________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 10:09:35 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: It's still a crime. I still think these are good ideas, and since no one commented negatively on them last round, I am going to propose them again. If you have valid questions, concerns, or reservations on these proposals, feel free to voice your opinion. (Note: These proposals have not changed in any way from the form they were voted on last turn) Create the following +++ delimited proposal: ++++++++++++++++++++ 1) Any entity who performs an action defined by the Rules to be a Crime during the current or previous 3 turns, or fails to perform an action where such failure is defined by the Rules to be a Crime during the previous 3 turns, shall be subject to whatever penalty the Rules prescribe for that Crime upon the execution of a Sentencing Order executed consequent to a judicial finding that e did in fact commit that Crime. 2) The imposition of penalties for the commission of a Crime shall be by Sentencing Order(s). Upon a judicial finding that an entity has committed a Crime, the Judge so finding shall execute Sentencing Orders sufficient to implement the penalty required by the Rules for that Crime. If the Rules specify a range of penalties, then the Judge executing the Sentencing Order shall determine the exact penalty within the stated range. 3) The punishment for a Crime shall be whatever was specified by the Rules at the time the action so designated as a Crime was committed, even if the Rule or Rules which specified the punishment, or which designated the action as a Crime have since been amended or repealed. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which specifies a different penalty for a Crime. 4) No action is a Crime unless defined as such by the Rules. If the Rules define an act to be a Crime but fail to prescribe a penalty for that act, then there is no penalty for that act. 5) Any RFJ whose Statement alleges that an entity has, through action or inaction, committed a Crime shall be dismissed if there is a prior RFJ, the statement of which alleges that the same entity has, through the same action or inaction, committed the same Crime, and which was itself not dismissed. 6) A RFJ alleging that a Player has committed a Crime shall not be judged TRUE unless the evidence is sufficient to be certain of that Judgment beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it is a defense to any accusation of a Crime that the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a Crime at the time e performed them, or that e reasonably did not know that e was required to perform an action, when such nonperformance is defined as a Crime. No Player shall be convicted of a Crime if this defense applies. ++++++++++++++++++++ Create the following === delimited proposal: ==================== The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or range of penalties: Misdemeanor I Fine of 1 point II Fine of 3 points III Fine of 5 points Felony I Fine of 1-5 points and loss of 1-3 Subers II Fine of 5-10 points and loss of 3-5 Subers III Fine of 10-15 points and loss of 5-10 Subers Capital I Fine of 15-45 points, loss of 10-40 Subers, and loss of 1-5 Slack II Fine of 45-75 points, loss of 40-70 Subers, and loss of 5-10 Slack III Fine of 75-100 points, loss of 70-100 Subers, and loss of 10-15 Slack ================== Create the following && delimited proposal: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Any Player who goes into Limbo while serving as the Judge of one or more RFJs commits the Crime of Judge Inactivity. This Crime is a Felony I for each RFJs for which the Player was selected as Judge when e went into Limbo. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Create the following %% delimited proposal: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Any Player who joins a Mob commits the Crime of Accessory to Incitation. This is a Felony III Crime. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Create the following ## delimited proposal: ############### Any Player who knowingly attempts to act as, or purports to be, someone other than imself commits the Crime of Impersonation. This is a Capital I Crime. ############## Create the following @@ delimited proposal: @@@@@@@@@@@@@ Any Player who incites a Mob commits the Crime of Incitation. This is a Capital I Crime. @@@@@@@@@@@@@ Xylen -- We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters could produce all of the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 21:54:03 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu From: uckelman@iastate.edu > > Create the following === delimited proposal: > > ==================== > The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or > range of penalties: > > Misdemeanor > > I Fine of 1 point > II Fine of 3 points > III Fine of 5 points > > Felony > > I Fine of 1-5 points and loss of 1-3 Subers > II Fine of 5-10 points and loss of 3-5 Subers > III Fine of 10-15 points and loss of 5-10 Subers > > Capital > > I Fine of 15-45 points, loss of 10-40 Subers, and loss of 1-5 Slack > II Fine of 45-75 points, loss of 40-70 Subers, and loss of 5-10 Slack > III Fine of 75-100 points, loss of 70-100 Subers, and loss of 10-15 > Slack > ================== I still think the penalties are off, and won't vote for this one. > Create the following %% delimited proposal: > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > Any Player who joins a Mob commits the Crime of Accessory to Incitation. > This is a Felony III Crime. > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > Maybe whether one gets caught for joining a Mob should be probabilistic. Otherwise, won't this completely discourage Mobs from forming? -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 22:06:58 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: It's still a crime. uckelman@iastate.edu wrote: > > > > > Create the following === delimited proposal: > > > > ==================== > > The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or > > range of penalties: <> > > ================== > > I still think the penalties are off, and won't vote for this one. What would you like to see for penalties? > > > Create the following %% delimited proposal: > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > Any Player who joins a Mob commits the Crime of Accessory to Incitation. > > This is a Felony III Crime. > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > > > Maybe whether one gets caught for joining a Mob should be probabilistic. > Otherwise, won't this completely discourage Mobs from forming? The penalty for an individual who joins a mob is small compared to the penalties suffered by the victim. It would take a Mob or 4 people to come close to what the victim must endure. Players should think about the consequences before joining a Mob, but if they decided the price is worth it, the Mob can still be formed. Xylen -- We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters could produce all of the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:59:49 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: It's still a crime. > > uckelman@iastate.edu wrote: > > > > > > > > Create the following === delimited proposal: > > > > > > ==================== > > > The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or > > > range of penalties: > <> > > > ================== > > > > I still think the penalties are off, and won't vote for this one. > > What would you like to see for penalties? I don't think players should be penalized in slack by the rules -- other players should do that, if they care about the crime. Also, I think that Capital III crimes should carry a stiffer penalty, like maybe removal. > > > > > Create the following %% delimited proposal: > > > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > > Any Player who joins a Mob commits the Crime of Accessory to Incitation. > > > This is a Felony III Crime. > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > > > > > > Maybe whether one gets caught for joining a Mob should be probabilistic. > > Otherwise, won't this completely discourage Mobs from forming? > > The penalty for an individual who joins a mob is small compared to the > penalties suffered by the victim. It would take a Mob or 4 people to > come close to what the victim must endure. Players should think about > the consequences before joining a Mob, but if they decided the price is > worth it, the Mob can still be formed. > > Xylen The Mob system seems mostly self-regulating, as there are usually no active Mobs. Such a deterrent might be warranted if Mobs were endemic, but our experience with them has been rather mild, and the interest a moderate number of Mobs can generate appears to outweigh the suffering of their victims. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:34:12 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: It's still a crime. uckelman@iastate.edu wrote: > > > > > uckelman@iastate.edu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Create the following === delimited proposal: > > > > > > > > ==================== > > > > The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or > > > > range of penalties: > > <> > > > > ================== > > > > > > I still think the penalties are off, and won't vote for this one. > > > > What would you like to see for penalties? > > I don't think players should be penalized in slack by the rules -- other > players should do that, if they care about the crime. Also, I think that > Capital III crimes should carry a stiffer penalty, like maybe removal. What about loss of voting privileges for a certain number of turns, or the inability to make new proposals for a limited time? Removing a person from the game is a very serious consideration, but as we found out last month it is needed. So how about another category for the most severe of serious crimes--Corporal Crime: Conviction of a Corporal crime result in the removal of the Player from the game. Regarding Slack, I see your point. Slack is a way for Players to voice their opinion about actions. Loss of Slack in this case does not constitute a punishment that should be meted out by the Courts. > > > > > > > > Create the following %% delimited proposal: > > > > > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > > > Any Player who joins a Mob commits the Crime of Accessory to Incitation. > > > > This is a Felony III Crime. > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > > > > > > > > > Maybe whether one gets caught for joining a Mob should be probabilistic. > > > Otherwise, won't this completely discourage Mobs from forming? > > > > The penalty for an individual who joins a mob is small compared to the > > penalties suffered by the victim. It would take a Mob or 4 people to > > come close to what the victim must endure. Players should think about > > the consequences before joining a Mob, but if they decided the price is > > worth it, the Mob can still be formed. > > > > Xylen > > The Mob system seems mostly self-regulating, as there are usually no active > Mobs. Such a deterrent might be warranted if Mobs were endemic, but our > experience with them has been rather mild, and the interest a moderate number > of Mobs can generate appears to outweigh the suffering of their victims. Thinking about that, I admit the formation of a Mob does seem to generate some interest and excitement in the game. Still, this rule does add one more point of interest to the game. Even if a person joins a Mob, someone must accuse them and ask the courts for a judgment. I do find it interesting that you are not complaining about the crime of Inciting a Mob. Perhaps the trial of a person accused of Inciting a Mob is easier on the courts and still adds to the spirit of the game. I will consider your comments and make changes later today. Xylen -- We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters could produce all of the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 12:42:17 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: It's still a crime. Xylen writes: >Removing a person from the game is a very serious consideration, but as >we found out last month it is needed. So how about another category for Eh? Are you talking about Gabe? I consider his extra player a special case. Otherwise, we've never really removed a player for doing "bad things." Josh -- So in the end when one is doing philosophy one gets to the point where one would like just to emit an inarticulate sound. - Ludwig Wittgenstein, _Philosophical Investigations_ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 12:07:53 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: It's still a crime. Josh Kortbein wrote: > > Xylen writes: > >Removing a person from the game is a very serious consideration, but as > >we found out last month it is needed. So how about another category for > > Eh? Are you talking about Gabe? I consider his extra player a special > case. Otherwise, we've never really removed a player for doing "bad > things." No, I was referring to the removal of several players for periods of extended Limbo and lack of playing activity. Gabe, Gabe II, and Gabe III (if he still has three) certainly can't be accused of inactivity. The Imperial Revolution wasn't 'bad', it is was 'interesting'. :) Xylen -- We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters could produce all of the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:12:18 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: It's still a crime. Xylen writes: > > >Josh Kortbein wrote: >> >> Xylen writes: >> >Removing a person from the game is a very serious consideration, but as >> >we found out last month it is needed. So how about another category for >> >> Eh? Are you talking about Gabe? I consider his extra player a special >> case. Otherwise, we've never really removed a player for doing "bad >> things." > >No, I was referring to the removal of several players for periods of >extended Limbo and lack of playing activity. Gabe, Gabe II, and Gabe III >(if he still has three) certainly can't be accused of inactivity. The >Imperial Revolution wasn't 'bad', it is was 'interesting'. :) Given the conditions for removal due to inactivity, I don't think the removals were very serious. It was something easily avoidable by those who were removed, whereas if we removed someone in conjunction with a crime e committed, there might be opposition to our readmitting em (perhaps because we're mad at em, for example). Josh -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 16:53:01 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting begins at 21:00 CDT, 3 August 1999. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:08:51 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: It's still a crime. > > > > The Mob system seems mostly self-regulating, as there are usually no active > > Mobs. Such a deterrent might be warranted if Mobs were endemic, but our > > experience with them has been rather mild, and the interest a moderate number > > of Mobs can generate appears to outweigh the suffering of their victims. > > Thinking about that, I admit the formation of a Mob does seem to > generate some interest and excitement in the game. Still, this rule does > add one more point of interest to the game. Even if a person joins a > Mob, someone must accuse them and ask the courts for a judgment. I do > find it interesting that you are not complaining about the crime of > Inciting a Mob. Perhaps the trial of a person accused of Inciting a Mob > is easier on the courts and still adds to the spirit of the game. It seems to make sense that the inciter would be visible and recognizable, while the followers would retain some degree of anonymity in the confusion. Hence, obvious inciters get nailed, but other ne'r-do-wells can possibly escape. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:02:42 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Crime and Punishment I would suggest that a penalty more severe other than fines be applied for the more serious crimes. Perhaps a suspension of voting or proposal-making priviliges, or requiring the player to spend a certain amout of time in limbo. Perhaps they could be stripped of one or more wins (could we have players with a negative number of wins?) or some other form of penalty could be applied. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:53:23 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: Crime and Punishment Dan Waldron wrote: : I would suggest that a penalty more severe other than fines be applied for : the more serious crimes. Perhaps a suspension of voting or proposal-making : priviliges, or requiring the player to spend a certain amout of time in : limbo. Perhaps they could be stripped of one or more wins (could we have : players with a negative number of wins?) or some other form of penalty : could be applied. Win-stripping seems like a very harsh measure. What kind of crime would warrant that? But the suspension things seem reasonable. If I can, I transfer one slack from Roger Carbol to Poulenc. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 02:04:09 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Crime and Punishment "Ole Andersen" writes: >Dan Waldron wrote: > >: I would suggest that a penalty more severe other than fines be applied for >: the more serious crimes. Perhaps a suspension of voting or >proposal-making >: priviliges, or requiring the player to spend a certain amout of time in >: limbo. Perhaps they could be stripped of one or more wins (could we have >: players with a negative number of wins?) or some other form of penalty >: could be applied. > >Win-stripping seems like a very harsh measure. >What kind of crime would warrant that? None. Wins are a matter of long-term historical record, and we shouldn't be tampering with the long-term historical record. