> >why not have them both now? Kryten's a friendly little fellow, and he >can't do any harm. He joins mobs. QED. -- Jon like pictures. Pretty pictures make Jon happy. Ugly Greek letters make Jon very angry. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:33:12 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised Dan Waldron writes: >>Dan Waldron writes: >>> >>>> >>>>If both proposals pass then there's no problem. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>yes but if just Kryten passes, then we have a problem, with potential scams. >> >>You could just wait a turn for that one. > >Or they could be voted on like this. By next turn there will be other >stuff I want to do. > >what have you got against kryten anyway? He displeases me. He's got a funny look to him. Do you have any reason for having Kryten other than "he's an interesting thing to have"? Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:49:01 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Proposal Split I have split the proposal into two, with an if clause in the second, as everyone seems to be telling me to. I took out the bit about the mobs to make emperor josh happy, but I have the feeling that people still don't like kryten. Create a rule with the title "Playerlike Entities" and the following "-------" delimited text. ------- Entities may be Playerlike. Playerlike entites may only be created and destroyed as specified in the Rules of Berserker. A Playerlike Entity may destroy itself. Playerlike entites are subject to all rules and restrictions which affect Players. Unless otherwise specified in the rules, a rule which applies to Players also applies to playerlike entities. Playerlike entities are not required to meet the definition of Player. Any non-player entity with voting priviliges is playerlike. ------- Append the following "\\\\\\\" delimited text to rule 384: \\\\\\\ Osborne's Demon is a playerlike entity. \\\\\\\ Append the following "///////" delimited text to rule 466: /////// The Grand Prize is a playerlike entity. /////// Here Ends the Proposal The following is a new Proposal. If there is a rule with the title "Playerlike Entities", then Create a rule with the title "Kryten" and the following "+++++++" delimited text, and the number 420 +++++++ Kryten is a playerlike entity within Berserker Nomic, and has voting priviliges. {{ Kryten's personal ruleset is as follows: 1. (mutable) Once per turn, each Player may submit a proposal to change one of my mutable rules. These proposals are voted on using the same method as Proposals to change the Rules of Berserker. At the conclusion of voting, the proposal that recieved the most votes in favor is adopted. 2. (mutable) Immediately before each voting period, I submit a Proposal entitled "Clean Up the Ruleset" with the text "Repeal rule x" where x is the number of a randomly selected mutable rule of Berserker Nomic. 3. (mutable) Immediately before the end of each voting period, I cast my vote on each ballot-item in the same way as do a majority of the other Players voting on that item. If there is no majority, I do not vote on that item. }} Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's Personal Ruleset. +++++++ Here ends the Proposal Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:57:30 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised > >Do you have any reason for having Kryten other than "he's an interesting >thing to have"? > No. Can you give any reason for playing this game other than "it's an interesting thing to do?" Poulenc. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:01:01 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised Dan Waldron writes: > >> >>Do you have any reason for having Kryten other than "he's an interesting >>thing to have"? >> > >No. Can you give any reason for playing this game other than "it's an >interesting thing to do?" No, but that reason has a limited currency. We've already got interesting things, things more interesting than Kryten. Josh -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:16:26 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised >Dan Waldron writes: >> >>> >>>Do you have any reason for having Kryten other than "he's an interesting >>>thing to have"? >>> >> >>No. Can you give any reason for playing this game other than "it's an >>interesting thing to do?" > >No, but that reason has a limited currency. We've already got >interesting things, things more interesting than Kryten. Kryten is a nomic game in himself... what could be more interesting? poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:23:23 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised Dan Waldron writes: >>Dan Waldron writes: >>> >>>> >>>>Do you have any reason for having Kryten other than "he's an interesting >>>>thing to have"? >>>> >>> >>>No. Can you give any reason for playing this game other than "it's an >>>interesting thing to do?" >> >>No, but that reason has a limited currency. We've already got >>interesting things, things more interesting than Kryten. > >Kryten is a nomic game in himself... what could be more interesting? Alphanomic? Josh -- In _Gravity's Rainbow_ Thomas Pynchon wrote that paper is used in three ways-- for "shit, money, and The Word." I tend to look at guitars in the same way. - Brent Dicrescenzo ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:34:20 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal revised >Dan Waldron writes: >>>Dan Waldron writes: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Do you have any reason for having Kryten other than "he's an interesting >>>>>thing to have"? >>>>> >>>> >>>>No. Can you give any reason for playing this game other than "it's an >>>>interesting thing to do?" >>> >>>No, but that reason has a limited currency. We've already got >>>interesting things, things more interesting than Kryten. >> >>Kryten is a nomic game in himself... what could be more interesting? > >Alphanomic? > is dead. