________________________________________ 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