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:34:47 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Changes After due consideration of comments made, I have altered prop #550 to read as follows: The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or range of penalties: Misdemeanor I Fine of 1 point II Fine of 3 points III Fine of 5 points Felony I Fine of 1-5 points and loss of 1-3 Subers II Fine of 5-10 points and loss of 3-5 Subers III Fine of 10-15 points and loss of 5-10 Subers Capital I Fine of 15-45 points, loss of 10-40 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 0-3 turns II Fine of 45-75 points, loss of 40-70 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 1-5 turns III Fine of 75-100 points, loss of 70-100 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 5-10 turns. ======================= I also remove prop #552 from consideration. Xylen -- We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters could produce all of the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 19:59:07 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: One more holdover for the SC I am again deactivating P538 because I have not yet implemented the changes I mentioned several days previous. Now that I'm settling in with doing nomic stuff on my Linux system, though, I should be able to get to it within the next several days (definitely before the end of the next turn). -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:03:12 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: ballot Voting ends at 21:00 CDT, 5 August 1999. -------- P549 1) Any entity who performs an action defined by the Rules to be a Crime during the current or previous 3 turns, or fails to perform an action where such failure is defined by the Rules to be a Crime during the previous 3 turns, shall be subject to whatever penalty the Rules prescribe for that Crime upon the execution of a Sentencing Order executed consequent to a judicial finding that e did in fact commit that Crime. 2) The imposition of penalties for the commission of a Crime shall be by Sentencing Order(s). Upon a judicial finding that an entity has committed a Crime, the Judge so finding shall execute Sentencing Orders sufficient to implement the penalty required by the Rules for that Crime. If the Rules specify a range of penalties, then the Judge executing the Sentencing Order shall determine the exact penalty within the stated range. 3) The punishment for a Crime shall be whatever was specified by the Rules at the time the action so designated as a Crime was committed, even if the Rule or Rules which specified the punishment, or which designated the action as a Crime have since been amended or repealed.This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which specifies a different penalty for a Crime. 4) No action is a Crime unless defined as such by the Rules. If the Rules define an act to be a Crime but fail to prescribe a penalty for that act, then there is no penalty for that act. 5) Any RFJ whose Statement alleges that an entity has, through action or inaction, committed a Crime shall be dismissed if there is a prior RFJ, the statement of which alleges that the same entity has, through the same action or inaction, committed the same Crime, and which was itself not dismissed. 6) A RFJ alleging that a Player has committed a Crime shall not be judged TRUE unless the evidence is sufficient to be certain of that Judgment beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it is a defense to any accusation of a Crime that the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a Crime at the time e performed them, or that e reasonably did not know that e was required to perform an action, when such nonperformance is defined as a Crime. No Player shall be convicted of a Crime if this defense applies. -------- P550 The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or range of penalties: Misdemeanor I Fine of 1 point II Fine of 3 points III Fine of 5 points Felony I Fine of 1-5 points and loss of 1-3 Subers II Fine of 5-10 points and loss of 3-5 Subers III Fine of 10-15 points and loss of 5-10 Subers Capital I Fine of 15-45 points, loss of 10-40 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 0-3 turns II Fine of 45-75 points, loss of 40-70 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 1-5 turns III Fine of 75-100 points, loss of 70-100 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 5-10 turns. -------- P551 Any Player who goes into Limbo while serving as the Judge of one or more RFJs commits the Crime of Judge Inactivity. This Crime is a Felony I for each RFJs for which the Player was selected as Judge when e went into Limbo. -------- P553 Any Player who knowingly attempts to act as, or purports to be, someone other than imself commits the Crime of Impersonation. This is a Capital I Crime. -------- P554 Any Player who incites a Mob commits the Crime of Incitation. This is a Capital I Crime. -------- -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:39:00 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: scoring correction Ditto on this message. ------- Forwarded Message X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: nomic@iastate.edu Subject: correction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:01:11 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Mary Tupper scored -27 points, not -37 as listed in the voting results. - -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ------- End of Forwarded Message -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:37:41 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: voting results I sent this, but it apparently didn't make it to the list... ------- Forwarded Message X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: nomic@iastate.edu Subject: voting results Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 18:48:13 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Voting Summary P549 passed (4-2-0-7). P550 failed (3-3-0-7). P551 failed (3-3-0-7). P553 failed (3-3-0-7). P554 failed (2-4-0-7). - -------- Voting OA JK MK MP JS JU 549 y n n y y y 550 y n n y n y 551 y n n y n y 553 y n n n y y 554 y n y n n n - -------- Scoring +7 Josh Kortbein +7 Matt Kuhns - -37 Mary Tupper - -------- UPCs +4 Ole Andersen +3 Joel Uckelman +2 Matt Potter +1 Matt Kuhns +1 Jeff Schroeder - -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ------- End of Forwarded Message -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:38:24 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: thoughts on scoring I sent this, but it doesn't seem to have made it to the list... ------- Forwarded Message X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: nomic@iastate.edu Subject: thoughts on scoring Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:00:36 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Base on the results of the past several turns, I think it's time for us to reconsider how players are rewarded/penalized for proposing and voting. It seems to me that, of late, there has been an unusual amount of negative voting with virtually no negative discussion -- leading me to believe that most of the nays have been cast with an eye toward opposed minority scoring. Thus, I offer a proposal: - ---- Amend Rule 204/2 to read: If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who vote against winning Proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to 5*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. - ---- By halving opposed minority scoring, it should become less enticing for players to vote against proposals simply to gain points. Secondly, I offer a proposal to reduce the failed proposal penalty, in the interests of encouraging players to make proposals: - ---- Amend Rule 206/0 to read: When a Proposal is defeated, the Player who proposed it loses 5 points. - ---- Last, an observation: it pays to vote for one's own proposals. Mary didn't vote -- unfortunately for her, three of her five proposals failed by a single vote, and it cost her 40 points. - -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ------- End of Forwarded Message -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:37:37 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Nomic: Ever have one of those weeks? I can't believe this. My ISP has been up and down for the last week, I had two job interviews, I may be moving, my check is late, and I forgot to vote! One of those weeks where nothing has gone right. Oh well, at least the main portion of the Crime Bill passed. I hope I can do something right this next turn. :) Maybe I will wait until the penalty for failed props is reduced. I've lost nearly 100 points the last two turns. Xylen -- We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters could produce all of the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 21:21:20 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Crime and Punishment > Dan Waldron wrote: > > If I can, I transfer one slack from Roger Carbol to Poulenc. > > > Ole Nope. You already transferred slack once this turn (from Osborn to Kuhns, on 31 August). -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 22:49:19 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: Crime and Punishment : > If I can, I transfer one slack from Roger Carbol to Poulenc. : > : > : > Ole : : Nope. You already transferred slack once this turn (from Osborn to Kuhns, on : 31 August). Did not. At least not on that date. OK. I'll wait. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 20:02:22 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Crime and Punishment >> >>Win-stripping seems like a very harsh measure. >>What kind of crime would warrant that? > >None. Wins are a matter of long-term historical record, and we >shouldn't be tampering with the long-term historical record. Perhaps an attempt to remove another player permanently from the game, or tampering with the game records, or some other henious crime. It would be reserved as a punishment for only very nasty crimes, very rarely applied. I would suggest that instead of actually removing one of the player's wins, adding a penalty of a negative win. That way the long-term record would not be tampered with, but that player's number of wins would be reduced by one. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 22:15:39 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: thoughts on scoring >Base on the results of the past several turns, I think it's time for us to >reconsider how players are rewarded/penalized for proposing and voting. It >seems to me that, of late, there has been an unusual amount of negative >voting >with virtually no negative discussion -- leading me to believe that most of >the nays have been cast with an eye toward opposed minority scoring. I'm not sure that's entirely the reason. I think large, extensive changes to the game which aren't clearly "necessary" to prevent collapse are automatically going to have a tough time. And players who are resistant to such change are also probably not very likely to post opinions on such change. I don't know how much that has caused the situation you perceive, but it is a stubborn fact of the game. Your proposals look like they could help. Though is there any reason you proposed halving opposed minority scoring instead of striking it, other than the more-than-likely heavy opposition to such a change? >Last, an observation: it pays to vote for one's own proposals. No doubt--who can forget my own tragic blunder in the first game? I can't... Matt Kuhns "Gravity doesn't exist, mjkuhns@iastate.edu the Earth sucks." http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns -anonymous ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 09:53:28 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Crime and Punishment > > Dan Waldron wrote: > > > > If I can, I transfer one slack from Roger Carbol to Poulenc. > > > > > > Ole > > Nope. You already transferred slack once this turn (from Osborn to Kuhns, on > 31 August). > -- > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > Hmmm. This must have been sitting on my spool waiting to be sent for a while. I think I need to find out how to force qmail to send everything before I disconnect. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 09:55:19 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Crime and Punishment ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: owner-nomic@majordomo.iastate.edu Delivery-Date: Wed Aug 04 00:38:59 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: uckelman@vladimir.iastate.edu Received: (qmail 9476 invoked from network); 4 Aug 1999 00:38:58 -0000 Received: from loopback (HELO vladimir.iastate.edu) (uckelman@127.0.0.1) by loopback with SMTP; 4 Aug 1999 00:38:58 -0000 Received: from pop-2.iastate.edu by vladimir.iastate.edu with POP3 (fetchmail-5.0.5) for uckelman@vladimir.iastate.edu (single-drop); Tue, 03 Aug 1999 19:38:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pop-3.iastate.edu (pop-3.iastate.edu [129.186.6.63]) by pop-2.iastate.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA25291; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:00:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from majordomo.iastate.edu (majordomo.iastate.edu [129.186.1.10]) by pop-3.iastate.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05161; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:00:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by majordomo.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.2) id AAA04134 for nomic-outgoing; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:54:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: majordomo.iastate.edu: Processed from queue /var/spool/majordomo/nomic Received: from pop-2.iastate.edu (pop-2.iastate.edu [129.186.6.62]) by majordomo.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.2) with ESMTP id AAA27986 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:54:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from bednorz.get2net.dk (bednorz.get2net.dk [130.227.3.2]) by pop-2.iastate.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03070 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:54:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from opus (p459-70.ppp.get2net.dk [195.47.136.70]) by bednorz.get2net.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA29810 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:54:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <013f01bedd74$a1bb3ce0$ead952c3@opus> From: "Ole Andersen" To: References: Subject: Re: Nomic: Crime and Punishment Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:53:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-nomic@iastate.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic@iastate.edu X-UIDL: b1913b2d41c63b527000687a968662e8 Dan Waldron wrote: : I would suggest that a penalty more severe other than fines be applied for : the more serious crimes. Perhaps a suspension of voting or proposal-making : priviliges, or requiring the player to spend a certain amout of time in : limbo. Perhaps they could be stripped of one or more wins (could we have : players with a negative number of wins?) or some other form of penalty : could be applied. Win-stripping seems like a very harsh measure. What kind of crime would warrant that? But the suspension things seem reasonable. If I can, I transfer one slack from Roger Carbol to Poulenc. Ole ------- End of Forwarded Message I meant 31 July, not 31 August. :) -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 09:59:57 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: thoughts on scoring Kuhns wrote: > >Base on the results of the past several turns, I think it's time for us to > >reconsider how players are rewarded/penalized for proposing and voting. It > >seems to me that, of late, there has been an unusual amount of negative > >voting > >with virtually no negative discussion -- leading me to believe that most of > >the nays have been cast with an eye toward opposed minority scoring. > > I'm not sure that's entirely the reason. I think large, extensive changes > to the game which aren't clearly "necessary" to prevent collapse are > automatically going to have a tough time. And players who are resistant to > such change are also probably not very likely to post opinions on such > change. > > I don't know how much that has caused the situation you perceive, but it is > a stubborn fact of the game. > > Your proposals look like they could help. Though is there any reason you > proposed halving opposed minority scoring instead of striking it, other > than the more-than-likely heavy opposition to such a change? I still think opposed minority scoring is interesting, but is currently having too much an effect on voting. > >Last, an observation: it pays to vote for one's own proposals. > > No doubt--who can forget my own tragic blunder in the first game? I can't... Yeah, I was amused. :) -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:05:38 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: P538 revision (finally) This implements the Plaintiff/Defendant idea I mentioned. Does anyone think this is an improvement? 