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:36:40 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: earlier proposal revised I think this minor tweak. I want it to include more than just choosing judges, but cover any sort of self-legalising action. The following is a revision of the first proposal I submitted this turn. FIXITUP Amend rule 215 by appending the follwing paragraph: In all cases judging the legality of action a, the judges are chosen and the legality is determined based on the game state immediately preceding that action a. FIXITUP Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:57:59 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: partial metaphysics proposal This is the start of a proposal that I've been mulling over for several months now... ----------------------------- (1) An event is a change in the game state. (2) An action is an event directly caused by an agent. (3) An entity is a separately identifiable game element. (4) An agent is an entity capable of directly causing events. (5) Players are agents. ------------------------------ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:05:27 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Split At 02:49 PM 6/28/99 , Dan Waldron wrote: > >The following is a new Proposal. > > >If there is a rule with the title "Playerlike Entities", then Create a rule >with the title "Kryten" and the following "+++++++" delimited text, and the >number 420 > >+++++++ >Kryten is a playerlike entity within Berserker Nomic, and has voting >priviliges. > >{{ >Kryten's personal ruleset is as follows: > >1. (mutable) Once per turn, each Player may submit a proposal to change one >of my mutable rules. These proposals are voted on using the same method as >Proposals to change the Rules of Berserker. At the conclusion of voting, >the proposal that recieved the most votes in favor is adopted. > >2. (mutable) Immediately before each voting period, I submit a Proposal >entitled "Clean Up the Ruleset" with the text "Repeal rule x" where x is >the number of a randomly selected mutable rule of Berserker Nomic. I have difficulty describing how opposed I am to this section. This is just asking for a situation where the game can neither advance nor end by paradox. The vast majority of our mutable rules are there because they _do_ something You can't knock parts out of a machine at random and expect it to work very well. >3. (mutable) Immediately before the end of each voting period, I cast my >vote on each ballot-item in the same way as do a majority of the other >Players voting on that item. If there is no majority, I do not vote on >that item. >}} Also, if we want voting to accurately represent the desires of our players, we should be wary of adding too many non-player voters. >Kryten's Personal Ruleset may only be changed as defined in Kryten's >Personal Ruleset. > >+++++++ > >Here ends the Proposal > >Poulenc J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:26:40 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: earlier proposal revised At 04:36 PM 6/28/99 , Dan wrote: >I think this minor tweak. I want it to include more than just choosing >judges, but cover any sort of self-legalising action. > >The following is a revision of the first proposal I submitted this turn. > > >FIXITUP > >Amend rule 215 by appending the follwing paragraph: > >In all cases judging the legality of action a, the judges are chosen and >the legality is determined based on the game state immediately preceding >that action a. > >FIXITUP I still think that rendering a ruling based on the game state immediately prior to the action would, at best, make many rulings incoherent, and at worst force the dismissal of most statements. Are you sure that you really want courts to decide based on a game state in which the RFJ hasn't been made? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:54:31 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Split >Also, if we want voting to accurately represent the desires of our players, >we should be wary of adding too many non-player voters. > The point about kryten is that his behavior changes based on the whims of the players. He _can_ vote, but he doesn't have to. We can easily submit proposals to him that would prevent him from voting, and instead transfer slack or give away subers or do pretty much anything we want him to. The behaviors that I included in the proposal are by no means set in stone. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:54:37 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: earlier proposal revised >At 04:36 PM 6/28/99 , Dan wrote: >>I think this minor tweak. I want it to include more than just choosing >>judges, but cover any sort of self-legalising action. >> >>The following is a revision of the first proposal I submitted this turn. >> >> >>FIXITUP >> >>Amend rule 215 by appending the follwing paragraph: >> >>In all cases judging the legality of action a, the judges are chosen and >>the legality is determined based on the game state immediately preceding >>that action a. >> >>FIXITUP > >I still think that rendering a ruling based on the game state immediately >prior to the action would, at best, make many rulings incoherent, and at >worst force the dismissal of most statements. Are you sure that you really >want courts to decide based on a game state in which the RFJ hasn't been made? > That was not the intent behind this proposal. When I wrote it I wanted something that would prevent further scamming the legal system, effectively isolating it from crazy scams by us players. It seems that my wording for the proposal was not clear, but this is the best that I could come up with. I will let this stand for now, but if anyone has a better idea for the wording that would be clear to the reader, please let me know and I will revise it accordingly. (or you could even submit it yourself...) Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:16:00 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Split Dan Waldron writes: > >>Also, if we want voting to accurately represent the desires of our players, >>we should be wary of adding too many non-player voters. >> > > >The point about kryten is that his behavior changes based on the whims of >the players. He _can_ vote, but he doesn't have to. We can easily submit >proposals to him that would prevent him from voting, and instead transfer >slack or give away subers or do pretty much anything we want him to. The >behaviors that I included in the proposal are by no means set in stone. I think Joel's point was that the ones that are there SUUUUUUUCK. Getting your proposal to pass with parts that SUUUUUUCK is much harder than without, don't you think? -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:35:46 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Split >I think Joel's point was that the ones that are there SUUUUUUUCK. >Getting your proposal to pass with parts that SUUUUUUCK is much >harder than without, don't you think? Oh thank you so much. I put those particular ones in to provide an incentive people to tinker with him and try to get him to vote on their side. If you have any suggestions for changing the parts that, as you so eloquently put, SUUUUUUCK, They would be welcome. If you are just taking the excuse to say big long words like "SUUUUUUCK" and so forth and have no ideas of your own and no suggestion as to how to improve the parts of my proposal that you so clearly find offensive the I thank you very much for wasting my time and invite you to do it again some time. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:07:58 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Split Dan Waldron writes: > >>I think Joel's point was that the ones that are there SUUUUUUUCK. >>Getting your proposal to pass with parts that SUUUUUUCK is much >>harder than without, don't you think? > >Oh thank you so much. I put those particular ones in to provide an >incentive people to tinker with him and try to get him to vote on their >side. > >If you have any suggestions for changing the parts that, as you so >eloquently put, SUUUUUUCK, They would be welcome. If you are just taking >the excuse to say big long words like "SUUUUUUCK" and so forth and have no >ideas of your own and no suggestion as to how to improve the parts of my >proposal that you so clearly find offensive the I thank you very much for >wasting my time and invite you to do it again some time. I think I've made it pretty clear that removing the Kryten business would constitute an improvement. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 20:20:28 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Nomic: RFJ 93 > Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, > because nomics are not single players. FALSE. For one thing, the statement is circular -- it essentially states A cannot be B because A is not B. Secondly, there is nothing inherently impossible about a Nomic being a human, or a human being a Nomic. It is the nature of a Nomic to have to potential to become darn near anything. This ruling does not imply that all Nomics may be players -- it merely states that "nomics are not single players" is not a solid reason for concluding that "Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic." Otherwise, we might be swamped with statements like "Roger Carbol is the winner, because Roger Carbol has won" and so forth. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:32:04 CDT From: Wbfu Xbegorva Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ 93 Roger Carbol writes: > >> Nomics may not be added as players to Berserker Nomic, >> because nomics are not single players. > > >FALSE. > > >For one thing, the statement is circular -- it essentially states >A cannot be B because A is not B. I have a major problem with your ruling false on what you claim to be a tautology, but we'll wait and see if this needs appealing for now. Josh -- The resurrection was on Sunday No, correction, make it Monday 'Cause that's when they come to take the trash ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:20:06 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: proposal In my research for J93, I took a look at rule 2, which currently reads: "A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, human being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; and by any unambiguous name in all else." That first paragraph states "a player is a game entity represented BY" one person, and also states that a person cannot be a player if he/she is alraedy "represented in the game AS another player." One could read rule 2 as simultaneously saying that a player represents a person, and a person represents a player. I sense a disturbance in the Force. Therefore I propose a simple rewording of rule 2 that should better reflect what it is meant to do (and just maybe head off a problem before it gets out of hand.) My proposal -------------- 1. Transmute R2. 2. Amend R2 to read: A Player is a game entity representing one and only one real, living, human being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the game as another Player. A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; and by any unambiguous name in all else. 3. Transmute R2. -------------- This proposal is disinterested. Comments are welcome. --- Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns "Anyone who would letterspace black letter would steal sheep." --Frederic Goudy ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:23:57 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Split >I think I've made it pretty clear that removing the Kryten business >would constitute an improvement. > I did remove the kryten business; It is a seperate proposal now. Thank you for your patience. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:54:54 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 10:20 PM 6/29/99 , Kuhns wrote: >In my research for J93, I took a look at rule 2, which currently reads: > >"A Player is a game entity represented by one and only one real, living, human >being who consents to said representation and is not already represented in the >game as another Player. >A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir corresponding >real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir real name does not >uniquely identify em within the game; and by any unambiguous name in all else." > >That first paragraph states "a player is a game entity represented BY" one >person, and also states that a person cannot be a player if he/she is >alraedy "represented in the game AS another player." One could read rule 2 >as simultaneously saying that a player represents a person, and a person >represents a player. > >I sense a disturbance in the Force. > >Therefore I propose a simple rewording of rule 2 that should better reflect >what it is meant to do (and just maybe head off a problem before it gets >out of hand.) > >My proposal >-------------- > >1. Transmute R2. > >2. Amend R2 to read: > >A Player is a game entity representing one and only one real, living, >human being who consents to said representation and is not already >represented in the game as another Player. > >A Player shall be identified, for recordkeeping purposes, by eir >corresponding real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir >real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; and by any >unambiguous name in all else. > >3. Transmute R2. > >-------------- >This proposal is disinterested. Comments are welcome. Now that I think about it, why have people represent players? Why not just have people BE players? That seems to go a long way toward clarification. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 03:50:42 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal > >Now that I think about it, why have people represent players? Why not just >have people BE players? That seems to go a long way toward clarification. > If people are players then the rules can impose restrictions on our lives outside of the game. Not that I think this is such a likely thing to happen, but it is probably better kept so that it is not possible. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:16:47 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player proposal I propose that Nate Ellefson be added to the game. (He was a charter player that got booted last week, and is now interested in playing again.) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/