1. Amend R214 to read: "Any Player may, at any time, initiate judicial proceedings in any matter through a Request for Judgment. A Case corresponding to a Request for Judgment is opened at the time that said Request is made. The Player making the Request is the Plaintiff in the Case. All Requests for Judgment must unambiguously name a Defendant and explicitly provide a Statement to be judged. Any subset of the set of Players and Officers may be named as Defendants, as may the game itself. A Player may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its issuance, it was not issued by the Supreme Court, and e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in the Case." 2. Amend R215 to read: "Players in the Judicial Pool, with the following exceptions, are eligible to become Lower Court Judges on a Case: i. the Plaintiff ii. the Defendant iii. Supreme Court Justices Exceptions shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a Lower Court from being chosen. Whenever it is necessary to select a Judge for a Lower Court, the Administrator shall randomly select an eligible Player." 3. Amend R216 to read: "A Judge selected to a Lower Court must issue a public Judgment on the Case within four days or be subject to a ten point fine. A Lower Court is dissolved if it lapses or its Judges return the same response within the allowed time. A Lower Court 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." 4. Amend R220 to read: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final response to a Statement in each Case, with the exception that no Judgment by a Lower Court may prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing said Judgment. 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 Statute of Limitations." 5. Amend R228 to read: A Judgment must consist of a legal response to the Statement to be judged, and either the Judge's analysis of the Statement and response, or an explicit statement of concurrence with an opinion issued by another Judge on the Court. 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, does not address a rules-related matter, or names extraneous or irrelevant Defendants. 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." 7. Amend R230 to read: "Upon each Request for Judgment, the following procedure is executed: 1. A Case is opened on the Request for Judgment. 2. A Lower Court is selected to rule on the Statement. 3. If, at any time after the initial selection, the Lower Court has no Judge, or if the Lower Court lapses, it is dissolved; if possible, a new Lower Court is selected; if not, the procedure skips to step 6. 4. The Lower Court issues a Judgment, at which time the Court dissolves. 5. If a legal Appeal of the Lower Court?s Judgment is made, the Supreme Court must either grant the Appeal, and then may issue a Judgment; or deny the Appeal. 6. At such time as no further legal Appeals in the Case are possible, the Case is closed and the Lower Court Judge on the Case is paid. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with the Judiciary." 7. Amend R231 to read: "A Case consists of a Statement and all judicial documents produced by the Plaintiff, Defendant, and Courts assigned to the Statement." 8. Amend R232 to read: "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. Justices are automatically in 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." 9. Amend R390 to read: "Upon the closure of a Case, the Lower Court Judge on the Case receives 3 points iff the final ruling on the Statement is TRUE or FALSE." 10. Create R233 from the following "SUPREME COURT"-delimited text: SUPREME COURT Justices are Judges serving on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall consist of five elected Justices. {{A special election shall be held immediately to fill the Supreme Court. Each Player may vote for up to five candidates. The initial term for each Judgeship shall end during the (6-n)th turn, where n is the rank in voting the Justice holding the Judgeship received. All subsequent terms are five turns long.}} If, within 48 hours of an Appeal, at least two eligible Justices explicitly declare their willingness to grant said Appeal, the Supreme Court shall hear the Case. The Supreme Court issues a Judgment on a Case to which it has granted a hearing when a simple majority of the eligible Justices have publicly returned the same response to the Statement. If the Supreme Court fails to issue a Judgment within seven days on a Case to which it has granted a hearing, the Lower Court Judgment stands. SUPREME COURT 11. Create R234 from the following "CONFLICTOFINTEREST"-delimited text: CONFLICTOFINTEREST A Justice is ineligible to rule on in a Case iff e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in that Case. CONFLICTOFINTEREST -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:48:29 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: anyone out there? There hasn't been much activity of late -- did everyone die or something? Why so quiet? -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:38:32 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: anyone out there? >There hasn't been much activity of late -- did everyone die or something? Why >so quiet? Well, it could be that Osborn's Demon has been devouring the other players one by one... though personally I'm trying to fit 3 weeks of accomplishment into the week and a half left until school resumes. Matt Kuhns | Hope is the path to the DARK SIDE. mjkuhns@iastate.edu | Hope leads to trying. Trying leads to failure. | Failure leads to CYNICISM. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 01:26:47 EDT From: SativaFlo@aol.com Subject: Re: Nomic: anyone out there? Maybe they're all on vacation. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 00:54:34 CDT From: "Are 'Friends' Electric?" Subject: Re: Nomic: anyone out there? SativaFlo@aol.com writes: >Maybe they're all on vacation. What's that? -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:43:45 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: anyone out there? > Maybe they're all on vacation. [Just so everyone knows, the above is from a lurker that recently subscribed to the list.] Maybe. It amazes me how quiet it's become in the last week or so. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:01:11 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: correction Mary Tupper scored -27 points, not -37 as listed in the voting results. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 18:48:13 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: voting results Voting Summary P549 passed (4-2-0-7). P550 failed (3-3-0-7). P551 failed (3-3-0-7). P553 failed (3-3-0-7). P554 failed (2-4-0-7). -------- Voting OA JK MK MP JS JU 549 y n n y y y 550 y n n y n y 551 y n n y n y 553 y n n n y y 554 y n y n n n -------- Scoring +7 Josh Kortbein +7 Matt Kuhns -37 Mary Tupper -------- UPCs +4 Ole Andersen +3 Joel Uckelman +2 Matt Potter +1 Matt Kuhns +1 Jeff Schroeder -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:00:36 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: thoughts on scoring Base on the results of the past several turns, I think it's time for us to reconsider how players are rewarded/penalized for proposing and voting. It seems to me that, of late, there has been an unusual amount of negative voting with virtually no negative discussion -- leading me to believe that most of the nays have been cast with an eye toward opposed minority scoring. Thus, I offer a proposal: ---- Amend Rule 204/2 to read: If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who vote against winning Proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to 5*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. ---- By halving opposed minority scoring, it should become less enticing for players to vote against proposals simply to gain points. Secondly, I offer a proposal to reduce the failed proposal penalty, in the interests of encouraging players to make proposals: ---- Amend Rule 206/0 to read: When a Proposal is defeated, the Player who proposed it loses 5 points. ---- Last, an observation: it pays to vote for one's own proposals. Mary didn't vote -- unfortunately for her, three of her five proposals failed by a single vote, and it cost her 40 points. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:14:03 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: voting Voting begins at 21:00 CDT, 13 August 1999. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:13:27 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: old mail The last two messages I sent had been hung up in my mail queue because I sent them when I wasn't online, and wasn't lucky enough to have been online when the mailer attempted to send them again. I hope this didn't cause any inconvenience. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:17:53 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: thoughts and new proposal 1. Unless anyone has any further thoughts on the SC proposal, I'll finally let it come to a vote tomorrow. 2. I offer the following disinterested proposal: -------- Transmute Rule 106/1, and amend it to read: All Proposals shall be made publicly before they can be voted on, and if adopted, shall guide play in the form on which they were voted. -------- I'm uncertain why anyone voted against this last time it was proposed -- if there's a fatal flaw here, please enlighten me. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:20:52 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: thoughts on scoring These are not new proposals -- this was the message that I thought disappeared into my mail queue never to return again. > > Base on the results of the past several turns, I think it's time for us to > reconsider how players are rewarded/penalized for proposing and voting. It > seems to me that, of late, there has been an unusual amount of negative voting > with virtually no negative discussion -- leading me to believe that most of > the nays have been cast with an eye toward opposed minority scoring. > > Thus, I offer a proposal: > > ---- > Amend Rule 204/2 to read: > > If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who > vote against winning Proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to > 5*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. > ---- > > By halving opposed minority scoring, it should become less enticing for > players to vote against proposals simply to gain points. > > Secondly, I offer a proposal to reduce the failed proposal penalty, in the > interests of encouraging players to make proposals: > > ---- > Amend Rule 206/0 to read: > > When a Proposal is defeated, the Player who proposed it loses 5 points. > > ---- > > Last, an observation: it pays to vote for one's own proposals. Mary didn't > vote -- unfortunately for her, three of her five proposals failed by a single > vote, and it cost her 40 points. > -- > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:55:41 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: old mail uckelman@iastate.edu wrote: > > The last two messages I sent had been hung up in my mail queue because I sent > them when I wasn't online, and wasn't lucky enough to have been online when > the mailer attempted to send them again. I hope this didn't cause any > inconvenience. Actually I received 3 old messages, all dated 6 Aug. No inconvenience, just confusion. I'm blaming it on the eclipse. :) Xylen -- We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters could produce all of the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 20:27:39 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: P538 revision In section five, change the sentence "DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, does not address a rules-related matter, or names extraneous or irrelevant Defendants." to: "DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity or does not address a rules-related matter; or that its Request for Judgment names extraneous or irrelevant Defendants, or provides no analysis of the Statement." -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:57:49 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: a modest proposal This is a rather rough draft form, but if anyone would like to see more activity on the list again, take the opportunity to discuss by all means. --- A player may propose that he or she be transferred from the person that player currently represents (Person A) to another person (Person B) who is not currently represented in Berserker Nomic by another player. If both Person A and Person B consent to this exchange in a public fora (as defined by R463), the player will represent Person B, and Person A will be without representation in Berserker Nomic. The player's identification will be changed to Person B's real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; all of the player's other attributes will be unaffected. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:24:35 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal So, what is the purpose of this proposal? When you say that a player may propose that e be "transferred" do you mean physically... :) Or do you simply intend to mean that all the attributes of the player be known by a different fore and surname and email? And is there going to be a ballot? It's already the 14th... jeff -- Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently is selling something. At 11:57 PM 8/13/99 -0500, you wrote: >This is a rather rough draft form, but if anyone would like to see more >activity on the list again, take the opportunity to discuss by all means. > >--- >A player may propose that he or she be transferred from the person that >player currently represents (Person A) to another person (Person B) who is >not currently represented in Berserker Nomic by another player. If both >Person A and Person B consent to this exchange in a public fora (as defined >by R463), the player will represent Person B, and Person A will be without >representation in Berserker Nomic. The player's identification will be >changed to Person B's real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if >eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; all of the >player's other attributes will be unaffected. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:45:59 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal >So, what is the purpose of this proposal? Essentially, it will allow someone to assign a successor to their role and accomplishments in Nomic, instead of having them evaporate or be collected by The State. And if one wanted to take time off, rather than having one's account sit idle while in Limbo, one could let someone else manage their affairs. (And theoretically I guess you could even sell your Nomic player, like they do in Everquest and Ultima, though that's pretty farfetched!) When you say that a player may >propose that e be "transferred" do you mean physically... :) How would you physically transfer a player, you knob--they aren't physical entities. Or do you >simply intend to mean that all the attributes of the player be known by a >different fore and surname and email? You could say that, I guess--it would effectively be like a player leaving the game transferring all attributes to a new player. But since attributes are attached to players it seems more efficient to approach it from a player angle than an attributes angle. >And is there going to be a ballot? It's already the 14th... I dunno. You can just vote now if you really want to, of course. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:45:32 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: ballot Voting ends at 21:00 CDT, 15 August 1999. -------- P538 1. Amend R214 to read: "Any Player may, at any time, initiate judicial proceedings in any matter through a Request for Judgment. A Case corresponding to a Request for Judgment is opened at the time that said Request is made. The Player making the Request is the Plaintiff in the Case. All Requests for Judgment must unambiguously name a Defendant and explicitly provide a Statement to be judged. Any subset of the set of Players and Officers may be named as Defendants, as may the game itself. A Player may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its issuance, it was not issued by the Supreme Court, and e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in the Case." 2. Amend R215 to read: "Players in the Judicial Pool, with the following exceptions, are eligible to become Lower Court Judges on a Case: i. the Plaintiff ii. the Defendant iii. Supreme Court Justices Exceptions shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a Lower Court from being chosen. Whenever it is necessary to select a Judge for a Lower Court, the Administrator shall randomly select an eligible Player." 3. Amend R216 to read: "A Judge selected to a Lower Court must issue a public Judgment on the Case within four days or be subject to a ten point fine. A Lower Court is dissolved if it lapses or its Judges return the same response within the allowed time. A Lower Court 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." 4. Amend R220 to read: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final response to a Statement in each Case, with the exception that no Judgment by a Lower Court may prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing said Judgment. 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 Statute of Limitations." 5. Amend R228 to read: A Judgment must consist of a legal response to the Statement to be judged, and either the Judge's analysis of the Statement and response, or an explicit statement of concurrence with an opinion issued by another Judge on the Court. 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; or that its Request for Judgment names extraneous or irrelevant Defendants, or provides no analysis of the Statement. 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." 7. Amend R230 to read: "Upon each Request for Judgment, the following procedure is executed: 1. A Case is opened on the Request for Judgment. 2. A Lower Court is selected to rule on the Statement. 3. If, at any time after the initial selection, the Lower Court has no Judge, or if the Lower Court lapses, it is dissolved; if possible, a new Lower Court is selected; if not, the procedure skips to step 6. 4. The Lower Court issues a Judgment, at which time the Court dissolves. 5. If a legal Appeal of the Lower Court?s Judgment is made, the Supreme Court must either grant the Appeal, and then may issue a Judgment; or deny the Appeal. 6. At such time as no further legal Appeals in the Case are possible, the Case is closed and the Lower Court Judge on the Case is paid. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with the Judiciary." 7. Amend R231 to read: "A Case consists of a Statement and all judicial documents produced by the Plaintiff, Defendant, and Courts assigned to the Statement." 8. Amend R232 to read: "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. Justices are automatically in 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." 9. Amend R390 to read: "Upon the closure of a Case, the Lower Court Judge on the Case receives 3 points iff the final ruling on the Statement is TRUE or FALSE." 10. Create R233 from the following "SUPREME COURT"-delimited text: SUPREME COURT Justices are Judges serving on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall consist of five elected Justices. {{A special election shall be held immediately to fill the Supreme Court. Each Player may vote for up to five candidates. The initial term for each Judgeship shall end during the (6-n)th turn, where n is the rank in voting the Justice holding the Judgeship received. All subsequent terms are five turns long.}} If, within 48 hours of an Appeal, at least two eligible Justices explicitly declare their willingness to grant said Appeal, the Supreme Court shall hear the Case. The Supreme Court issues a Judgment on a Case to which it has granted a hearing when a simple majority of the eligible Justices have publicly returned the same response to the Statement. If the Supreme Court fails to issue a Judgment within seven days on a Case to which it has granted a hearing, the Lower Court Judgment stands. SUPREME COURT 11. Create R234 from the following "CONFLICTOFINTEREST"-delimited text: CONFLICTOFINTEREST A Justice is ineligible to rule on in a Case iff e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in that Case. CONFLICTOFINTEREST -------- P555 Amend Rule 204/2 to read: If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who vote against winning Proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to 5*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. -------- P556 Amend Rule 206/0 to read: When a Proposal is defeated, the Player who proposed it loses 5 points. -------- P557 (disinterested) Transmute Rule 106/1, and amend it to read: All Proposals shall be made publicly before they can be voted on, and if adopted, shall guide play in the form on which they were voted. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:59:00 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: quorum and corrections I just noticed that, as per R307/4, we didn't have a quorum for voting last turn -- which means that all of five of Mary's proposals should have remained active and been held over -- which also means that we're actually voting on P549, P550, P551, P553, and P554 right now. So I'll send a revised ballot shortly... -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 01:01:17 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal > This is a rather rough draft form, but if anyone would like to see more > activity on the list again, take the opportunity to discuss by all means. > > --- > A player may propose that he or she be transferred from the person that > player currently represents (Person A) to another person (Person B) who is > not currently represented in Berserker Nomic by another player. If both > Person A and Person B consent to this exchange in a public fora (as defined ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You need not mention this, as everything is assumed to happen publicly unless explicitly allowed to be otherwise, as in voting. See R463/2 para. 2, and R465/0. > by R463), the player will represent Person B, and Person A will be without > representation in Berserker Nomic. The player's identification will be > changed to Person B's real human fore- and surnames or eir email address if > eir real name does not uniquely identify em within the game; all of the > player's other attributes will be unaffected. I'm not sure why we'd want this. Why couldn't B simply be admitted to the game normally and person A quit if e so chose? -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 01:06:16 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal > >So, what is the purpose of this proposal? > > Essentially, it will allow someone to assign a successor to their role and > accomplishments in Nomic, instead of having them evaporate or be collected > by The State. And if one wanted to take time off, rather than having one's > account sit idle while in Limbo, one could let someone else manage their > affairs. (And theoretically I guess you could even sell your Nomic player, > like they do in Everquest and Ultima, though that's pretty farfetched!) This seems weird, non-intuitive somehow. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply amend the inheritance rule? > When you say that a player may > >propose that e be "transferred" do you mean physically... :) > > How would you physically transfer a player, you knob--they aren't physical > entities. I can see why Jeff would have found this confusing -- on my first reading, I thought you were creating a rather obfuscated name-change mechanism >> Or do you > >simply intend to mean that all the attributes of the player be known by a > >different fore and surname and email? > > You could say that, I guess--it would effectively be like a player leaving > the game transferring all attributes to a new player. But since attributes > are attached to players it seems more efficient to approach it from a > player angle than an attributes angle. > > >And is there going to be a ballot? It's already the 14th... > > I dunno. You can just vote now if you really want to, of course. I was watching a movie at 21:00. :) -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 01:11:47 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: ballot, revised This ballot includes the proposals held over from last turn due to a lack of quorum. Voting still ends at 21:00 CDT, 15 August 1999. -------- P538 1. Amend R214 to read: "Any Player may, at any time, initiate judicial proceedings in any matter through a Request for Judgment. A Case corresponding to a Request for Judgment is opened at the time that said Request is made. The Player making the Request is the Plaintiff in the Case. All Requests for Judgment must unambiguously name a Defendant and explicitly provide a Statement to be judged. Any subset of the set of Players and Officers may be named as Defendants, as may the game itself. A Player may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its issuance, it was not issued by the Supreme Court, and e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in the Case." 2. Amend R215 to read: "Players in the Judicial Pool, with the following exceptions, are eligible to become Lower Court Judges on a Case: i. the Plaintiff ii. the Defendant iii. Supreme Court Justices Exceptions shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a Lower Court from being chosen. Whenever it is necessary to select a Judge for a Lower Court, the Administrator shall randomly select an eligible Player." 3. Amend R216 to read: "A Judge selected to a Lower Court must issue a public Judgment on the Case within four days or be subject to a ten point fine. A Lower Court is dissolved if it lapses or its Judges return the same response within the allowed time. A Lower Court 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." 4. Amend R220 to read: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final response to a Statement in each Case, with the exception that no Judgment by a Lower Court may prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing said Judgment. 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 Statute of Limitations." 5. Amend R228 to read: A Judgment must consist of a legal response to the Statement to be judged, and either the Judge's analysis of the Statement and response, or an explicit statement of concurrence with an opinion issued by another Judge on the Court. 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; or that its Request for Judgment names extraneous or irrelevant Defendants, or provides no analysis of the Statement. 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." 7. Amend R230 to read: "Upon each Request for Judgment, the following procedure is executed: 1. A Case is opened on the Request for Judgment. 2. A Lower Court is selected to rule on the Statement. 3. If, at any time after the initial selection, the Lower Court has no Judge, or if the Lower Court lapses, it is dissolved; if possible, a new Lower Court is selected; if not, the procedure skips to step 6. 4. The Lower Court issues a Judgment, at which time the Court dissolves. 5. If a legal Appeal of the Lower Court?s Judgment is made, the Supreme Court must either grant the Appeal, and then may issue a Judgment; or deny the Appeal. 6. At such time as no further legal Appeals in the Case are possible, the Case is closed and the Lower Court Judge on the Case is paid. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with the Judiciary." 7. Amend R231 to read: "A Case consists of a Statement and all judicial documents produced by the Plaintiff, Defendant, and Courts assigned to the Statement." 8. Amend R232 to read: "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. Justices are automatically in 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." 9. Amend R390 to read: "Upon the closure of a Case, the Lower Court Judge on the Case receives 3 points iff the final ruling on the Statement is TRUE or FALSE." 10. Create R233 from the following "SUPREME COURT"-delimited text: SUPREME COURT Justices are Judges serving on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall consist of five elected Justices. {{A special election shall be held immediately to fill the Supreme Court. Each Player may vote for up to five candidates. The initial term for each Judgeship shall end during the (6-n)th turn, where n is the rank in voting the Justice holding the Judgeship received. All subsequent terms are five turns long.}} If, within 48 hours of an Appeal, at least two eligible Justices explicitly declare their willingness to grant said Appeal, the Supreme Court shall hear the Case. The Supreme Court issues a Judgment on a Case to which it has granted a hearing when a simple majority of the eligible Justices have publicly returned the same response to the Statement. If the Supreme Court fails to issue a Judgment within seven days on a Case to which it has granted a hearing, the Lower Court Judgment stands. SUPREME COURT 11. Create R234 from the following "CONFLICTOFINTEREST"-delimited text: CONFLICTOFINTEREST A Justice is ineligible to rule on in a Case iff e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in that Case. CONFLICTOFINTEREST -------- P549 1) Any entity who performs an action defined by the Rules to be a Crime during the current or previous 3 turns, or fails to perform an action where such failure is defined by the Rules to be a Crime during the previous 3 turns, shall be subject to whatever penalty the Rules prescribe for that Crime upon the execution of a Sentencing Order executed consequent to a judicial finding that e did in fact commit that Crime. 2) The imposition of penalties for the commission of a Crime shall be by Sentencing Order(s). Upon a judicial finding that an entity has committed a Crime, the Judge so finding shall execute Sentencing Orders sufficient to implement the penalty required by the Rules for that Crime. If the Rules specify a range of penalties, then the Judge executing the Sentencing Order shall determine the exact penalty within the stated range. 3) The punishment for a Crime shall be whatever was specified by the Rules at the time the action so designated as a Crime was committed, even if the Rule or Rules which specified the punishment, or which designated the action as a Crime have since been amended or repealed.This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which specifies a different penalty for a Crime. 4) No action is a Crime unless defined as such by the Rules. If the Rules define an act to be a Crime but fail to prescribe a penalty for that act, then there is no penalty for that act. 5) Any RFJ whose Statement alleges that an entity has, through action or inaction, committed a Crime shall be dismissed if there is a prior RFJ, the statement of which alleges that the same entity has, through the same action or inaction, committed the same Crime, and which was itself not dismissed. 6) A RFJ alleging that a Player has committed a Crime shall not be judged TRUE unless the evidence is sufficient to be certain of that Judgment beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it is a defense to any accusation of a Crime that the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a Crime at the time e performed them, or that e reasonably did not know that e was required to perform an action, when such nonperformance is defined as a Crime. No Player shall be convicted of a Crime if this defense applies. -------- P550 The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or range of penalties: Misdemeanor I Fine of 1 point II Fine of 3 points III Fine of 5 points Felony I Fine of 1-5 points and loss of 1-3 Subers II Fine of 5-10 points and loss of 3-5 Subers III Fine of 10-15 points and loss of 5-10 Subers Capital I Fine of 15-45 points, loss of 10-40 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 0-3 turns II Fine of 45-75 points, loss of 40-70 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 1-5 turns III Fine of 75-100 points, loss of 70-100 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 5-10 turns. -------- P551 Any Player who goes into Limbo while serving as the Judge of one or more RFJs commits the Crime of Judge Inactivity. This Crime is a Felony I for each RFJs for which the Player was selected as Judge when e went into Limbo. -------- P553 Any Player who knowingly attempts to act as, or purports to be, someone other than imself commits the Crime of Impersonation. This is a Capital I Crime. -------- P554 Any Player who incites a Mob commits the Crime of Incitation. This is a Capital I Crime. -------- P555 Amend Rule 204/2 to read: If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who vote against winning Proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to 5*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. -------- P556 Amend Rule 206/0 to read: When a Proposal is defeated, the Player who proposed it loses 5 points. -------- P557 (disinterested) Transmute Rule 106/1, and amend it to read: All Proposals shall be made publicly before they can be voted on, and if adopted, shall guide play in the form on which they were voted. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:19:12 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal >> Essentially, it will allow someone to assign a successor to their role and >> accomplishments in Nomic, instead of having them evaporate or be collected >> by The State. And if one wanted to take time off, rather than having one's >> account sit idle while in Limbo, one could let someone else manage their >> affairs. (And theoretically I guess you could even sell your Nomic player, >> like they do in Everquest and Ultima, though that's pretty farfetched!) > >This seems weird, non-intuitive somehow. Wouldn't it make more sense to >simply >amend the inheritance rule? Er, would it? What's the inheritance rule? I can't seem to find it... Matt Kuhns "Gravity doesn't exist, mjkuhns@iastate.edu the Earth sucks." http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns -anonymous ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 12:05:12 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot, revised Aha! I voted on the first ballot without reading all of me email. I wasn't going to get caught again. Now I get to vote on these too. I assume that the points I lost weren't really lost. I hope I don't lose them again. P538 YES P549 YES P550 YES P551 YES P553 YES P554 YES P555 YES P556 YES P557 YES Xylen, aka Mary -- We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters could produce all of the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 13:38:03 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: further ballot revision While tending to some recordkeeping, I noticed that I had forgotten to reactivate P538 for this turn. So its not up for voting right now. Also, I am now activating P538 so this doesn't happen again next turn. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 13:39:48 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal Kuhns wrote: > >> Essentially, it will allow someone to assign a successor to their role and > >> accomplishments in Nomic, instead of having them evaporate or be collected > >> by The State. And if one wanted to take time off, rather than having one's > >> account sit idle while in Limbo, one could let someone else manage their > >> affairs. (And theoretically I guess you could even sell your Nomic player, > >> like they do in Everquest and Ultima, though that's pretty farfetched!) > > > >This seems weird, non-intuitive somehow. Wouldn't it make more sense to > >simply > >amend the inheritance rule? > > Er, would it? What's the inheritance rule? I can't seem to find it... I'm referring to R418/0. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 14:03:56 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: RFJ Ok, so maybe I did make an oblique reference to activating P538 on 12 August. I was intending to activate it, but I'm not so sure that I actually succeeded in doing so. Everyone should probably vote on it just in case, as voting will likely be over before this Case is closed. -------- I request Judgment on the following statement: The statement "Unless anyone has any further thoughts on the SC proposal, I'll finally let it come to a vote tomorrow." did not activate Proposal 538. Comments: My comment, while it was unambiguously about P538, seems only to refer to a future event, rather than cause an action in the present. R223/0 is silent on this matter, but we have traditionally held that things not done explicitly are not done at all. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:09:28 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: judge selection (RFJ 99) Roger Carbol has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 99: The statement "Unless anyone has any further thoughts on the SC proposal, I'll finally let it come to a vote tomorrow." did not activate Proposal 538. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:08:45 CDT From: "Are 'Friends' Electric?" Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot, revised Xylen writes: >Aha! I voted on the first ballot without reading all of me email. I >wasn't going to get caught again. Now I get to vote on these too. I >assume that the points I lost weren't really lost. I hope I don't lose >them again. > >P538 YES >P549 YES >P550 YES >P551 YES >P553 YES >P554 YES >P555 YES >P556 YES >P557 YES Agreeable today, are we? -- Making jazz swing in Seventeen syllables AIN'T No square poet's job ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:10:44 CDT From: "Are 'Friends' Electric?" Subject: Re: Nomic: RFJ uckelman@iastate.edu writes: > >Ok, so maybe I did make an oblique reference to activating P538 on 12 August. >I was intending to activate it, but I'm not so sure that I actually succeeded >in doing so. Everyone should probably vote on it just in case, as voting will >likely be over before this Case is closed. > >-------- > >I request Judgment on the following statement: > >The statement "Unless anyone has any further thoughts on the SC proposal, I'll > >finally let it come to a vote tomorrow." did not activate Proposal 538. > >Comments: > >My comment, while it was unambiguously about P538, seems only to refer to a >future event, rather than cause an action in the present. R223/0 is silent on >this matter, but we have traditionally held that things not done explicitly >are not done at all. I read that as an explicit condition for the proposal becoming eligible for voting. Josh -- Following the tour, Mercury Rev again went their separate ways; its members found menial jobs, moved in with their parents, or earned money by participating in medical experiments. - from the AMG ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 23:52:31 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal >> Er, would it? What's the inheritance rule? I can't seem to find it... > >I'm referring to R418/0. I can't really see why it would follow to work the proposal I made into some modification of R418. I would really just be tacking a completely separate rule on after the current R418. Unless there is a reason I'm not seeing I will leave my proposal creating a separate rule. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 11:20:37 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal Kuhns wrote: > >> Er, would it? What's the inheritance rule? I can't seem to find it... > > > >I'm referring to R418/0. > > I can't really see why it would follow to work the proposal I made into > some modification of R418. I would really just be tacking a completely > separate rule on after the current R418. Unless there is a reason I'm not > seeing I will leave my proposal creating a separate rule. > By R418/0, the Treasury inherits everything that a Player has if e forfeits. What your're proposing seems like bequeathing one's possessions to another Player upon forfeiture. That's why I think it would make sense to modify R418/0 to be a general inheritance rule. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 12:25:35 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal >By R418/0, the Treasury inherits everything that a Player has if e forfeits. >What your're proposing seems like bequeathing one's possessions to another >Player upon forfeiture. That's why I think it would make sense to modify >R418/0 to be a general inheritance rule. Well, I am more interested in preserving one's "account." In my proposal, all a player's attributes are transferred, and only to a new player who would take those attributes instead of the standard new player attributes. I don't think such unique circumstances lend themselves to a general inheritance rule. 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, 16 Aug 1999 16:04:15 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: voting results Voting Summary Once again, we didn't have a quorum. P549 pushed (4-2-0-8). P550 pushed (2-4-0-8). P551 pushed (3-3-0-8). P553 pushed (3-3-0-8). P554 pushed (2-4-0-8). P555 pushed (4-2-0-8). P556 pushed (3-3-0-8). P557 pushed (4-2-0-8). As a result, there are no scoring, UPC transactions, etc. to report. This is subject to revision, pending the outcome of RFJ 99 w/r/t/ the status of P538. -------- Voting by Entity 549 550 551 553 554 555 556 557 OA y y y y y y y y RC aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa GDC aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa NE aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa JK n n n n n n n n MK n n n n n y n y TM aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa NO - - - - - - - - TP aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa MP aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa EP - - - - - - - - JS y n n n n n n n MT y y y y y y y y JU y n y y n y y y DW aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa OD aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa GP - - - - - - - - Entities ineligible to vote (e.g. in Limbo, GRAND PRIZE when no UPCs are redeemed) are marked with '-'s. Hopefully everyone's mail reader displays the tab-delimited table ok. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:10:28 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: about quorum problems and other stuff Why are people not voting? I know a few of the people who didn't vote during the previous turn (i.e. Tom Plagge, Nate Ellefson) were away last weekend. Where is everyone else? Secondly, I still don't understand why anyone is voting against P547. I've asked several times if anyone had any objections to it, and heard not a word in response. So, I transfer 1 slack from Jeff Schroeder to myself because he won't explain what he thinks is wrong with P547 but persists in voting against it (twice now!). -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:37:51 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Is a quorum still required for Prop 557? It is a transmutation so only one player votes no and it should die. Why am I the one picked on for voting no for Prop 557? (I assume it's 557 and not 547...) I believe that there was a proposal several months ago by Ed attempting to change the required unanimous to 3/4 and SOMEONE threatened to always vote nay! Why should I vote yes for your proposal which is not nearly as necessary as Ed's was? However, I can be bribed. I believe that I voted yes for this one last time BTW, I'll check when I get home. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:22:02 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Ah, I was correct. I voted yes for prop 557 last time (called prop 547 at the time). I thus transfer one slack from Joel Uckelman to myself as a result of slander of my voting record and the total lack of mention of Josh or Ellefson or Kuhns who all voted no at one time to this proposal. I also make the following proposal: --- Change Rule 307 to read: A quorum for Proposal voting purposes is a simple majority of eligible vote-casting entities. If a quorum has not cast votes by the end of a Proposal voting period, the Proposals which were up for voting neither pass nor fail, but are held over for the next turn and remain active. Proposals which require unanimous consent will fail if any eligible vote-casting entity casts a vote equivalent to a "no" toward the Proposal. On that condition, the Proposal will disregard the quorum and will not remain active or be held over for the next turn. Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the voting period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions. --- jeff While searching for slack, the index has a bad link to wherever slack is. FYI ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:13:28 -0500 From: Matthew G Potter Subject: Re: Nomic: about quorum problems and other stuff >Why are people not voting? some of us are going neurotic from impending marathon car drives, packing, and imminent schoolage. I'll be a more active voter after classes start and I don't have anything better to do. Matt -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GL/TW/O d- s+:+ a-- C++ U P L>+ E-- W++@ N++ o? K? w$ O? M-- V? PS@ PE Y(--) PGP? t--- 5 X+ R- !tv b+++ DI+ D+++ G e>++ h++ r-- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:33:11 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results > Ah, I was correct. I voted yes for prop 557 last time (called prop 547 at > the time). I thus transfer one slack from Joel Uckelman to myself as a > result of slander of my voting record and the total lack of mention of Josh > or Ellefson or Kuhns who all voted no at one time to this proposal. > Ah. Mea culpa. I seemed to remember your voting against it on both occasions. I suppose I should check next time I claim something like that. > I also make the following proposal: > --- > Change Rule 307 to read: > > A quorum for Proposal voting purposes is a simple majority of eligible > vote-casting entities. > > If a quorum has not cast votes by the end of a Proposal voting period, the > Proposals which were up for voting neither pass nor fail, but are held over > for the next turn and remain active. > > Proposals which require unanimous consent will fail if any eligible > vote-casting entity casts a vote equivalent to a "no" toward the Proposal. > On that condition, the Proposal will disregard the quorum and will not > remain active or be held over for the next turn. > > Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the voting > period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions. > --- I thought the point of checking for a quorum was to ensure that enough voters are "present" for legitimate business to be conducted. Note that several of the proposals held over into this turn were failing as well when voting ended. Despite my opposition to this, a suggestion: this could be done more concisely by amending the second paragraph to read: "If a quorum has not cast votes by the end of a Proposal voting period, the Proposals that were up for voting, with the exception of transmutations, neither pass nor fail, but are held over for the next turn and remain active." If all you want is for R307 not to catch transmutations, I think that is all that is needed. > jeff > > While searching for slack, the index has a bad link to wherever slack is. FYI The index has been out-of-date for several months now. The program that generated it broke, and I was never able to determine why; however, I will soon be rewriting it, so we should have a current index soon (by the end of August?). -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:50:24 CDT From: "Are 'Friends' Electric?" Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Jeff Schroeder writes: >Ah, I was correct. I voted yes for prop 557 last time (called prop 547 at >the time). I thus transfer one slack from Joel Uckelman to myself as a >result of slander of my voting record and the total lack of mention of Josh >or Ellefson or Kuhns who all voted no at one time to this proposal. If I could, I would request that the Demon hump Jeff's leg. Josh -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:26:52 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: more end of turn stuff Osborn's Demon voted with Roger Carbol (after having voted with Tom Mueller for five consecutive turns). It is now Matt Kuhns' turn. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:26:55 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal Kuhns wrote: > >By R418/0, the Treasury inherits everything that a Player has if e forfeits. > >What your're proposing seems like bequeathing one's possessions to another > >Player upon forfeiture. That's why I think it would make sense to modify > >R418/0 to be a general inheritance rule. > > Well, I am more interested in preserving one's "account." In my proposal, > all a player's attributes are transferred, and only to a new player who > would take those attributes instead of the standard new player attributes. > I don't think such unique circumstances lend themselves to a general > inheritance rule. I recall someone (Ole?) mentioning wins being a part of the historical record and thus not to be tampered with. It seems that this could potentially transfer wins from one player to another. Response? -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:19:11 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: a Once-modest proposal >I recall someone (Ole?) mentioning wins being a part of the historical record >and thus not to be tampered with. It seems that this could potentially >transfer wins from one player to another. Response? Hm... an excellent question. This is the sort of useful feedback I had hoped for. My idea is for a player "account" to remain continuous, so in a sense, if wins were to be transferred to the new person, they would still belong to the same player, that player would simply have a different name. It gets down to a rather interesting question: whether the game does or should care about the people who are represented by players. And I'm not sure what the answer is. There are a number of ways Wins could be split out of my proposal, and I wouldn't be averse to doing so. The only reason I would really like to keep them involved somehow is so that, if Plagge, for example, were to go away for a few months and leave his "account" in the hands of another person, he would be able to return to the account and still have all the wins. Any other ideas on this subject are welcome. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:32:31 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results eh? At 07:50 PM 8/16/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Jeff Schroeder writes: >>Ah, I was correct. I voted yes for prop 557 last time (called prop 547 at >>the time). I thus transfer one slack from Joel Uckelman to myself as a >>result of slander of my voting record and the total lack of mention of Josh >>or Ellefson or Kuhns who all voted no at one time to this proposal. > >If I could, I would request that the Demon hump Jeff's leg. > > > > > >Josh > >-- >Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:37:02 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: slack, slackers, and quorum >> Ah, I was correct. I voted yes for prop 557 last time (called prop 547 at >> the time). I thus transfer one slack from Joel Uckelman to myself as a >> result of slander of my voting record and the total lack of mention of Josh >> or Ellefson or Kuhns who all voted no at one time to this proposal. >> > >Ah. Mea culpa. I seemed to remember your voting against it on both occasions. >I suppose I should check next time I claim something like that. For expending less effort on something than Jeff Schroeder, I transfer one slack from Joel to myself. In a related note, I transfer one slack and 18 Subers (what the hell, why not) from myself to the Thelma Charity Fund. (I assume there is currently not an option to transfer slack directly there...?) >> I also make the following proposal: >> --- >> Change Rule 307 to read: >> >> A quorum for Proposal voting purposes is a simple majority of eligible >> vote-casting entities. >> >> If a quorum has not cast votes by the end of a Proposal voting period, the >> Proposals which were up for voting neither pass nor fail, but are held over >> for the next turn and remain active. >> >> Proposals which require unanimous consent will fail if any eligible >> vote-casting entity casts a vote equivalent to a "no" toward the Proposal. >> On that condition, the Proposal will disregard the quorum and will not >> remain active or be held over for the next turn. >> >> Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the voting >> period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions. >> --- > >I thought the point of checking for a quorum was to ensure that enough voters >are "present" for legitimate business to be conducted. Note that several of >the proposals held over into this turn were failing as well when voting ended. Perhaps instead of discarding the idea of quorum, we could tweak it... some sort of clause stating that, if a an active player does not vote so many times in a row, they will not be counted for quorum until they vote again. That would get to the source of the matter, I think. Matt Kuhns - mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns The truth is not "out there;" it's right in front of us, but most people refuse to recognize it. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:40:21 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results >I thought the point of checking for a quorum was to ensure that enough voters >are "present" for legitimate business to be conducted. Note that several of >the proposals held over into this turn were failing as well when voting ended. I was just thinking that since the transmutation had already failed, why keep it around? Remember it only takes one vote. The others were failing, but we don't know how the last person or two would have voted, thus the purpose of the quota. >Despite my opposition to this, a suggestion: this could be done more concisely >by amending the second paragraph to read: I'm not sure why you would oppose this, as I said before it had already failed. I am just thinking of less red tape to carry around between turns. >"If a quorum has not cast votes by the end of a Proposal voting period, the >Proposals that were up for voting, with the exception of transmutations, >neither pass nor fail, but are held over for the next turn and remain active." > >If all you want is for R307 not to catch transmutations, I think that is all >that is needed. Do you think that we should say what happens to the transmutations exactly, it is assumed that they would be failed, but the rule doesn't explicitly say that. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 08:49:43 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Jeff wrote: : I was just thinking that since the transmutation had already failed, why : keep it around? Remember it only takes one vote. The others were failing, : but we don't know how the last person or two would have voted, thus the : purpose of the quota Basically, Quorum is not a test of the failure of the individual proposal, but of the entire voting mechanism. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:06:37 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results > Jeff wrote: > > : I was just thinking that since the transmutation had already failed, why > : keep it around? Remember it only takes one vote. The others were > failing, > : but we don't know how the last person or two would have voted, thus the > : purpose of the quota > > Basically, Quorum is not a test of the failure of the individual proposal, > but of the entire voting mechanism. > > > Ole Yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to convey. The fault lies not in the quorum rule, but in the players who didn't vote. Recall that there is more than one way to reduce the number of eligible voters so we can achieve a quorum next time. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:18:53 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Just out of curiosity I call for a limbo check on all players. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:02:15 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results >Voting Summary > >Once again, we didn't have a quorum. Sorry. this time I actually tried to vote but it didnt work (I think the last time I forgot). My email-checking has been somewhat erratic since I came home for the last part of the summer holiday. I will be a much more active participant in the game when I get back to school in a few weeks. I actually tried to vote on the proposals that time, but I think I made a typo that kept it from going though. by the time I found this out it was too late to re-send. If I happen to fail my limbo check I hereby exit limbo and place myself back in the judging pool. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:01:22 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Proposal The following MAKESEVEREPUNSIHMENT delimited text is a proposal MAKESEVEREPUNISHMENT If there is a rule 550 then amend it to read as follows: The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or range of penalties: Misdemeanor I Fine of 100 subers II Fine of 300 subers III Fine of 500 subers Felony I Fine of 10-50 points and loss of 100-300 Subers II Fine of 30-100 points and loss of 300-500 Subers III Fine of 30-100 points and loss of 500-1000 Subers, Capital I Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, gain of one loss. II Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 1-5 turns, gain of one loss. III Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 5-10 turns, gain of one loss. IV Player Forfeits A loss is considered the opposite of a win, and reduces the player's total number of wins by one, and is recorded as a loss in the game history. MAKESEVEREPUNISHMENT I have made the punsihments more severe, and tried to more accurately respect the balance between points and subers, and added the possibility of win-stripping, and in extreme cases expulsion from the game. Note that the more extreme punishments listed here should be used only for very severe crimes, like attempting to remove from the game another player (murder???) This proposal will, like my others probably need several revisions to satisfy even a minority of the complaints against it, so lets hear them while there's time. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:13:06 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Personal Ruleset I am adding the following mutable rule to my personal ruleset. 2. (mutable) If ever I am in limbo for longer than the expected set time (or five turns if no expected time has been set), I remove myself from limbo, and immediately place myself in limbo once more, with an expected time of five turns. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:48:10 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Personal Ruleset > I am adding the following mutable rule to my personal ruleset. > > 2. (mutable) If ever I am in limbo for longer than the expected set time > (or five turns if no expected time has been set), I remove myself from > limbo, and immediately place myself in limbo once more, with an expected > time of five turns. > > > Poulenc > This is clever, but I'm uncertain as to whether a personal rule can compel an action such as that. Is there a distinction to be drawn between removing oneself from Limbo and being removed from Limbo by a personal rule, i.e. are personal rules agentic of players? -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:57:54 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Jeff wrote: > Just out of curiosity I call for a limbo check on all players. I suspect that several players will fail it at this point. I'll be checking that tomorrow sometime, after I move all of my stuff in the morning. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:56:25 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Jeff wrote: > > >I thought the point of checking for a quorum was to ensure that enough voters > >are "present" for legitimate business to be conducted. Note that several of > >the proposals held over into this turn were failing as well when voting ended. > > I was just thinking that since the transmutation had already failed, why > keep it around? Remember it only takes one vote. The others were failing, > but we don't know how the last person or two would have voted, thus the > purpose of the quota. > > >Despite my opposition to this, a suggestion: this could be done more > concisely > >by amending the second paragraph to read: > > I'm not sure why you would oppose this, as I said before it had already > failed. I am just thinking of less red tape to carry around between turns. > > >"If a quorum has not cast votes by the end of a Proposal voting period, the > >Proposals that were up for voting, with the exception of transmutations, > >neither pass nor fail, but are held over for the next turn and remain active." > > > >If all you want is for R307 not to catch transmutations, I think that is all > >that is needed. > > Do you think that we should say what happens to the transmutations exactly, > it is assumed that they would be failed, but the rule doesn't explicitly > say that. > > No need to. If R307 doesn't catch it, it would be subject to the standard procedure for proposals that fail. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:54:39 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal > > The following MAKESEVEREPUNSIHMENT delimited text is a proposal > > MAKESEVEREPUNISHMENT > > If there is a rule 550 then amend it to read as follows: > > The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or range > of penalties: > > Misdemeanor > > I Fine of 100 subers > II Fine of 300 subers > III Fine of 500 subers > > Felony > > I Fine of 10-50 points and loss of 100-300 Subers > II Fine of 30-100 points and loss of 300-500 Subers > III Fine of 30-100 points and loss of 500-1000 Subers, > > Capital > > I Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, gain of one loss. > II Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, and a period in Limbo of > 1-5 > turns, gain of one loss. > III Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, and a period in Limbo of > 5-10 turns, gain of one loss. > IV Player Forfeits > > A loss is considered the opposite of a win, and reduces the player's total > number of wins by one, and is recorded as a loss in the game history. > > MAKESEVEREPUNISHMENT > > I have made the punsihments more severe, and tried to more accurately > respect the balance between points and subers, and added the possibility of > win-stripping, and in extreme cases expulsion from the game. Note that the > more extreme punishments listed here should be used only for very severe > crimes, like attempting to remove from the game another player (murder???) > This proposal will, like my others probably need several revisions to > satisfy even a minority of the complaints against it, so lets hear them > while there's time. > > Poulenc Hmm. I have two criticisms of this: first, I think the proposed penalties for misdemeanors are too harsh -- S100 would be 1/10th of a player's initial net worth. Secondly, I'm not too keen on awarding what are essentially negative wins, q.v. Ole's previous comments on the matter. I agree that we should have a forfeiture penalty at the top end of the scale, and that it should only be used in the direst of circumstances, e.g. someone is trying to destroy the game rather than just the usual scamming. I would hope that we would never need to use such a thing, but it might be a good idea to have it around. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:02:19 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results > I suspect that several players will fail it at this point. I think a Limbo Check would be an excellent idea. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:33:45 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Personal Ruleset >> > >This is clever, but I'm uncertain as to whether a personal rule can compel an >action such as that. Is there a distinction to be drawn between removing >oneself from Limbo and being removed from Limbo by a personal rule, i.e. are >personal rules agentic of players? >-- >J. Uckelman This was my intent upon creation of the personal ruleset rules, however I now realise that it may not have been interpreted as such by all players. If personal rulesets are not agentic of players, then their application to non-player entities must be consistant with this, which would defeat the purpose of their application to such entities. poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:19:11 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal >Hmm. I have two criticisms of this: first, I think the proposed penalties for >misdemeanors are too harsh -- S100 would be 1/10th of a player's initial net >worth. Secondly, I'm not too keen on awarding what are essentially negative >wins, q.v. Ole's previous comments on the matter. > >I agree that we should have a forfeiture penalty at the top end of the scale, >and that it should only be used in the direst of circumstances, e.g. someone >is trying to destroy the game rather than just the usual scamming. I would >hope that we would never need to use such a thing, but it might be a good >idea >to have it around. > >-- >J. Uckelman I will tone down the revised penalties for misdemeanors etc, but I like the win-stripping. Of course, it is to be used in only very exceptional cases, for example if someone scams the game in such a way as to grant themselves hundreds of wins, the wind-stripping rule could be used to cut it down to one win total. This could also be a way of enforcing scam-ethics, that is, if a player or group has a clever scam, it could be used to prevent others from immediately using the same method, because their wins will be effectively removed, while the initiators of the scam would still be rewarded for their cleverness. (I hope this makes sense) If this goes through I intend to make a winners' ethics rule that prevents multiple consecutive wins by use of the crime rules. I for one hope that the forfeiture penalty never needs to be used. I would only wish to see it applied for an attempt to destroy the entire game. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:30:56 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Revision of proposal and a new proposal as well This message contains both a revision of my MAKESEVEREPUNISHMENT proposal, and a new proposal. This is a revision of my proposal The following MAKESEVEREPUNSIHMENT delimited text is a proposal MAKESEVEREPUNISHMENT If there is a rule 550 then amend it to read as follows: The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or range of penalties: Misdemeanor I Fine of 0-50 subers II Fine of 0-100 subers III Fine of 50-300 subers Felony I Fine of 0-50 points and loss of 0-300 Subers II Fine of 30-100 points and loss of 0-500 Subers III Fine of 30-100 points and loss of 500-1000 Subers, Capital I Fine of 0-500 points, loss of 0-1000 Subers, optional gain of one loss. II Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 1-5 turns, optional gain of one loss. III Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 5-10 turns, optional gain of one loss. IV Player Forfeits A loss is considered the opposite of a win, and reduces the player's total number of wins by one, and is recorded as a loss in the game history. MAKESEVEREPUNISHMENT I have toned down the fines somewhat. I continue to defend the use of the loss to counteract excessive wins. If one player, by a scam, records 100 consecutive wins in a short time period, we can make this an offense and charge them with 100 capital I crimes, stripping them down to 1 win. The following WINNINGISACRIME delimited text is a new proposal. WINNINGISACRIME Enact a new mutable rule with text as follows: Winning the game is a crime of severity Capital I. Judges are reccomended to penalize only excessive, repetitive or downright boring wins. WINNINGISACRIME Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:20:29 CDT From: "Are 'Friends' Electric?" Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Dan Waldron writes: >I for one hope that the forfeiture penalty never needs to be used. I would >only wish to see it applied for an attempt to destroy the entire game. AKA "winning." -- In _Gravity's Rainbow_ Thomas Pynchon wrote that paper is used in three ways-- for "shit, money, and The Word." I tend to look at guitars in the same way. - Brent Dicrescenzo ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:57:39 CDT From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Revision of proposal and a new proposal as well I am against making winning a crime. If someone can manage to win an infinite nmber of times, it would be easy enough to make a rule simply modifying his score if we so wish. >WINNINGISACRIME > >Enact a new mutable rule with text as follows: > >Winning the game is a crime of severity Capital I. Judges are reccomended >to penalize only excessive, repetitive or downright boring wins. > >WINNINGISACRIME ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:38:00 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: delay Since I moved yesterday, and am still unpacking, there may be a slight delay in processing all of the stuff that's happened since Tuesday evening. Sorry about that. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:30:39 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal > > Dan Waldron writes: > >I for one hope that the forfeiture penalty never needs to be used. I would > >only wish to see it applied for an attempt to destroy the entire game. > > AKA "winning." > I think that's a misplaced criticism. The notion of game referenced here is not in the same sense as the technical one used in the rules -- ending (or destroying) _a_ game is different from destroying _the_ game. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:00:52 CDT From: "Are 'Friends' Electric?" Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal uckelman@iastate.edu writes: >> >> Dan Waldron writes: >> >I for one hope that the forfeiture penalty never needs to be used. I would >> >only wish to see it applied for an attempt to destroy the entire game. >> >> AKA "winning." >> > >I think that's a misplaced criticism. The notion of game referenced here is >not in the same sense as the technical one used in the rules -- ending (or >destroying) _a_ game is different from destroying _the_ game. Destroying _the_ game only happens when someone destroys _a_ game and we lack the will to go on. Why should we necessarily blame our lack of motivation on the winner? I think it should be decided on a case by case basis, and thus not encoded in this rule. And yes, I know it would be on a "case by case" basis in a sense, but I don't want the formally defined opportunity around. -- i wanna know, am i the sky or a bird? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:29:01 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Revision of proposal and a new proposal as well >I am against making winning a crime. If someone can manage to win an >infinite nmber of times, it would be easy enough to make a rule simply >modifying his score if we so wish. This rule allows us to continue without resetting the ruleset after a scam. The game can simply proceed with us patching up the ruleset. In many cases, it makes it so that the "executive review" is no longer nescessary, because any excess wins can be stricken from the books after the fact and only players that deserve a reward for their cleverness need be rewarded for winning the game. Poulenc > >>WINNINGISACRIME >> >>Enact a new mutable rule with text as follows: >> >>Winning the game is a crime of severity Capital I. Judges are reccomended >>to penalize only excessive, repetitive or downright boring wins. >> >>WINNINGISACRIME ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:32:39 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal \ > >Destroying _the_ game only happens when someone destroys _a_ game >and we lack the will to go on. Why should we necessarily blame our >lack of motivation on the winner? I think it should be decided on >a case by case basis, and thus not encoded in this rule. And yes, >I know it would be on a "case by case" basis in a sense, but I don't >want the formally defined opportunity around. > Destroying _the_ game is essentially impossible without physically killing off at least some of the players, or disconnecting them from their email for a length of time. However, some sabateur bent on destruction could still wreak havoc with the email list, cause general confusion, and destroy the ruleset, and I think we need some, at least symbolic way to punish them for this. I see a very great difference between the end of one game and the beginning of the next and a concerted, determined attempt to exterminate berserker nomic. I also think that the courts should reserve the possiblity of expelling a player from the game in case it is ever nescessary for a crime in the future. Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:21:24 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Revision of proposal and a new proposal as well > >I am against making winning a crime. If someone can manage to win an > >infinite nmber of times, it would be easy enough to make a rule simply > >modifying his score if we so wish. > > This rule allows us to continue without resetting the ruleset after a scam. > The game can simply proceed with us patching up the ruleset. In many > cases, it makes it so that the "executive review" is no longer nescessary, > because any excess wins can be stricken from the books after the fact and > only players that deserve a reward for their cleverness need be rewarded > for winning the game. > > Poulenc How so? Wins that don't break the game are already that way. In any other situation, the apparatus is flawed enough to _prevent_ a rule-based fix. If what you claim is true, more explanation will be needed for me to see it. > > > >>WINNINGISACRIME > >> > >>Enact a new mutable rule with text as follows: > >> > >>Winning the game is a crime of severity Capital I. Judges are reccomended > >>to penalize only excessive, repetitive or downright boring wins. > >> > >>WINNINGISACRIME > > -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:41:18 CDT From: "Are 'Friends' Electric?" Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Dan Waldron writes: >\ >> >>Destroying _the_ game only happens when someone destroys _a_ game >>and we lack the will to go on. Why should we necessarily blame our >>lack of motivation on the winner? I think it should be decided on >>a case by case basis, and thus not encoded in this rule. And yes, >>I know it would be on a "case by case" basis in a sense, but I don't >>want the formally defined opportunity around. >> > >Destroying _the_ game is essentially impossible without physically killing >off at least some of the players, or disconnecting them from their email >for a length of time. However, some sabateur bent on destruction could >still wreak havoc with the email list, cause general confusion, and destroy >the ruleset, and I think we need some, at least symbolic way to punish them >for this. I see a very great difference between the end of one game and >the beginning of the next and a concerted, determined attempt to >exterminate berserker nomic. I also think that the courts should reserve >the possiblity of expelling a player from the game in case it is ever >nescessary for a crime in the future. If you really see these potential extermination attempts as so problematic, I would like to see a better forecasting of what might happen. The possibilities are too open for me to want to unnecessarily restrict creative ways of winning, which may not be seen as such at the time of the win by angry players. -- How to Play Your Internal Organs Overnight. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 00:24:37 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: limbo check results Jeff wrote: > Just out of curiosity I call for a limbo check on all players. The following players, each listed with eir last message to the list, fail the Limbo Check: Roger Carbol (21 July) Gabe Drummond-Cole (22 June) Nate Ellefson (27 July) Tom Mueller (22 June) Tom Plagge (29 July) -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 00:23:42 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: limbo check results uckelman@iastate.edu wrote: > The following players, each listed with eir last message to the list, fail the > Limbo Check: > Roger Carbol (21 July) Hey! What about my Message-ID: <37BA4C6B.841C98AF@home.com> written Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:02:19 -0600 with Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results ? .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:45:16 CDT From: "Are 'Friends' Electric?" Subject: Re: Nomic: limbo check results uckelman@iastate.edu writes: >Jeff wrote: >> Just out of curiosity I call for a limbo check on all players. > >The following players, each listed with eir last message to the list, fail the > >Limbo Check: > >Nate Ellefson (27 July) Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think? -- Joel is a sex machine. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:18:28 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: limbo check results > > uckelman@iastate.edu writes: > >Jeff wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity I call for a limbo check on all players. > > > >The following players, each listed with eir last message to the list, fail the > > > >Limbo Check: > > > >Nate Ellefson (27 July) > > Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think? I know Nate's arround, he probably hasn't had much to say since then. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 09:17:03 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: limbo check results > uckelman@iastate.edu wrote: > > > The following players, each listed with eir last message to the list, fail the > > Limbo Check: > > > Roger Carbol (21 July) > > > Hey! What about my Message-ID: <37BA4C6B.841C98AF@home.com> > written Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:02:19 -0600 with > Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results ? > > > > > .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com You sent that _after_ the Limbo Check was called for (17 August, 12:18 CDT). -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:52:22 -0300 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Re: Nomic: Revision of proposal and a new proposal as well > >How so? Wins that don't break the game are already that way. In any other >situation, the apparatus is flawed enough to _prevent_ a rule-based fix. If >what you claim is true, more explanation will be needed for me to see it. > Most scam wins, even if they do not break the game apparatus as to prevent a rule-based fix, allow other players to immediately claim wins as well. We had this discussion at the end of last game, when the question of "scam-ethics" arose. A non-emperor scam would lead to the situation where any player can by the rules claim a win, forcing us to fix rules by administrative review rather than game play. By declaring these excess wins a crime, we can prevent them or at least nullify them afterwards once the game has been fixed. Poulend ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:44:51 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Revision of proposal and a new proposal as well Waldron wrote: > > > >How so? Wins that don't break the game are already that way. In any other > >situation, the apparatus is flawed enough to _prevent_ a rule-based fix. If > >what you claim is true, more explanation will be needed for me to see it. > > > > Most scam wins, even if they do not break the game apparatus as to prevent > a rule-based fix, allow other players to immediately claim wins as well. > We had this discussion at the end of last game, when the question of > "scam-ethics" arose. A non-emperor scam would lead to the situation where > any player can by the rules claim a win, forcing us to fix rules by > administrative review rather than game play. By declaring these excess > wins a crime, we can prevent them or at least nullify them afterwards once > the game has been fixed. > > Poulend > Maybe win methods that don't prevent others from using them as well shouldn't be protected. The current state keeps people from attempting them, which I see as a good thing. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:21:24 CDT From: "Are 'Friends' Electric?" Subject: Re: Nomic: Revision of proposal and a new proposal as well Dan Waldron writes: > >> >>How so? Wins that don't break the game are already that way. In any other >>situation, the apparatus is flawed enough to _prevent_ a rule-based fix. If >>what you claim is true, more explanation will be needed for me to see it. >> > >Most scam wins, even if they do not break the game apparatus as to prevent >a rule-based fix, allow other players to immediately claim wins as well. >We had this discussion at the end of last game, when the question of >"scam-ethics" arose. A non-emperor scam would lead to the situation where >any player can by the rules claim a win, forcing us to fix rules by >administrative review rather than game play. By declaring these excess >wins a crime, we can prevent them or at least nullify them afterwards once >the game has been fixed. But this is unfair to those sorts of wins, which seem to often be considered legal (somehow) after the fact, but which aren't during the actual crises. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:16:57 -0600 From: Roger Carbol Subject: Re: Nomic: limbo check results uckelman@iastate.edu wrote: > You sent that _after_ the Limbo Check was called for > (17 August, 12:18 CDT). Well, sure, that's when the Check was *called for*, but when did it actually occur? In any case, I might as well be in Limbo; I'm going away on vacation (to Burning Man -- woo woo!) and won't be around until mid-September anyways. .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:35:01 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: limbo check results > uckelman@iastate.edu wrote: > > > You sent that _after_ the Limbo Check was called for > > (17 August, 12:18 CDT). > > > Well, sure, that's when the Check was *called for*, but when did > it actually occur? > > > In any case, I might as well be in Limbo; I'm going away on > vacation (to Burning Man -- woo woo!) and won't be around until > mid-September anyways. > > > > > .. Roger Carbol .. rcarbol@home.com In keeping with the way it's always been done, the check occurs immediately after it's called for. If you're going on vacation, you may want to specify a time that you're going to be in Limbo. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:25:08 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting begins at 21:00 CDT on 23 August 1999. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:05:49 -0500 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: voting reminder Make my proposal inactive for now. At 01:25 AM 8/23/99 -0500, you wrote: >Voting begins at 21:00 CDT on 23 August 1999. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:29:46 -0500 From: "Osborn, Nick" Subject: Nomic: May I join? I'd like to start playing again. I'm looking forward to getting involved again. Nick ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:29:32 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: May I join? > I'd like to start playing again. I'm looking forward to getting involved again. > > Nick So take yourself out of limbo. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 20:54:31 -0500 From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Nomic: proposal I ran out of time to tidy up my last proposal. Make in inactive. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:26:17 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: ballot Voting ends at 21:00 CDT, 25 August 1999. Note that P538 is on this ballot regardless of the decision on J99, as there was not a quorum last turn. -------- P538 1. Amend R214 to read: "Any Player may, at any time, initiate judicial proceedings in any matter through a Request for Judgment. A Case corresponding to a Request for Judgment is opened at the time that said Request is made. The Player making the Request is the Plaintiff in the Case. All Requests for Judgment must unambiguously name a Defendant and explicitly provide a Statement to be judged. Any subset of the set of Players and Officers may be named as Defendants, as may the game itself. A Player may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its issuance, it was not issued by the Supreme Court, and e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in the Case." 2. Amend R215 to read: "Players in the Judicial Pool, with the following exceptions, are eligible to become Lower Court Judges on a Case: i. the Plaintiff ii. the Defendant iii. Supreme Court Justices Exceptions shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a Lower Court from being chosen. Whenever it is necessary to select a Judge for a Lower Court, the Administrator shall randomly select an eligible Player." 3. Amend R216 to read: "A Judge selected to a Lower Court must issue a public Judgment on the Case within four days or be subject to a ten point fine. A Lower Court is dissolved if it lapses or its Judges return the same response within the allowed time. A Lower Court 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." 4. Amend R220 to read: "Rules must be followed in accordance with the final response to a Statement in each Case, with the exception that no Judgment by a Lower Court may prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing said Judgment. 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 Statute of Limitations." 5. Amend R228 to read: A Judgment must consist of a legal response to the Statement to be judged, and either the Judge's analysis of the Statement and response, or an explicit statement of concurrence with an opinion issued by another Judge on the Court. 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; or that its Request for Judgment names extraneous or irrelevant Defendants, or provides no analysis of the Statement. 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." 7. Amend R230 to read: "Upon each Request for Judgment, the following procedure is executed: 1. A Case is opened on the Request for Judgment. 2. A Lower Court is selected to rule on the Statement. 3. If, at any time after the initial selection, the Lower Court has no Judge, or if the Lower Court lapses, it is dissolved; if possible, a new Lower Court is selected; if not, the procedure skips to step 6. 4. The Lower Court issues a Judgment, at which time the Court dissolves. 5. If a legal Appeal of the Lower Court's Judgment is made, the Supreme Court must either grant the Appeal, and then may issue a Judgment; or deny the Appeal. 6. At such time as no further legal Appeals in the Case are possible, the Case is closed and the Lower Court Judge on the Case is paid. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with the Judiciary." 7. Amend R231 to read: "A Case consists of a Statement and all judicial documents produced by the Plaintiff, Defendant, and Courts assigned to the Statement." 8. Amend R232 to read: "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. Justices are automatically in 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." 9. Amend R390 to read: "Upon the closure of a Case, the Lower Court Judge on the Case receives 3 points iff the final ruling on the Statement is TRUE or FALSE." 10. Create R233 from the following "SUPREME COURT"-delimited text: SUPREME COURT Justices are Judges serving on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall consist of five elected Justices. {{A special election shall be held immediately to fill the Supreme Court. Each Player may vote for up to five candidates. The initial term for each Judgeship shall end during the (6-n)th turn, where n is the rank in voting the Justice holding the Judgeship received. All subsequent terms are five turns long.}} If, within 48 hours of an Appeal, at least two eligible Justices explicitly declare their willingness to grant said Appeal, the Supreme Court shall hear the Case. The Supreme Court issues a Judgment on a Case to which it has granted a hearing when a simple majority of the eligible Justices have publicly returned the same response to the Statement. If the Supreme Court fails to issue a Judgment within seven days on a Case to which it has granted a hearing, the Lower Court Judgment stands. SUPREME COURT 11. Create R234 from the following "CONFLICTOFINTEREST"-delimited text: CONFLICTOFINTEREST A Justice is ineligible to rule on in a Case iff e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in that Case. CONFLICTOFINTEREST -------- P549 1) Any entity who performs an action defined by the Rules to be a Crime during the current or previous 3 turns, or fails to perform an action where such failure is defined by the Rules to be a Crime during the previous 3 turns, shall be subject to whatever penalty the Rules prescribe for that Crime upon the execution of a Sentencing Order executed consequent to a judicial finding that e did in fact commit that Crime. 2) The imposition of penalties for the commission of a Crime shall be by Sentencing Order(s). Upon a judicial finding that an entity has committed a Crime, the Judge so finding shall execute Sentencing Orders sufficient to implement the penalty required by the Rules for that Crime. If the Rules specify a range of penalties, then the Judge executing the Sentencing Order shall determine the exact penalty within the stated range. 3) The punishment for a Crime shall be whatever was specified by the Rules at the time the action so designated as a Crime was committed, even if the Rule or Rules which specified the punishment, or which designated the action as a Crime have since been amended or repealed.This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which specifies a different penalty for a Crime. 4) No action is a Crime unless defined as such by the Rules. If the Rules define an act to be a Crime but fail to prescribe a penalty for that act, then there is no penalty for that act. 5) Any RFJ whose Statement alleges that an entity has, through action or inaction, committed a Crime shall be dismissed if there is a prior RFJ, the statement of which alleges that the same entity has, through the same action or inaction, committed the same Crime, and which was itself not dismissed. 6) A RFJ alleging that a Player has committed a Crime shall not be judged TRUE unless the evidence is sufficient to be certain of that Judgment beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it is a defense to any accusation of a Crime that the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a Crime at the time e performed them, or that e reasonably did not know that e was required to perform an action, when such nonperformance is defined as a Crime. No Player shall be convicted of a Crime if this defense applies. -------- P550 The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or range of penalties: Misdemeanor I Fine of 1 point II Fine of 3 points III Fine of 5 points Felony I Fine of 1-5 points and loss of 1-3 Subers II Fine of 5-10 points and loss of 3-5 Subers III Fine of 10-15 points and loss of 5-10 Subers Capital I Fine of 15-45 points, loss of 10-40 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 0-3 turns II Fine of 45-75 points, loss of 40-70 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 1-5 turns III Fine of 75-100 points, loss of 70-100 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 5-10 turns. -------- P551 Any Player who goes into Limbo while serving as the Judge of one or more RFJs commits the Crime of Judge Inactivity. This Crime is a Felony I for each RFJs for which the Player was selected as Judge when e went into Limbo. -------- P553 Any Player who knowingly attempts to act as, or purports to be, someone other than imself commits the Crime of Impersonation. This is a Capital I Crime. -------- P554 Any Player who incites a Mob commits the Crime of Incitation. This is a Capital I Crime. -------- P555 Amend Rule 204/2 to read: If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who vote against winning Proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to 5*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer. -------- P556 Amend Rule 206/0 to read: When a Proposal is defeated, the Player who proposed it loses 5 points. -------- P557 (disinterested) Transmute Rule 106/1, and amend it to read: All Proposals shall be made publicly before they can be voted on, and if adopted, shall guide play in the form on which they were voted. -------- P559 Change Rule 307 to read: A quorum for Proposal voting purposes is a simple majority of eligible vote-casting entities. If a quorum has not cast votes by the end of a Proposal voting period, the Proposals which were up for voting neither pass nor fail, but are held over for the next turn and remain active. Proposals which require unanimous consent will fail if any eligible vote-casting entity casts a vote equivalent to a "no" toward the Proposal. On that condition, the Proposal will disregard the quorum and will not remain active or be held over for the next turn. Vote-casting entities eligible but failing to cast votes during the voting period shall have their votes recorded as automatic abstentions. -------- P560 If there is a rule 550 then amend it to read as follows: The following Classes of Crime are defined, with the listed penalties or range of penalties: Misdemeanor I Fine of 0-50 subers II Fine of 0-100 subers III Fine of 50-300 subers Felony I Fine of 0-50 points and loss of 0-300 Subers II Fine of 30-100 points and loss of 0-500 Subers III Fine of 30-100 points and loss of 500-1000 Subers, Capital I Fine of 0-500 points, loss of 0-1000 Subers, optional gain of one loss. II Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 1-5 turns, optional gain of one loss. III Fine of 30-100 points, loss of 500-1000 Subers, and a period in Limbo of 5-10 turns, optional gain of one loss. IV Player Forfeits A loss is considered the opposite of a win, and reduces the player's total number of wins by one, and is recorded as a loss in the game history. -------- P561 Enact a new mutable rule with text as follows: Winning the game is a crime of severity Capital I. Judges are reccomended to penalize only excessive, repetitive or downright boring wins. -------- ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:00:13 -0500 From: uckelman@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: ballot revision Don't vote on P559 -- it's not supposed to be on the ballot. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:43:09 -0500 From: Matthew G Potter Subject: Nomic: stupid email tricks heh, sorry bout that (ballot email to the group and not Joel). Price you pay for being a "big fat ass". -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GL/TW/O d- s+:+ a-- C++ U P L>+ E-- W++@ N++ o? K? w$ O? M-- V? PS@ PE Y(--) PGP? t--- 5 X+ R- !tv b+++ DI+ D+++ G e>++ h++ r-- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:41:56 -0500 From: Matthew G Potter Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot At 09:26 PM 8/23/99 -0500, you wrote: >Voting ends at 21:00 CDT, 25 August 1999. Note that P538 is on this ballot >regardless of the decision on J99, as there was not a quorum last turn. > >-------- >P538 yes >P549 no >P550 yes >P551 yes >P553 no >P554 no >P555 yes >P556 yes >P557 (disinterested) no >P559 no >P560 no >P561 yes -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GL/TW/O d- s+:+ a-- C++ U P L>+ E-- W++@ N++ o? K? w$ O? M-- V? PS@ PE Y(--) PGP? t--- 5 X+ R- !tv b+++ DI+ D+++ G e>++ h++ r-- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:54:20 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Supreme Court elections P538 passed, so we now have a Supreme Court with no Justices. Nominations for said positions opened at 21:00 CDT this evening, and will close at 21:00 CDT, 27 August. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:52:32 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P538 passed (8-1-0-1). P549 passed (6-3-0-1). P550 passed (6-3-0-1). P551 passed (7-2-0-1). P553 passed (5-4-0-1). P554 failed (3-6-0-1). P555 passed (7-2-0-1). P556 passed (8-1-0-1). P557 failed (5-3-1-1). P560 failed (1-8-0-1). P561 failed (3-6-0-1). Osborn's Demon voted with Matt Potter. The GRAND PRIZE voted with Joel Uckelman due to his contribution of 1 UPC. It is now Matt Potter's turn. -------- Voting breakdown, scoring and UPCs will follow in the morning. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 01:01:45 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Supreme Court elections Joel Uckelman writes: >P538 passed, so we now have a Supreme Court with no Justices. Nominations for >said positions opened at 21:00 CDT this evening, and will close at 21:00 CDT, >27 August. I nominate myself. Josh -- Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:16:26 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: SC nominations I nominate Matt Kuhns. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 11:37:52 -0500 From: "Osborn, Nick" Subject: Nomic: back to Limbo I'm in Limbo for the next 99 years. Nick ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:36:11 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: SC nominations I nominate Mary Tupper, Ole Andersen, and myself. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:47:47 -0600 From: Xylen Subject: Re: Nomic: SC nominations Just out of curiosity, who has not been nominated yet? Joel Uckelman wrote: > > I nominate Mary Tupper, Ole Andersen, and myself. > -- > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ -- We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters could produce all of the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. ================================================= ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:20:11 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: SC nominations > Just out of curiosity, who has not been nominated yet? Of those who are not in Limbo: Matt Potter, Jeff Schroeder, Dan Waldron. It is unfortunate that a large number of players went into Limbo immediately before we were to establish a Supreme Court. Nate should be back soon, as his ISP has been gimpy for the past two weeks. Plagge is just a hoser and needs to be harassed. Carbol is on vacation, and Nick said he'd return once things settle down for the semester. > Joel Uckelman wrote: > > > > I nominate Mary Tupper, Ole Andersen, and myself. > > -- > > J. Uckelman > > uckelman@iastate.edu > > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > > -- > We used to think a thousand monkeys on a thousand > typewriters could produce all of the works of > Shakespeare. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this > is not true. > ================================================= -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:28:07 -0400 From: Dan Waldron Subject: Nomic: Supreme Court elections I nominate myself Poulenc ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:52:36 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring, UPCs Scoring: +52 Joel Uckelman +48 Mary Tupper +21 Josh Kortbein +15 Jeff Schroeder +6 Ole Andersen +6 Matt Potter -10 Dan Waldron -------- UPCs: +1 Ole Andersen +1 Matt Potter +1 Dan Waldron -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:47:43 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: back to Limbo > I'm in Limbo for the next 99 years. > > Nick Note that this is ineffectual, as Nick hadn't left Limbo anyway. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:19:34 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:28:59 CDT From: Tom Plagge Tom Plagge writes: >I leave limbo, transfer one slack from josh kortbein to nick osborn, and >re-enter limbo. Bitch! I transfer one (1) slack from Tom Plagge to myself. Josh -- taking drugs to make music to take drugs to ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:50:54 -0500 From: Tom Plagge Subject: Nomic: Slack & Limbo So is giving up a unit of slack a game action? Because if so, then Josh's action was invalid, me being in Limbo, and all. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:41:04 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Slack & Limbo > So is giving up a unit of slack a game action? Because if so, then Josh's > action was invalid, me being in Limbo, and all. Being acted upon is not acting. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:55:27 CDT From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Slack & Limbo Tom Plagge writes: >So is giving up a unit of slack a game action? Because if so, then Josh's >action was invalid, me being in Limbo, and all. You weren't the agent. -- Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:01:16 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: SC elections The following were nominated for the five Supreme Court positions: Ole Andersen Josh Kortbein Matt Kuhns Mary Tupper Joel Uckelman Dan Waldron Due to an oversight on my part, I did not announce the beginning or end of the actual elections, which ended at 21:00 this evening. Because no ballots were received, we have a 6-way tie. R395/0 stipulates that the players with higher scores win ties, which would mean the everyone but Waldron is on the Court. However, since this was my fault, I resign my position as Justice in order for Waldron to have a chance to serve on the court. As a result, a new nomination period for my vacated position begins now. I plan to give advance warning about elections in the future. In other news, I am nearly done with work on my page-generation mechanism, and so should shortly (this week?) producing an updated index and adding a catch-all page for things which are game-relevant but aren't yet available on the web. Thanks for your patience. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 06:38:52 +0200 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Re: Nomic: SC elections Joel wrote: : However, since this was my fault, I resign my position as Justice in order for : Waldron to have a chance to serve on the court. As a result, a new nomination : period for my vacated position begins now. I plan to give advance warning : about elections in the future. I nominate Dan Waldron, Matt Potter, Jeff Scroeder and Joel Uckelman. I vote for Dan Waldron. Ole ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:45:08 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: revival of PoliGo Slightly over a year ago, Mueller tried to introduce a new component to the game based on the eastern strategy game, Go (P324, late September 1998). At the time, I had never played Go, and voted against the proposal. In the intervening time, I have acquired a Go board and play semi-regularly. Knowing what I know now, I definately would have voted for Mueller's proposal and encouraged others to do so as well. With that in mind, I am considering proposing a modified version of P324. That said, would anyone else be interested in this? If it were tied in with wins? voting? not at all? -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:33:15 -0500 From: exodus Subject: Re: Nomic: revival of PoliGo I say Ed should take my vote and go with this new proposal. Anything that makes the game a mess is definitely a good idea. I hope to eventually get enough traffic going through the game we overload the server, crash the system, and end the game. In that scenario I will declare myself the winner for concocting such a plan, taking full credit. If that system crash should take place sometime on or about January 1st, I declare myself winner in perpetuity. Likewise, if we bore enough players into going into Limbo that the game eventually stalls and we all die of old age, I declare myself the winner. In place of my presence, which shall be buried under the Campanile, my lawyer will declare me the winner. Take that. Aaron ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:10:32 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: SC election reminder Nominations for the single vacant SC position close at 22:01 CDT tonight, at which time voting begins. Voting on this ends at 22:01 CDT, 2 September 1999. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:55:53 -0500 From: Joel Uckelman Subject: Nomic: SC voting Please vote for one of the following to fill the vacant SC position: Matt Potter Jeff Schroeder Joel Uckelman Dan Waldron Voting ends at 21:00 CDT, 2 September 1999. -- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/